Notes for Reflection

November 1                           NOTES FOR REFLECTION             All Saints Sunday

Texts: Isaiah 25:6-9; Revelation 21:1-6a; John 11:32-44

Theme:  The title of the Feast Day is the obvious and safe bet, and avoids having to think of something more interesting.  I'm playing with the idea of the heavenly version of our Honours System – Sainthood being the Christian equivalent of knighthood/damehood, only more so.  Perhaps "Honours in the Kingdom of God", or, slightly more spicy, "Honour Among Saints".  But on balance, for reasons that will become apparent shortly, I'm leaning towards "Calling for Nominations".

Introduction.  We begin once more with Isaiah's glorious vision of the fulfilment of God's great vision for humanity, to be celebrated with the finest of feasts.  (Hint: saints are those people in every generation who have helped, are helping, and will help to bring forward that great time of completion.)  Moving forward several centuries, on the Island of Patmos St John the Seer re-calls to mind that same great vision and re-affirms its truth.  We finish with part of the gospel account of Jesus' calling of his friend Lazarus out of death and into his living presence.  A small case study of what the great vision looks like in microcosm.

Background.  I must confess that I have long struggled with this whole "saint" thing, and I suspect I am not alone in that, at least among fellow Anglicans.  This is one of the many areas, it seems to me, where what we teach and what we believe are two rather different things.  I can clearly remember being taught (and have since taught) that the biblical understanding of "saints" is simply "believers".  When St Paul addresses "the saints who are in Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 1:1b), he is not referring to the 2 or 3 spiritual giants there who pray for 18 hours a day standing on one leg in ice-cold water with a contented smile permanently turned towards heaven.  He means the ordinary members of the faith community in that place.  In his eyes, all who believe in Jesus are saints, even us.

In the first parish in which I served, I once started our All Saints Day service by greeting the congregation, looking around and asking if there were any visitors present.  There were none.  Then I repeated the process, this time asking if there were any saints present.  There was one.  This was a congregation that, in Anglican terms, was broadly fundamentalist, proud of its spiritual gifts, and of its commitment to Scripture.  Yet only one person there that morning knew that he was a "saint" within the terms of the Bible.

In practice, of course, we don't believe that saints are just ordinary people like you and me.  They are the greats of the past (one qualification for sainthood seems to be death – no living saints allowed).  They are the ones who brought huge numbers to faith, taught with great wisdom, suffered agonising torture and death for their faith, and generally set the bar so high for the rest of us that, far from being inspired to follow their example, we are more likely to shrink into self-doubt and despair at the very thought that we might be able (or even willing) to "go and do likewise".  The modern procedure for canonisation, so far as I understand it, doesn't help matters much.  The need to prove at least two miracles attributable to the "candidate" seems problematic at best for all sort of reasons; and the seemingly automatic approval of popes soon after their death looks to me far too much like the conferment of a knighthood/damehood as of right to anyone who has held the office of Prime Minister.

Then there's the issue of "saintly portfolios"...  Suffice it to say that as a long-suffering supporter of Sheffield Wednesday I have found the intercessions of St Jude, the Patron Saint of Lost Causes, singularly ineffective.

But perhaps the greatest problem I have with the traditional view of saints is that they so-often come across as being models of self-obsession and self-denial, who simply did not enjoy the life to which they had been called.  There are not many of them I can easily envisage having a wonderful time at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.  Look at the menu in Isaiah's vision this week: it is not ideal for people who have allowed themselves only a little bread and a sip of water once a day (except fast days), is it?  How do we follow Jesus and bring him honour when we follow John the Baptist's version of the paleo diet rather than Jesus' willingness to eat and drink with anyone who invited him? (Matthew 11:18-19).

All of which is a bit negative, isn't it?  So what should we look for in a saint, and whom should we recognise as a saint?  That's the exercise I set myself this week as I started to reflect on these scriptures.  I had been scribbling away for some time, before I noticed something a little awkward.  A few of the people on my list of nominees are dead, but most of them are very much alive.  Far more disturbing was the lack of Christians on my list – at least, a few of them are self-professed atheists and in the case of quite a few of the others I have no idea whether or not they profess faith in Christ.  Should I strike them off?  Perhaps, before rushing to answer that question, we might like to ponder again the great passage in the second half of Matthew 25 – the sheep and the goats.

And to be clear about our criteria for sainthood.  It happens that there is a very helpful article in today's (Thursday's ODT) (page 7) by Mark Edmunson, an American academic, writing about the modern ethics that tell us what we mustn't do or say, rather than what we should.  By contrast, he recommends Walt Whitman's approach, which he sums up like this:

He understood , I think, that the basis for lasting social change was not so much a hunger for justice and fairness but the feeling that, as different as we are, we all compose one being.  He was above all practical.  The best reason to put away hostility is not to be a goody-goody or to placate your super-ego but to contribute a little something to making life better for you and everyone else.  Don't be this!  Don't be that!   Let us replace those dictates with what Whitman prescribes.  Be friendly.  Try to be open.  Learn from other people.  Treat them fairly.  Do not let prejudices get in the way of a good time.

Doesn't that sound more like Jesus?  It happens that I had been reading recently an address by the then President of Eire, Mary McAleese, in which she referred to the Parliament of the World's Religions and its Declaration towards a Global Ethic of 1993, as follows:

The Declaration recognised the interdependence of all human beings on this small planet, the individual responsibility of each one of us for our actions and their consequences; our responsibility to treat others with respect; to forgive past wrongs; to extend a helping hand to those in need, particularly children, the aged, the suffering the disabled; to treat others as equals, respecting their diversity.

So for me a saint is any person who shows me how to live my life like that by living his or her life like that.  Saints are, as hinted above, people in every generation (including our own) who have helped, are helping, and will help to bring forward the completion of God's great vision for us all.  They include some of world-renown, of course, but they also include those "Good Sorts" we learn about at the end of the TV One news on Sunday evenings, "ordinary" people in local communities all over the country following (unknowingly) Walt Whitman's prescription, embodied in the Declaration towards a Global Ethic, and better known to us as "The New Commandment".

