Trinity Sunday

May 31                        NOTES FOR REFLECTION                         Trinity Sunday

Texts: Isaiah 6:1-8; Romans 8:12-17; John 3:1-17

Theme: The obvious choice is some variant of the title of this principal feast – perhaps "The Holy Trinity".  Slightly more edgy may be "This is Our God" if you want to be thoroughly non-P.C. and deny that "we all worship the same God, don't we?"  In fact, why not come straight to the point and have "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" as the theme, which has the distinct advantage of being undeniably biblical.   As we welcome back Isaiah this week we could go with "The Majesty of God".  Any of the above would fit well with our reading from Romans – St Paul is always so accommodating, I find.

Introduction.  There is no denying that "Trinity Sunday" is a difficult time in the Church: of the 12 principal feasts observed in the Anglican Communion it would probably not break into the top 11 favourites in a poll of our membership.  It is a bit too cerebral to get us enthused for very long.  So we need Isaiah to remind us that above all else it is the majesty and glory of God that draws us to him, rather more than his Trinitarian "nature".  St Paul, no mean intellectual thinker himself, restores the balance with his emphasis on the relationship we have with the Father through the Spirit.  And the gospel shows us the same point:  Nicodemus is a good and scholarly man, but neither his goodness nor his scholarship can lead him into that relationship.  Entry can only be through rebirth in the Spirit.

Background.  This week I have been reminded of the old story (which is said to be true) about the Russian Orthodox Church meeting in solemn conclave in October 1917.  On the very day that the Bolshevik Revolution was launched the princes of the Church were earnestly debating the issue of the correct width of the hem on a covering on the Holy Table when mass is to be celebrated.  They had made good progress as only two possibilities remained – 4 inches or 2.  There may be some, inside as well as outside our Church this week, who wonder why we are once again focused on the Trinity while two important issues have been debated in our Courts this week, hundreds and thousands of persecuted refugees are facing agonising deaths on land and sea, Iraq and Syria are just two nations been torn apart in the name of a religion they supposedly share, and ever more examples of widespread corruption from the worlds of international banking and finance and international football are slowly being exposed,  Are we, like the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917, fiddling while the world God so loves that he sent his only son burns?

Let's start with those two court cases.  One concerns the issue of Bible in Schools, the other is about the "right" claimed by a very brave woman to be assisted by her GP to die at a time of her own choosing when she decides that her suffering and her loss of any quality of life is too much to bear.  Which of those two cases is the most important to us as people of faith?  In which of those two cases is the Church given an official voice in the proceedings?  I know the answer to the second question, but I'm not so sure about the first.

I should say at once that I have long been uncomfortable about the legal fiction created to allow the Bible in Schools programme to be taught in State Schools during ordinary school hours.  To pretend that the school is closed during the period in which the lessons are held is just that, a pretence.  It would be more honest to enact a law that gives Boards of Trustees discretion to allow programmes of this kind to be held in schools for no more than say 30 minutes a week.  That is effectively what is happening now.  But whatever the legal technicalities may be, the Court case itself is interesting.

At first sight it sounds perfectly sensible to provide that, if a school is providing this programme, parents should have the right to withdraw their children from it if they wish.  But when I saw some of the banners and placards held by supporters of that view I began to wonder if there isn't a much more important issue here that the Church should confront.  One of the placards I noticed read "Maths Not Myths".   Very clever and pithy, of course, but surely inviting debate?  Why not, say, "English Not Myths", or "History Not Myths?"  Should parents have the right to withdraw their children from any course that is not dealing entirely with incontrovertible facts?  What about Maoritanga – including Maori spirituality?  Are prayers to be banned but karakia allowed?  What about national mythology inevitably intertwined with facts in the teaching of history, of which we have seen quite a lot in the recent Anzac commemorations?  And as for the teaching of literature and the arts: could a parent withdraw his or her child from a class in which the teacher is insisting that there is no basis on which Dickens, Steinbeck or Tolstoy can be rated as literary greats, ahead of , say, John Mulgan, Witi Ihimaera or Albert Wendt?

