Notes for Reflection

November 9                           NOTES FOR REFLECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking It Personally.

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

 

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

 

Taking It Personally.

 

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

 

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

 

Taking It Personally.

 

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