So this week, perhaps, you might find some time to start your list of such people.  Those who inspire and encourage you to make your contribution to the completion of God's salvation.  And remember to keep your list open.  There are saints all around us, countless as heaven's stars, if only we will pause to notice them, give thanks for them, and ask for the grace to emulate them.

Isaiah 25:6-9.  Simply read, enjoy, and be inspired.  This is what we have to look forward, this is what we are called to work and pray for.  Notice the sheer limitless extravagance of the whole vision.  There is no us and them, no insiders and outsiders (as long as we don't read on to verse 10!).  This is God's vision for all peoples and all nations.  This is the Kingdom of God in its final form.  And at the heart of it is a celebratory banquet!

Taking It Personally.

·        Sit with this passage.  Soak in it.  Let go of any negativity you may be feeling at this time.  Be glad and rejoice in God's salvation!

·        Copy it out and keep it with you each day in the coming week.  Read it after the TV News.  Recognise how far we still have to go, and re-commit yourself each day to pray and work more wholeheartedly for God's vision to become a reality.

·        What specifically can you do in the coming week to meet Walt Whitman's prescription?  What opportunities may you have to be kind to others, to be open to others, and to learn from others?  How willing are you to accept the kindness of others offered to you?

 

Revelation 21:1-6.  This passage is almost a re-run of the passage from Isaiah.  It is worth remembering that both passages came out of great difficulty and hardship.  John is in exile or imprisonment during a time of terrible persecution of Christians.  Many will have abandoned the faith, gone into hiding, done or said anything to escape with their lives.  Yet John sees, not hardship, defeat and death, but the glorious victory of God over all forces of evil.  He sees the "hidden" mystery of the Incarnation revealed and apparent to all.  He sees death abolished: he sees the completion of God's restoring salvation, bringing all things back into harmony with him, so that God is both the beginning and the end of all things.  The work of the saints is finally finished and they (we) shall take their (our rest).

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Do you believe it?  Do you proclaim it?  Do you seek to live it out at all times?

·        Review the past month or so.  In what ways has God been able to work his purposes out through you?  In what ways may you have been an obstruction to God's plan?

 

John 11:32-44. It's not hard to see why this gospel story has been chosen for this celebration, but it needs careful handling.  It is presented as a real event, rather than a parable.  It is worrying that, if it was a real event, the other gospel writers knew nothing of it, or, if they did, they didn't think it worth a mention.  In the context of our other readings, the temptation is to refer to it as a sort of "first-fruits" of the eventual abolition of death; but that would be claiming far too much.  Lazarus did not live for ever.  At some stage he died like everyone else.  If this was a real event, then it was an event of miraculous resuscitation, not one of resurrection to eternal life.  The details of this great story are well-known, but are still worth taking time over.  Jesus' mysterious delay in responding to his friends' summons; his own tears of grief; the ever-present split of opinion among the crowd of observers; the practical Martha, warning against the stench; the loud call to Lazarus to "Come out"; and the graphic appearance of Lazarus as he responded.  True story or parable, it is wonderfully well told!

 

Taking it Personally.

 

·        What may Jesus be calling you to come out of at this time?  By what may you be entombed or confined?  Could the tomb be a metaphor for your "comfort zone"?

·        Are you too "wrapped up" in something that restricts your ability to follow Jesus?

·        Do you want to be wholly free to follow him?

·        Does this story reflect the seriousness of death, or does it tend to encourage the "death is nothing at all" school of thought?  Is a funeral a time to weep or a time to laugh?

 

Notes for Reflection

October 25                             NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Jeremiah 31:7-9; Hebrews 7:23-28; Mark 10:46-52

Theme: The connection between the three readings this week is not quite as obvious as we might like.  Perhaps "restoration" is broad enough to link our first lesson with the gospel, but seeing in Jesus the "restoration" of the office of High Priest would be something of a stretch.  Perhaps the idea of the never-failing goodness of God (in Christ) could embrace all three readings, with some careful moulding.  However, this may be one of the weeks when it is best to concentrate entirely on the gospel passage for a theme, as here we have one of the great questions Jesus poses to us: "What do you want me to do for you?"  So my choice is "Making our Requests to Jesus".

Introduction.  We don't usually think of Jeremiah leaping around and giving high-fives to all and sundry, but this week his message is one of joyful assurance.  Despite their present circumstances and all other evidence to the contrary, God will gather up his people from wherever they have been scattered and bring them back to their own land.  Our second lesson continues to explore the concept of Christ as the new eternal High Priest, able and willing to intercede for us until the end of time.  We finish on the outskirts of Jericho, as Jesus leaves that city on his final journey to Jerusalem.  Above the noise of the watching crowds he hears the pleading voice of one blind beggar, known as Bartimaeus, and the beggar's life is changed for ever.

Background.  It's been a strange week for me, with Monday to Wednesday largely given to the arrangement, preparation and conduct of a funeral service for a lady who died peacefully at the age of 90 years.  By all accounts she was a loving and much loved person.  Towards the end of her life she was frail, and the general feeling among her family was that she was "ready to go".  While naturally sad, her children were also ready to let her go.  I was not surprised that no one raised with me the article that occupied the whole of page 11 in Monday's edition of the ODT World Focus.

Under a smaller, but red-type heading "Dying is the last thing we want to do", and a much larger white type-on-black-background heading "Keep cool and carry on", the article was about the booming cryonics business in the United States.  For the benefit of the uninitiated, cryonics is the process of freezing dead bodies (or, at the customer's option, just the brain), at very low temperatures and keeping them at those temperatures indefinitely in the belief that one day we will have the technology to bring them back to life.  Advocates of cryonics, we are told "insist the possibility of eternal life is getting ever closer."  [You will understand why, when I was committing our deceased lady's body to be buried "in the sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord" I had to concentrate particularly hard.]