More fundamentally, should we not be refuting the charge that the Christian faith is based on myths rather than facts?  We are not, I hope, arguing for the right to teach Christian mythology in schools, but the facts on which our faith is based.  Nor should we accept that it's all a matter of opinion.  We sometimes hear that "values" should be taught in schools.  But which values, and in what way are "values" not ultimately a matter of opinion?  What is the relationship between myths and values?   The so-called "golden rule" is, after all, a value, not a fact.

The second case raises the same sort of issues, but from completely the opposite end of the spectrum.  Seemingly, some of the most staunch defenders of individual rights suddenly swap sides and start recognising that the rights of the individual must be circumscribed in the interests of others and of our society as a whole.  But in this case there seems to be no expression of view from the Church.  Why not?  Is there nothing in this case of any interest to us as people of faith?  Is this case not the ultimate challenge to our simple belief that we are guided by love, not law, and certainly not by fear?  It was of great interest to me that Mr Justice Collins concluded the hearing by thanking Lecretia Seales for bringing the case to the Court.  Think about that for a moment.  How many of us, how many of our doctors, lawyers, and politicians, would say "Amen" to that?  Would we not much rather leave it in the shadows, than bring it into the light?  Let's talk about the Trinity instead.    

 Isaiah 6:1-8:  Wow! And again I say 'Wow!'  There is nothing quite like this passage for stirring the imagination, is there?  Notice that it begins with a brief historical reference: this is not a 'once upon a time' story, this took place in real time.  In a particular year Isaiah had a vision of God.  That's the fact that is being asserted here.  Beyond that it's a bit harder to be specific.  Did he have the vision while he was in the temple, or was the vision of God sitting on a throne in the temple?  We're not told and it probably doesn't matter too much.  What matters is the overwhelming power of the vision to transform Isaiah the priest into Isaiah the prophet, called, anointed and sent by God.  The vision is overwhelming, filling him with awe, terror and amazement.  He sees, he hears, he feels and he smells the presence of God all around him.  He is shaken to the foundations of his being: he is afflicted by a deep sense of his unworthiness, his sinfulness, and that of his people.  We can only imagine his feelings as he sees one of the seraphs heading his way with a live coal and cauterizing his lips with it!  (Think about that when you next hear a priest pronounce the Absolution.  It's not just a liturgical formality – it is putting into words what God has done to you and for you.)  With his sin taken away, Isaiah is able to hear the call of the Lord.  Notice the unusual form of the call: at face value it is a call for volunteers.  Be that as it may, the call of God always requires a positive response, and Isaiah makes the classic one: 'Here I am, send me."

Taking It Personally.

• Spend as much time as you can with this passage.  Enter into the vision with Isaiah.  Attempt to see what he sees, experience what he experiences, and hear what he hears.  Ask the Holy Spirit to help you to enter into this experience ever more deeply.
• Next time you are in a church, look up: call this vision to mind.  Slowly look around you.  "See" the whole space full of the presence of God.  Be uplifted! 
• When did you last feel yourself truly in the presence of God?  What helps you to experience the presence of God when you attend your local church?  What distracts you?
• Do you pay particular attention to the Absolution?  Do you experience a sense of relief (or release) when you hear it, or are the words of the Absolution rather ho-hum to you, merely an indication that the readings are coming next?
• What about the words of the Dismissal?  Do they strike you as a fresh and urgent mandate to go back into the world, sent by God on a mission of his choosing?  Or simply time to find your gloves and put your books away?

 

Romans 8:12-17.  In a rather different form we have here an equally mind-blowing passage.  St Paul characteristically spells it all out in clear language.  He doesn't dwell on the negative for very long.  He knows that his audience are aware of all that is wrong in our human nature, and that if we give into all that we bring death upon ourselves.  But he also knows how easily fear can limit us. Particularly fear of God's wrath.  He calls that fear a spirit of slavery, and contrasts that with the "spirit of adoption".  God is not sitting on his throne waiting to pounce on us, but to adopt us.  We are his children, not his targets!  He has adopted us, so that we too can call him "Abba", as Jesus did.  We are, says St Paul, now of the same status as Jesus, co-heirs with him.  Isn't that an astonishing thought?