The article mentions a number of organisations involved in this business, of which my favourite is called "The Alcor Life Extension Foundation", run by a couple called Max More and Natasha Vita More (no, seriously!).  This Foundation offers both options: brain-only freezing for $US 100,000, or the whole body for upwards of $US200,000, which certainly puts the average cost of a funeral in this country in a better perspective.  Of course, there are doubters, such as science writer Michael Shermer, who "has compared the idea to thawing out a can of frozen strawberries that, when defrosted, will simply turn to mush".  Oh, he of little faith!  We haven't got the technology now, but given another fifty years or so...  who knows what we will be able to do, at least with a can of frozen strawberries.

What's this all about?  The author puts it in context: "In the United States, the desire to live for ever (and to look good while doing it) has resulted both in a surge of interest in cryonics and in a booming anti-ageing industry.  Spending on anti-ageing products is expected to reach $US292 billion this year."  As another "prophet" of this movement, Dave Kekich, founder of the Maximum Life Foundation, put it: "We want to stay alive as long as possible.  But if that doesn't work, we want a plan B.  That's cryonics."

All of which made our Minister of Health's new plan to fight "the obesity epidemic" seem almost sane by comparison.  We can now tell parents not to smack their children, except in vaguely-described and limited circumstances, but we must not take away or limit in any way the parents' right to wreck their children's dental or physical health by feeding them excessive amounts of junk food and drink – even though the plan recognises that we now have obese four-year-olds.  More absurd still, we have State-funded schools providing such food and drink in their tuck-shops, and even selling such items in organised fund-raising activities.

Fundamentally, we are in denial that human life is designed (or, if you prefer, has evolved) to be healthy within certain limits.  We believe that we should be able to do anything we please that does not impinge directly on the rights of others, with no adverse consequences.  The adverse environmental effects of the intensification of agricultural were also highlighted once again this week.  Yet we go on clamouring for more of everything.  Enough is never enough.

After the service on Wednesday, the deceased was carried out and "laid to rest" in the family grave.  Perhaps that's just a euphemism, but the idea of entering into God's eternal rest is a very important part of the teaching of Scripture.  Each week, from the time of Moses, God's people have been called to observe a day of Sabbath – a day of rest.  Of course, we have long since abandoned that idea as an outrageous limitation on our freedom to please ourselves.  Next Monday we will pretend to celebrate "Labour Day" – a secular version of Sabbath – intended as gift – intended to protect us from slipping back into the slavery many of our early immigrants thought they were escaping from in the lands of their birth.  Do we now see them as progenitors of the Nanny State?  If so, it's not only Bartimeaus who needs his sight restored.

And talking of Bartimaeus I can't resist a reference to The Fred Hollows Foundation.  That Foundation insists that for every $25NZ donated, a blind person can have his/her sight restored by a simple cataract operation.  Just think what it could do with even 1% of the cost of a brain freeze or a full-body job.  And as for 1% of the annual turn-over of the anti-ageing products industry...!

Jeremiah 31:7-9.  Every day on our TV screens we are shown ever-more awful images of desperate refugees driven out of their homelands by the atrocity of those whose only interest in life is hanging on to their power or wresting it from others.  Any pretence that the conduct of war can be governed by international norms and protocols has long-since been shown to be delusional nonsense.  Particularly harrowing are the pictures of the babies and small children caught up in the desperate hordes facing more and more barriers as they try to find safe haven.  To people very much like these Jeremiah spoke these words of astonishing hope and comfort from God.  There will come a time when the horror is over, when their rights and dignity and safety will be restored in a land of their own.  And notice that the promise is made to all the people, not just the young, strong, healthy and economically useful ones.  Expressly mentioned are the blind, the lame, and those with children and even those in labour – all those who might seem to be a burden on others.  Far from scrambling through thickets or along barren tracks seemingly leading nowhere, God "will let them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble".  Who can believe it?

Taking It Personally.

• Have you experienced a time of estrangement or exile in your life?  Have you any such feeling at present?
• Reflect on the issue of Kiwis being deported from Australia regardless of any real ties with this country.  What is your prayer for them?
• Given the ongoing tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, what is your prayer for them?  Are these verses to be read as affirming any greater rights for Israel, or are they to be understood as addressed to all peoples?
• What can you and your faith community do to assist in providing assistance to those driven from their homelands?

 

Hebrews 7:23-28.  Frankly, I'm not sure what if anything this passage adds to what we have already had in the last little while.  There may be a few Christians who find this passage really very helpful, but I must confess that I'm not one of them.  Suffice it to say that Christ, being God, is eternal – his saving work continues for all time.  Perhaps the most useful idea in this passage is that of Christ for ever interceding for us.

 

 

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Do you find this passage helpful?  If your answer is no, how do you feel about that?  Are you relaxed about saying so in front of others?
• Focus on verse 25.  Imagine yourself "appearing before God" to have your life examined.  Then Jesus stands up and introduces you to God, speaking on your behalf, asking for God's mercy and forgiveness for you?  How do you feel about that?

 

Mark 10:46-52.  This passage completes a block of material that started way back at 8:22 with the story about the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida.  The whole block therefore, which is about the way of discipleship, begins and ends with the healing of a blind man.  Throughout this block it is the blind who see and the supposedly sighted (including the disciples) who are so often shown to be blind.  This week's story, the last before Mark's description of Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, is a perfect conclusion to this whole block of teaching on which we have been focused for the past few weeks.  Once again we are reminded that Jesus is on the journey.  Mark says he and his entourage were just leaving Jericho (Luke says they were just approaching it), the last major pause before Jerusalem.  There is still widespread misunderstanding and disagreement, including among the disciples, as to whether or not Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, and if he is, what that means.  It is the blind man who loudly and firmly identifies Jesus as the Messiah by calling out to him as "Son of David", the best known Messianic title.  Once again the crowd try to shut up this powerless nobody (cf. 10:13).  Jesus stops – breaks his progress – and says "Call him here."  They say to the man, "Take heart; get up, he is calling you."  The man throws off his cloak, likely to be his only worldly possession (cf. story of the Rich man in 10:17-31), and then "he sprang up and came to Jesus".  Then came that great question: "What do you want me to do for you?"  (cf. John 1:38.)  The man tells him directly, and his request is granted.  The passage ends, "Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way".

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        This is another wonderful passage for praying with the imagination.  Put yourself into this scene: monitor your feelings and reactions as the encounter unfolds.  Are you a passive bystander?  Do you "shush" him with the crowd?  Or are you watching and listening carefully?

·        Now imagine Jesus turns to you and asks that same question: what do you want Jesus to do for you at this time?  Tell him clearly.  Do not let any other "voices", internal or external, deter you.

·        Focus on the closing words "and followed him on the way".  What do they mean to you?  Are you a follower of the Way?

Notes for Reflection

October 18                              NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Isaiah 53:4-12; Hebrews 5:1-10; Mark 10:35-45*

[*This Sunday is the Feast Day of St Luke the Evangelist.  Whether to observe it or not is optional.  The Lectionary gives the following readings for the observance of the feast: Isaiah 35:3-6 OR Acts 16:6-12a; Psalm 147:1-7; 2 Timothy 4:5-17; Luke 10:1-9.  For my money his wonderful gospel speaks for itself, and we will have the whole of the next liturgical year to enjoy it.  Meantime, Mark is having his time in the sun.]

Theme:  The safe choice this week would be something like "The Servant of All".  The obverse side of that could be "The Vanity of the Ambitious".  At a deeper level we are once again faced with a failure of comprehension on the part of the disciples: they simply can't grasp how radically different the Kingdom of God is from the ways of the world.  Perhaps something like "A Different New World" might point us in the right direction, or "Turning Worldly Values on their Head".  All three readings refer to suffering: one possible theme could be "Suffering with Christ" or even "Suffering Servants".

Introduction.  As we have been reminded week after week in our gospel passages, Jesus and the disciples are on the move: in particular, they are already on the way to Jerusalem and all that will entail.  That reality is underlined for us this week with our first lesson from Isaiah, featuring the fourth and longest of his "Servant Songs".  The fact that we most often hear this reading on Good Friday says it all, really.  The second lesson, taken from the Letter to the Hebrews, continues to unpack the nature of Christ's servanthood, and in doing so completely re-writes the role of the High Priest.  In our gospel we are back to the theme of disciples behaving badly.  Not long after their infamous argument among themselves as to which of them were the greatest, two of them, James and John, come to Jesus to press their case for high offices in the coming Kingdom.  We're not told here that Jesus wept, but he must have come close!

Background.  Spoiler alert!  If you are already sick to death of the All Blacks skip the rest of this paragraph.  It happens that a number of them this week brought to my mind this week's gospel passage.  It seems to be generally accepted that whatever the outcome of the World Cup Tournament this year, Richie McCaw will retire, meaning that there will be a vacancy in the position of captain.  Now try to imagine a couple of the players, say Kieran Reed and Sam Cane, coming to Steve Hansen.  "Steve", they say, "we want you to do us a bit of a favour."  "Oh, yes," says the increasingly affable coach, "and what would that be?"  "We would like you to appoint us Captain and Vice-Captain of the All Blacks after the World Cup."  Not only is it impossible to imagine Reed or Cane in that scenario – it is impossible to imagine any of the players making such an approach.  A cynic might suggest that a player would know that such an approach would be counter-productive (to put it mildly), but I'm not that cynical.  It would be completely contrary to the All Black culture.

We had a classic example of that culture with Ma'a Nonu this week.  The guy is one of the longest-serving All Blacks, he had just played his 100^th match for them, he had scored a try, and he had been duly honoured at the start and finish of the game.  How did he feel?  "Well," he mumbled, "it was a bit of a special occasion for me, I suppose – but it's not about me.  It's about the team.  It was good to get the win."  And he so obviously meant it: he virtually squirmed with embarrassment when he was presented with his centurion's cap.  No James and John on display anywhere.

Contrast this with the brouhaha surrounding the rate of pay for Ms Paula Rebstock to chair the review of Children, Youth and Families.  Predictably, the argument never got past the dollar figure, and the fact that she was being paid a daily rate that is double the usual rate for such inquiries.  Wisely Ms Rebstock kept up a dignified silence, and left the defence of the arrangement to the Minister, Anne Tolley.  Her comments were revealing in two respects.  First, she told us that the rate of pay was negotiated between Ms Rebstock and the State Services Commission.  Quite probably, Ms Tolley's main reason for telling us this was to get herself off the hook – she didn't fix the rate, the SSC did.  But what she disclosed, perhaps inadvertently, was that Ms Rebstock, when approached to take on the work, had negotiated a higher rate of pay than usual: the inference being that she would not have been prepared to take it on for the usual rate.

Mrs Tolley then moved to the reason why she had wanted Ms Rebstock for the position.  The Minister said she was a very competent and experienced public servant; and "the children that this is about deserve the very best person we can get."  I did not hear anyone in the political world or the media challenge Mrs Tolley to think through the basic assumptions here.  The first issue that might have warranted further inquiry is Mrs Tolley's description of Ms Rebstock as "a public servant".  Does serving on a number of boards in the public sector make her a "public servant"?  Should not the driving force of a public servant be a desire to serve the public? Leaving that aside, the most basic assumption here is that the interests of "the children that this is about" are best served by a competent professional person being handsomely paid for her work, rather than someone with a deep concern for such children and a strong desire to make a difference for them.  Someone like a former Children's Commissioner, for instance, or someone who had fostered many such children or herself had been in State care.

I do not intend this as a criticism of Ms Rebstock, nor even of Ann Tolley.  It seems to me that this is another illustration of the complete clash between Jesus' concept of servanthood and what he calls in this week's gospel passage the concept held "among the Gentiles" (and, alas, by at least two of his own disciples!)  Among us, he says, things must be different.  The way to greatness is the way of service to others.