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Put these two lessons together, and reflect on your own faith.  How does your image of God compare with the vision of Isaiah?  How does your image of yourself compare with the teaching of St Paul?
• Are you afraid of God?  Do you want God to "intervene" in your life more often or less often than at present? 
• Retire to your favourite mirror.  Look yourself straight in the eye and repeat slowly several times, "I am a child of God, who has adopted me."  Then try, "I am an heir of God, and a co-heir with Christ."  Keep repeating this exercise regularly, until you believe it.
• When you pray, address God as "Abba".  How does that feel?

 

John 3:1-17.  There seems to be a division among commentators as to whether we should take Nicodemus at face value.  Is he just another tiresome Pharisee trying to catch Jesus out, or is he a genuine inquirer?  I've always inclined to the latter view.  Given the tough language usually used in this gospel about Jesus' Jewish opponents, and the fact that Nicodemus comes back into the story for the burial of Jesus, we are surely supposed to see him as well-intentioned.  Yes, he comes under cover of darkness, and appears to be speaking on behalf of others (see v.2, "we know that you are a teacher..."), but he seems to enter genuinely into dialogue with Jesus who treats him with the same respect he shows to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well in the next chapter.  Nicodemus has a proper understanding of the miracles – they are "signs" pointing to Jesus' identity, not magic tricks to be enjoyed in themselves.  He is clearly mystified by what Jesus is saying, but he is only the first of many who are to follow in the first half of this gospel.  Jesus is simply on a different wavelength, as we might say, or speaking a different language.  He reminds Nicodemus of the weird story of the bronze snake on a stick that makes no sense at all in the "real" world.  Without the Spirit nothing about Jesus or his teaching makes sense either.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• This is a good passage for slow pondering.  Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you deeper and deeper into the truth is conveys.
• Have you been born again?  What does that mean for you?
• Do you "understand these things"?
• End with prayers of thanksgiving for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Day of Pentecost

May 24                        NOTES FOR REFLECTION                         The Day of Pentecost

Texts:  Acts 2:1-21; Romans 8:22-27; John 15:26-27, 16:4b-15*

[* The Lectionary offers an alternative: Ezekiel 37:1-14 may be used as the first lesson, in which case the reading from Acts would be used instead of the reading from Romans.  Apart from being constitutionally incapable of showing such disrespect to St Paul, I think this approach would be altogether too wordy.  The passage from Ezekiel is important, but best used on another day when it will not be overshadowed, as it would be by these readings from Acts and John's gospel.]

Theme: The title of this principal feast is the obvious choice; a suitable variant is "The Coming of the Spirit".  If you crave something a little different "The Promise Fulfilled" might do.  Those of more historical bent might consider "God Breathes into All Creation".  I rather like the idea of divine inspiration – perhaps, "God Inspires Us All".

Introduction. I'm not into biblical trivia, but if I was I might wonder if this week's reading from Acts is the longest set passage (other than a gospel reading) in the Lectionary.  Whether that's true or not, it is surely one of the most important and deserves the best reader available (one who can cope with verses 9-11).  It is full of high drama and good theology.  St Paul requires a different approach as he attempts to put into words his extraordinary vision of the significance of the saving work of Christ for all creation.  The gospel passage focuses on the real work of the Spirit.  As with Jesus, teaching is at the heart of the Spirit's mission – He comes to guide us into all truth.

Background.  The thing we often forget about conspiracy theorists is that occasionally they are right – there was a conspiracy going on after all.  This week one of the most outrageous and blatant conspiracies hit the headlines when some of the world's largest banks – including the usual culprits, JP Morgan, Barclays, and the Royal Bank of Scotland – admitted that they had conspired together over a period of 5 years to fix exchange rates - to the detriment of their clients and the huge enrichment of their shareholders.  Who'd have thought?