In this respect at least, Ma'a Nonu and his team-mates make pretty good role models.  Compared to that, winning the World Cup hardly matters.  And who cares what they're paid?

Isaiah 53:4-12.  This reading should really start at 52:13, which is one of the most fascinating verses of the whole Book.  This is particularly well brought out in the NRSV which precedes this verse with the heading "The Suffering Servant".  Given that heading, we would not expect to read on: See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.  Taking the passage as a whole, the clear import seems to be that, after terrible suffering, the Servant will be vindicated.  In Christian terms, therefore, it might be thought that verse 13 is looking ahead to the Resurrection or even the Ascension of the Lord.  But it is surely the genius of Christian teaching, especially in the Fourth Gospel, that Jesus is lifted up and glorified ON THE CROSS.  It is the highest point of his service to others – the climax of his suffering is also the climax of his service – hence the title "the Suffering Servant" is entirely right.  As mentioned above, this is our standard Good Friday reading; it is never heard during the Easter Season.  Yet in many ways it should be always in our thoughts, at least from the point in the gospel narrative when Jesus starts the final journey to Jerusalem. The second essential point, of course, is the emphasis on the fact that the appalling suffering was endured "FOR US".  It is of the essence of servanthood that it is always done for others, not for the servant.  

Taking It Personally.

• Take time with this passage to enter into the Good Friday experience.  Do not move to the gospel passage until you are in that frame of mind. 
• Work slowly through verses 4 and 5.  Notice the constant reminder that he was bearing this suffering for us.  How do you feel about that?
• Verse 7 reminds us that, despite everything that was done to him, he suffered in silence – he did not retaliate.  What do you feel about that?  Can you recall an occasion when someone caused you suffering?  How did you react?
• Focus on verse 10a.  How do you feel about the idea that it was the will of God to crush the Servant with pain?

 

Hebrews 5:1-10.  The author develops his understanding of the idea of Christ as High Priest.  He starts with the common perception of a high priest.  They are "put in charge of things pertaining to God" on behalf of the people.  They are themselves ordinary people, subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us.  For that reason, when they offer sacrifices for the sins of the people, they include themselves and their sins in that.  It means that they are able to deal gently with those who have fallen into sin.  Moreover, no one presumes to seek the office for himself; only God can call and appoint a High Priest.  Having completed this primer on the office of High Priest, the author turns to the suitability of Jesus for the role, dealing with the two main points in reverse order.  Jesus did not seek the office of High Priest; he was appointed to it by God.  The harder issue relates to the ability of Jesus to empathise: if he is perfect and without sin, how can he understand those who, through human weakness, fall from time to time.  The answer given is to separate the temptation to sin from the commission of sin.  Jesus faced the same temptations that any human being may face, but resisted them.  Verses 8-9 are particularly interesting.  They suggest that Jesus' perfection was, at least in part, learned through experience.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Do you expect priests to be "better" than the average parishioner, setting a better example?  Or are priests just like the rest of us underneath the fancy vestments?
• Should a person seek ordination, or should this always come by way of calling from the Church?
• Reflect on verse 7 in the context of the Gethsemane experience.  Was Jesus "heard" on that occasion?
• Reflect on verse 8 and 9: in particular, ponder the meaning of the words ""he learned obedience through what he suffered, and having been made perfect...".  How does that fit with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate?
• What have you learned through suffering? 

 

Mark 10:35-45.  Recently the phrase "déjà vu all over again" has re-entered common parlance.  It seems appropriate here.  In fact, when I first checked the readings for this week I was a bit thrown.  Hadn't we had this gospel passage quite recently?  No, we hadn't; but just 5 weeks ago we had much the same issue.  Perhaps one great advantage of highlighting it again is to remind us that the lessons of discipleship often have to be learned over and over again.  James and John were presumably present when Jesus had challenged the disciples over their argument on the road to Capernaum about which of them was the greatest.  On that occasion he expressly told them, "Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all."  It seems for James and John at least this was a case of in one ear and out the other.  Here they are compounding their error by focusing on the fruits of victory, and forgetting that they come only through the Cross.  Jesus reminds them of that. But notice that this teaching is addressed to all the disciples.  Presumably, the others were angry with James and John, not at the very idea of anyone being appointed to high office, but because they were pushing their own barrow.  What we have here is an example of the tall poppy syndrome in action.  Who do they think they are!

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Take some time to consider how Jesus must have felt on occasions like this.  On the way to the cross his nearest and dearest are focused on issues of succession.
• Notice how Mark started the story, reminding us of the many people in the gospels who come to Jesus with a request, usually for healing for themselves or loved ones.  It is only his disciples who seek glory for themselves.  What do you make of that?

Notes for Reflection

October 11                             NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Amos 5:6-7, 10-15; Hebrews 4:12-16; Mark 10:17-31

Theme: For those who still have fond memories of Saturday mornings at the local cinema, what about "Your Money or Your Life"?  No, don't just snort derisively, think about it for a moment.  Isn't that a fair summary of Jesus' teaching in this week's gospel passage?  Something a little more grown-up (and therefore a little less catchy) might be "The Perils of Materialism".  Hebrews offers a pointed alternative – "A Two-edged Sword".  And Amos offers all sorts of pithy possibilities, such as "Turning Justice to Wormwood" (v.7a), "This is an Evil Time" (v.13) or even "Warning to Central Otago" (v.11b & c).

Introduction.  Amos gets us off to a furious start this week with a stinging attack on the wealthy elite of the time in Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and indirectly on the same class in his home province of Judah, and warning them that God is about to deal with them severely.  Our second reading reminds us that God's word is a two-edged sword, able to cut through all our pretence and self-serving illusions.  And Jesus shocks his disciples and everyone else, including his present-day followers, with his extremist views on the perils of materialism.

Background.  I've been fantasising this week about the joys of having a large whiteboard, and even some reliable marker pens to go with it.  I blame the TV: a diet of "Death in Paradise", "The Brokenwood Mysteries", and other such classics have fed into my technophobia to convince me that real breakthroughs in human understanding and problem-solving do not come from ever-evolving technological wizardry, but from a large whiteboard (preferably a sturdy one that doesn't tip over if you press too hard with the pen or even lean on it), and a good supply of pens of various colours.  I have lost count of the number of very difficult murder inquiries that have been brought to a successful conclusion by the use of such whiteboards, or, as I prefer to call them, Smart Boards.

Of course, if I were fortunate enough to acquire a Smart Board for myself, it is unlikely that I would use it to solve murder cases.  But I'm sure it would be helpful in my ongoing inquiries into what Ian Rankin called "the Overworld" (mentioned in these Notes a few weeks ago).  This week there have been all sorts of examples of rich and powerful people, some clearly breaking the law, and others merely doing what Overworlders always do.  Lacking an actual Smart Board, I have had to make do with an imaginary one to stick up some likely and unlikely characters from news headlines.

To start with the more obvious examples from the world of what used to be called "sport", we have Ces Blatter and Jack Warner (football), and Lou Vincent and Chris Cairns (to name but two from the world of cricket.)  NOTE: we only use Smart Boards to keep track of SUSPECTS; once convicted their names are carefully rubbed out to protect their privacy.  A new name was added this week: a Mr John Ashe, described in a Reuters report as "a former president of the United Nations General Assembly, a billionaire Macau real estate developer" [and] "a former UN ambassador from Antigua and Barbuda".  With those credentials he certainly qualifies as an Overworlder.  Although it appears that he has been guilty of bribery and corruption on a grand scale, he has only been charged with tax offences because such offences "are not covered by any diplomatic immunity he enjoys".

No doubt we could add many more names from those whose activities have brought them into conflict with the law.  But this week has brought to light two other examples of the power and thinking of Overworlders who are certainly not in breach of the law.  The first appears in a report from Britain (published in this week's ODT World Focus, page 5) about the response of certain wealthy people in Britain to the recent election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the British Labour Party.  One such person quoted in the article is  "Multimillionaire businessman Assem Allam [who] fled Cairo for England 46 years ago after being arrested several times because he would not stop 'talking' about then president Gamal Abdel Nasser".  This man has, we are told, stopped financially contributing to the Labour Party because of the election of Mr Corbyn, whom he describes as a "shy Communist".  He is not alone. Other wealthy donors have followed suit.  The real question is, why would such Overworlders give financial backing to the Labour Party in the first place?  Their reaction to Mr Corbyn's election surely gives that game away.

I've saved the biggest shock to last.  Also on my Smart Board this week I have added the name and mugshot of Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, and widely admired as a no-nonsense national leader (and genuine supporter of her country's football team).   She added her voice this week to the growing campaign for reform of the UN Security Council, and, in particular, to a review of the five permanent seats.  She didn't recommend their abolition, nor the removal of their veto powers: what she wanted was a change of permanent membership "to reflect the realities of the present world".  Translation: Britain, France and Russia are no longer world (economic) powers and should give way to Germany, Japan and whoever.  They key assumption is that the wealthiest countries in the world should have more power ("clout" might be a better word for it) in the working of the UN.  Why?  She didn't explain, because as an Overworlder it would never occur to her that such an approach needs explaining.  The wealthiest should rule the world.

But what about a population-based approach?  Should the countries with the largest population have more power?  Or those least able to defend themselves?  Or those most at risk from Climate Change?  Or from war?  What about permanent seats for the first five countries that totally disarm?

Mrs Merkel is the daughter of a Lutheran pastor.  She was brought up in the Christian faith.  What I wonder does this week's gospel passage say to her, or to any of her fellow Overworlders?  There could hardly be a more stark contrast between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God.  It's as if they have been cut asunder by a two-edged sword.

Amos 5:6-7, 10-15.  When John Boehner resigned recently as Speaker of the US House of Representatives he quoted the biblical warning about "false prophets", of whom there are quite a few apparently in his Republican Party.  Scary as they might be, they are nothing compared to the real thing, as Amos demonstrates for us this week.  I suspect that the best test of a true prophet is his reluctance to accept the calling.  Amos passes that test with flying colours.  He was a country lad, content to earn his living looking after sheep and a few fruit trees, in a little settlement called Tekoa, a few miles to the south of Bethlehem and a little over 10 miles from Jerusalem.  He was therefore a citizen of the Southern Kingdom, Judah; but in the inscrutable way of God, he was sent to the Northern Kingdom, Israel, to proclaim God's pending judgment on that nation.  According to the note in the NIV Study Bible: Israel at the time was politically secure and spiritually smug....  But prosperity increased Israel's religious and moral corruption.  Into such an environment came Amos with his most unwelcome call to repentance, made worse by his status as an outsider.  Nevertheless, as a true prophet he spoke the words of the Lord, challenging the ruling elite and their widespread corrupt practices.

Taking It Personally.

• To what extent (if any) do you see similarities between Israel of Amos' time and present-day New Zealand?  Are we "politically secure and spiritually smug"?
• Verse 10 speaks of corruption in the courts.  How confident are you that our courts are free of any such corruption?  Do they show favouritism to the rich, or discriminate against the poor?
• Verse 11 seems to be about the gap between the rich and the poor.  Does that concern you?
• Verse 13 seems to counsel maintaining a low profile in the face of injustice.  How do you feel about that?
• Are there any personal challenges for you in this passage?