Something similar has been going on in the world of cooking, as any avid reader of recipes must have suspected.  There was a time when nobody had heard of sundried tomatoes, then suddenly every cook on the planet was insisting that they were an essential ingredient of haute cuisine.  Then we entered the age of balsamic vinegar and the same thing happened again.  Balsamic vinegar went viral!  Now quite small supermarkets have a whole shelf devoted to different kinds of vinegar.  We are presently living through the end days (I fervently hope!) of the age of cavalo nero, which even the usually reliable Bevan Smith believes is edible.  Bread producers have their own conspiracy underway: look how many of them now offer breads containing quinoa, for heaven's sake!  Even Ploughmans!

But conspiring cooks probably do not constitute as serious a threat to democracy as conspiring politicians, and clearly something is going on among them.  It involves the political equivalent of a special ingredient, a special word.  Hilary Clinton has used it to explain what her latest tilt at high office is all about; Tony Blair (remember him?) and other people who used to be admired have used it to explain why the Labour Party didn't win the recent U.K. Election; and our own Prime Minister uses it in a wide variety of circumstances to explain why some promise or target has not been met.  The word in such wide use today is "aspiration".

It belongs, of course, to a whole group of words in the English language.  "Respiration", which we all do; "transpiration", which plants do; "perspiration", which women do, and so on.  Two other important ones are "inspiration and expiration".  Now comes "aspiration".  Most of us (even politicians) have managed quite well until recently without using it very much, but now a whole range of politicians and their hangers-on are taking every opportunity to slip it into the public discourse.  Why is that?

The Collins English Dictionary shows us that "aspiration" and its cognates is quite a versatile word.  "To aspirate", for example, is much used in phonetics: one meaning there is to "pronounce a word or syllable with an initial 'h'.  In the medical world "to aspirate" means "to draw in or remove by inhalation or suction, esp. to suck (air or fluid) from a body cavity or to inhale (fluid) into the lungs after vomiting", with or without the aid of "an aspirator".  I shall resist the strong temptation to apply these definitions to the world of politics.

In that world the definition of "aspire" is more appropriate: "to yearn (for) or have a powerful or ambitious plan, desire, or hope (to do or be something)"; in this sense "aspiration" means "a strong desire to achieve something, such as success"; and "aspirant" means "a person who aspires, as to a high office".

Notice that none of the examples given by Collins relate to communal aspirations.  It might make sense to say that I aspire to a New Zealand where child poverty is unknown, but probably that is a misuse of the word.  And it is certainly not what the political conspirators use it to mean.  The game was given away by the unsuccessful Ed Milliband's even less successful brother who said "Labour must learn to speak for the aspirational as well as for the compassionate electors".  That is, for those who seek the good life for themselves, as well as those who seek the good life for others. 

This week we in the Church should be focusing on "inspiration", should we not?  That word, too, has had a very interesting run this week with the decision by Dame Sylvia Cartwright to gift some of her many medals and awards to her old alma mater, Otago Girls High School.  She said she hoped the medals would show the students of today and tomorrow what is possible; she wanted to inspire them to be the best they can be.  Dame Sylvia has had a very long and highly successful career, and is a wonderful role model for the students of that school.  No doubt she has derived great pleasure and financial rewards along the way.  But above all, her life has been (and still is) one of service to others.  Those medals and awards recognise that service.  She may indeed have aspired to high office, but whenever she has achieved it she has used it for the betterment of others.  Her greatest gift to others is surely inspiration.

And that's the major difference between aspiration and inspiration.  Aspiration is self-focused.  It is my plan, my ambition, my desire, that I strive to fulfil.  Inspiration is always a gift – it comes to us from another; this week we remember that true inspiration comes from The Other.  It is God's plan, God's ambition, God's desire that the Spirit comes to inspire us to fulfil.