 

Hebrews 4:12-16.  In some ways this lesson is even scarier than the one from Amos – or perhaps it would be better to say that this lesson explains why Amos' message was and is so scary.  For he, like all true prophets, wielded the two-edged sword every time he opened his mouth; and even in our time when that sword had been turned into written form its cutting edges are as sharp as ever.    This short passage blows away all concepts of privacy: everything we do, say, think, wish, crave, fear, despise, judge, - everything that we attempt to conceal from others – is ultimately laid bare before God.  Think about that for a moment and start to tremble.  Giving up all those careful defence mechanisms, all our pretences and illusions, may be even harder to contemplate than giving up all our material possessions.  What would be left if we let go of everything we consider our own?  Of course, the good news is that we are then able to receive the mercy, love and grace of God in abundance, as we discover if we read on in this Letter.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Can you recall an occasion when you were "cut to the quick" by a piece of Scripture or something a preacher said?  How did that feel?
• Imagine yourself "naked and laid bare to the eyes" of God.  How do you feel about that?  What would God see that you would rather it was left unseen?
• Now take time to remind yourself that God loves you as you are, and not as you would like to appear.  Give thanks.

 

Mark 10:17-31.  It's been tough going over the last two or three weeks as Jesus' teaching seems to have taken on a harder edge.  Perhaps this week we are tempted to relax a little – after all, he's not talking about us, is he?  He's talking about "the rich" and that certainly doesn't include us, does it?  We're not like John Ashe or Assem Allam who have mega-fortunes.  We're not like this guy in this passage who has – um – "many possessions", are we?  Well, how many possessions are we talking about here?  If we are beginning to go down that track we are only the latest to do so in the last two thousand years.  All sorts of "defence strategies" have been devised against the charge levelled by this passage, some by Bible scholars who should know better.  The most popular approach has been to individualise it: Jesus is not laying down a general rule, but is prescribing the remedy for this individual who has an unhealthy attachment to material wealth.  The following discussion shows how little sense that approach has to offer.  Again, we need to get past the "giving up" side of the equation and focus on the "receiving back" side.  Notice from this reading that once again it starts with the motif "journey" – Jesus was "setting out on a journey".  A man runs up to him – how keen he is to have an encounter with Jesus, and how bold he is!

(As an Overworlder it would not occur to him that he might not be welcome.)  He addresses Jesus respectfully, and asks his Overworlder's question.  His concern is wholly for himself; and he assumes that whatever he wants he came obtain by his own efforts.  He is not a bad person: he has genuinely tried to comply with the Commandments.  But he is on the wrong track.  The way to eternal life (spiritual maturity) is through receiving not earning; and to receive we must start with empty hands.  We pray, "Forgive us as we forgive others".  The same principle is in play here – "Give to us as we give to others".

Taking It Personally.

• How eagerly do you seek an encounter with Jesus?
• How often do you seek Jesus' teaching on a particular issue?
• Do you consider yourself rich?  Do you have many possessions?
• Is there any possession that you cannot imagine living your life without?
• Focus on verse 24b.  Notice there is no reference to wealth here.  What do you make of that?
• What personal challenges are there in this passage for you?

Notes for Reflection

October 4                               NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Genesis 2:18-24; Hebrews 1:1-4, & 2:5-12; Mark 10:2-16

Theme: There is no escaping the hardness of Jesus' teaching this week, so one approach may be to meet the challenge head on and go for "Jesus, the Hardliner", which may seem slightly more respectful than "Jesus, the Extremist".  If that approach is too provocative for your liking, you might prefer "A Higher Authority" (higher, that is, than the Law, so that approach may not be without its hazards).  Of course, this teaching is intended to be taken positively – based on love rather than law.  So something like "The Original Intent" may be wide enough to encompass both the Creator's will and the desire of the parties at the time of their marriage.

Introduction.  Given modern sensibilities our difficulties this week begin with our first lesson from Genesis.  Apart from affirming that God created women as well as men, everything else in this passage must give feminist theologians raised blood pressure.  Fortunately, the second lesson is without any such dangers, as the unknown author begins his task of "explaining" the Christ event in the context of Jewish faith and history up to that point.  Christ has become the new medium through which God speaks to his people, and the perfect offering for the redemption of the world.  The gospel has yet another tedious attempt by the Pharisees to catch Jesus out with a tricky question, this time on the legality or otherwise of divorce.  Jesus gives them an answer they certainly weren't expecting.  Nor were the disciples, who continued to show a complete inability to understand Jesus' radical teaching.  They even failed in their attempts at crowd control, trying to chase away those who wanted Jesus to bless their children.

Background.  American politics has a fascination all of its own for me!  Over the last few days it has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide background for this week's readings.  It began with a relatively small example of the clash between faith and law.  A court registrar responsible for issuing marriage licences refused to issue a licence to a gay couple, even though such marriages have now been declared legal by the Supreme Court.  She said she was unable to issue such a licence because of her Christian faith – she believed that such a relationship was contrary to God's Law, and therefore she could not do anything to facilitate it.  When ordered by a Judge to issue such licences in accordance with the law, she refused and was duly held in contempt of court and detained in custody. The public response was as expected.  To some she was a heroic martyr; to others she was a narrow-minded bigot seeking to impose her religious views on those who don't share them.  Within a few days, she was released from custody, on promising that she would not prevent other members of the staff from issuing marriage licences to gay couples.

For most people, perhaps, the issue was fairly straightforward.  She was a public official, and should carry out her duties in accordance with the law of the land.  If in all conscience she felt unable to do so she should resign her position: we cannot have individual public servants deciding which law they will comply with, and which they will not, in the course of their work.  Unless, of course, you are a health professional, in which case you have a statutory right to refuse on grounds of conscience to assist in the medical performance of an abortion. 

Case study number 2 concerned a retired neurosurgeon, Mr Carson, who is one of the large (though gradually declining) number of candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for the Presidency.  He suddenly emerged from the pack and came under press scrutiny.  He was asked if he could envisage the day when a Moslem was elected President of the USA.  No, he didn't think that would be right at all.  Two days later, in time honoured political fashion, he sought to clarify his position: what he meant was that a Moslem could indeed be President so long as he "subjugated his faith to the Constitution".  If that means anything, it presumably means that if a Moslem President found himself facing a conflict between the teaching of Islam and the requirements of the US Constitution, he would have to comply with the Constitution and not with his faith.