Acts 2:1-21.  I can never resist the old chestnut that verse 1 records the first miracle of the Day of Pentecost – "they were all together in one place"!  More seriously, to whom does the word "they" apply?  I have seen (awful) art depicting the Spirit falling on the Apostles, but it may be that all 120 referred to in 1:15 are included.  Verses 2-4 graphically describe the experience of the "in-crowd", however many there were.  Whatever else we can say, those who refuse the whole notion of the supernatural might need to turn away, block their ears, or wait outside until the reading has finished.  Verses 5-13 relate to the "out-crowd".  Verses 6-8 are the heart of this passage.  Notice that all hear the good news in their own language.  The reference to "Galileans" may be a nice touch – it was his Galilean accent that blew Peter's cover in the High Priest's courtyard.  Peter gives the exegesis in verses 14-21.  We are tempted to say "again", because of the number of other occasions we have heard about during the Easter Season.  But this, of course, is his debut, his first sermon.  The model is the same: he starts from what has happened; addresses the questions being asked; reminds the crowd of Christ's death and resurrection, and then quotes from the Scriptures to show how it was all according to God's eternal plan.   Verse 13 may also deserve a comment: even in the presence of such an overwhelming demonstration of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, some can only stand and sneer.

Taking It Personally.

• Looking back over your life, what have you aspired to?
• Who or what has inspired you?
• Have you been an inspiration to others?
• Make a short list of those whom you most admire.  Can you identify any common characteristics among those on your list?
• What has been your own experience of the coming of the Holy Spirit?  Could you describe it as intoxicating?

 

Romans 8:22-27.  St Paul has crammed so much into this relatively short passage that it is difficult to paraphrase.   It is set in the context of "the sufferings of this present time", which he sees as the labour pains associated with the birth of a new creation – or perhaps the re-birth of the old one.  The breadth of his vision is mind-blowing: think how much breath has been wasted over who is "saved" and who is "not" among individual human beings.  When was the last time you heard such earnest debate over the salvation or otherwise of the whole of creation?  And yet, 2,000 years ago, Paul was concerned with that very issue.  Those who had received the Spirit at that time were but the "first fruits" of a great harvest to come.  It has been in process of coming ever since, and is not yet complete, but one day it will be.  That is our sure and certain hope.  That is what the Spirit has been doing ever since Pentecost, gathering in the harvest of redeemed creation.  Meanwhile, the Spirit residing in us provides the language with which we speak to God even when we have no idea what to say.  Whoever we are, regardless of ethnicity, through the Spirit we hear God and speak to God in our own language.  Pentecost continues day by day until the end of the age.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Recall the expression "speaking the same language", as a metaphor for understanding one another.  Can you think of a person with whom you often seem to be speaking a different language?  (We also say, "talking at cross-purposes" – now there's an interesting term!)
• Christians have often had a bad press about a supposed lack of care or concern for "the environment".  How might this passage form the basis of a "Christian ecology"?
• Spend time in silent prayer, leaving the words to the Holy Spirit.  Finish with a prayer of thanksgiving based on verses 26 and 27.

 

John 15:26-7, 16:4b-15.  Once again the emphasis is on testifying to Jesus.  The Spirit will testify on Jesus' behalf, and we must, too, because we have been with him (we would say, he has been with us) from the beginning of our faith journey.  Jesus must "go away" before his Spirit can come among us – transcend space and time and so become present "everywhere and always – as he did through the Ascension.  The Spirit comes (back) to continue Jesus' teaching ministry, but also to "measure" the world.  His return makes possible the judgment of the world.  However much we might "aspire" to keep religion out of the public square – faith as a purely private matter – that option is not available to us.    There is right and wrong, there is obedience and disobedience, because (and only because) there is a holy God whose Spirit suffuses the whole of creation, bringing it together, purifying it, making it whole, and bringing it back to himself for eternal enjoyment.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        This week aspire to hearing what the Spirit is saying to the Church – and to you.

·        Let him lead you into all truth, one small step at a time.