Which, perhaps, seems reasonable enough until we think about it.  Many of those seeking the nomination in the Republican Party strongly assert their Christian credentials, some going so far as to insist that they are "born-again", or "bible-believing", Christians – the real deal!  Has anyone (including Mr Carson) suggested that if such a candidate were to be elected President of the USA, he would have to "subjugate his faith to the Constitution"?  How would that play in the so-called "Bible-belt States"?

And so to case study number 3.  A picture published in the world press (well, it made it into the ODT anyway) showed Pope Francis addressing a joint session of the US Congress.  Behind him sat two very high-powered men:  Vice-President Joe Biden, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner.  One is a Democrat, and the other is a Republican: both are Catholics.  Looking at the photograph it is impossible to tell what either of them is thinking as he listens to the Pope.  True to form, the Pope pulled no punches: he preached Jesus' teaching to the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth.  Less than 24 hours later, John Boehner announced his resignation.  He had had enough of political games being played by some members of his own party.  They are once again threatening to close down the entire Government if they don't get their way over a particular policy difference between them and the President.  Ironically, their target this time is over the funding of Planned Parenthood, an organisation that is involved in providing abortion services.  On that issue, Pope Francis (and John Boehner) would probably share their objections, but not their tactics.

John Boehner explained that, in the morning, he had said his prayers "as I always do", and it came to him: enough was enough, he would resign. Then he mentioned Pope Francis: how the Pope had blessed Mr Boehner's wee grandson, and then asked Mr Boehner to pray for him (the Pope).  At that point words failed Mr Boehner.  In the end, it seems to me,  intellectual arguments about the subjugation of our faith to the law, or vice versa, get us nowhere.  What happened in that encounter between Mr Boehner and Pope Francis was not a meeting of minds but something much deeper.  It was probably not anything Pope Francis said (in his tortured English!) but who he so clearly reminds us of, as he blesses little children in the crowds and commands the rich and powerful to use their wealth and power for the common good.

Genesis 2:18-24.  This second creation story lacks the objectivity of the first.  It is clearly a partisan account of the importance and dominance of the human species over all other creatures, even to the extent of suggesting that we came first.  This week gives us a first glimpse into gender politics, biblical-style.  It appears to suggest that God created one individual man, and then thought that man needed company.  Even then, it was only after creating every other creature, and giving naming rights over them to the man, that the idea of a suitable companion for the man led to the creation of a woman.  Whereas the man was created out of the dust of the earth (we moderns are used to the idea that we are made out of the same substance as stardust), the creation of the woman bears an uncanny resemblance to modern medical techniques of creating organs from stem-cells, etc.  The overall effect seems to reflect the social belief of those who created this story that women were the helpers and off-shoots of men.  Perhaps two positive features are, firstly, to affirm that God made women as well as men, and that on marriage the man left his parents' nest and committed himself to his wife.

Taking It Personally.

• Accepting that this creation story has even less scientific truth than the first one, what value does it have for you?  What important truths and insights does it offer in terms of the relationship of men and women to each other, to God, and to the rest of creation?
• Jesus uses this passage in his argument with the Pharisees about the legality or otherwise of divorce.  What do you think this passage has to say to us about divorce and marriage, including gay marriage?
• Focus on verse 25.  What point is being made there, do you think?

 

Hebrews 1:1-4, & 2:5-12.  Notice in the first part of this reading how "orthodox" the teaching is.  You might like to compare the language with that of St Paul, particularly in his Letter to the Colossians.  The first point the author makes is to establish the new approach God has adopted "in recent days".  Whereas in olden times God spoke to us through the prophets, now he has spoken to us through a Son.  This Son is the heir of all things (all things will be gathered up in Christ, says St Paul), and the medium through which God has created all things.  Also with St Paul, the author sees Christ as the perfect revelation of God – he shows us what the invisible God looks like.  It is also Christ who sustains all things in existence.  In verse 4 the attention shifts to the saving work of Christ, which has been completed (signified in Ascension language, sitting down on the right-hand of God).  In the second part of the reading the author sees Christ as the new Great High Priest, but also focuses on the human sacrifice Jesus offered up through his suffering and death.  That all this was proving difficult to get across is shown by verses 11 and 12.  Just as the disciples struggled to understand Jesus, so their successors are also slow on the uptake, to the evident exasperation of the author.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Read slowly through the first section of the reading, noting how the author builds up a picture of the greatness and uniqueness of Christ.  Offer your own prayers of praise and thanksgiving.

·        Read verses 4 and 5 together.  Notice the emphasis on "being called" to the priesthood, rather than seeking it.  What lessons are there in that for our present process of selection for ordination?

·        Read verse 7 in the context of the Agony in Gethsemane.  What insights do you gain from putting these two things together?

·        What does it mean in verse 8 to say that Jesus was "made perfect through suffering"?  Was there a time when he was not perfect?

·        Reflect on verses 11 and 12.  Are you still on a milk diet, or have you been weaned onto solids?

 

Mark 10:2-16.  We tend to be so focused on the argument about divorce that we fail to notice just what Jesus is doing in this argument with the Pharisees.  In effect, Jesus is telling them that there is a higher authority than the Law.  Of course, in the context it sounds as though it is the Mosaic Law he's talking about, but is that not the Torah, the Law of God?  In fact, there is surprisingly little directly on the issue of divorce in the Old Testament: most of the references are to the consequences of being a divorced person.  It seems to be taken for granted that divorce will happen, and does not seem to have been thought of as a big deal.  But the Pharisees see it as a great subject to raise with Jesus for they are now within the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, and John the Baptist has already paid the price for criticising Herod's marriage to his divorced sister-in-law.  Verses 10-12 show that once again the disciples need further explanation on this issue.  They then blot their copybooks still further by trying to push away crowds seeking a blessing from Jesus for their children.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        How can the Church continue to teach the indissolubility of marriage while at the same time offering compassion and understanding to those who are divorced?

·        Is Jesus "subjugating love to the demands of Scripture" here?

·        Reflect on verse 15.  How do you feel about it?