Seventh Sunday of Easter

May 17                        NOTES FOR REFLECTION                         Seventh Sunday of Easter

Texts:  Acts 1:15-17, 21-26; 1 John 5:9-13; John 17:6-19*

[*An alternative authorised approach is to mark Ascension Day, in which case the readings set are Acts1-11; Ephesians 1:15-23; and Luke 24:44-53.  While Sundayising Ascension Day has the same taint as Mondayising Waitangi Day or Anzac Day, it is a pity that we seem to place so little emphasis on this principal feast.  Perhaps the best solution is to weave the theme of the Ascension into this week's readings, emphasising that the Ascension can be understood as the restoration of unity between Creator and Creation.]

Theme:  The phrase that has just popped into my mind is "The End is in Sight".  I'm not sure what it has to do with the first reading, but perhaps it fits quite well with the gospel passage, and with the second lesson.  If your focus is on the gospel, something like "The Great Priestly Prayer for Unity" would be a traditional favourite, though I'm not as confident of that now as I have been in former years, for reasons that will be given later.  Another fairly safe choice might be "Preparing for the Spirit" or "Prepare the Way for the Spirit".

Introduction.  One of the glories of the Easter Season's readings from the Book of Acts is their wonderful mix of the sublime and the ridiculous, or, to put it more politely, the divine and the worldly.  This week's reading is another example of this: squeezed between the Ascension and Pentecost, the embryonic church holds a mini-SGM to choose a new member of Vestry following the death in office of Judas.  But the method of election is quite unlike anything our Canon Law would recognise as kosher.  Our second lesson once again gives the game away: the great Apostle of Love has a very clear view as to whom that love is for and whom it is not for.  And the same is true for this week's gospel passage.  The so-called Prayer for Unity, on closer examination, might better be called "The Divisive Prayer for Unity".

Background.  Unity (or, more accurately, disunity) has been very much in the air this week – at least, in the air I have been breathing, which is threatening to bring on a deepening depression in my mood.  I begin with the state of English cricket.  The days when England had anything to teach the rest of the world about how to actually play the game have long since passed into deep history, but it did manage this week to conduct a public slanging match that just might have provided a lesson for the newly elected Government.  The newly appointed boss of English cricket, former captain Andrew Strauss, started his reign by telling one of the most prolific batsmen ever to play for England, Kevin Petersen, on the very day that Petersen had just made his highest-ever score of 356 not out for his county side, that Petersen would not be playing for England any time soon because of "a lack of trust".  Mr Petersen will have to learn, we were told, that there is more to playing cricket than scoring a lot of runs.

In brief, if you really want to play for England taking every opportunity to criticise your team-mates publicly, including then-captain Andrew Strauss, is not a good career move.

I wondered if anybody was listening to that in 10 Downing Street, where the newly re-elected Mr Cameron was being congratulated on winning just over 50 percent of the seats with just under 37percent of the total vote, including one seat in the whole of Scotland.  Buoyed by such a huge mandate it was not long before Mr Cameron was addressing the public, promising to lead a Government of national unity, a government for all the people, a government for a truly United Kingdom!  Hurrah!  Hurrah!  None of which would have been any more than mildly irritating to me had it not been for an interview I heard shortly afterwards  with two U.K. journalists, one from Scotland and one from England, trying to explain how the Conservatives had managed to win the election when all the polls and pundits had predicted a draw.

They were agreed that the Conservatives had managed a last-minute surge of support by playing the Scotland card, but they had a very different view of the legitimacy or otherwise of that card.  The Scottish journalist, who made it clear that he had voted against independence in the recent referendum and had not voted for the SNP in the election, described with barely concealed fury an official poster released by the Conservatives showing the former SNP leader, Alex Salmond, with his hand in somebody's pocket, and the caption underneath reading, "Don't let them pinch your money!"  In other words, the Scots were a nation of pick-pockets coming to steal English money.  The English journalist's response was to dismiss the poster as "just electioneering – just politics – we shouldn't take that stuff seriously."  (Think for a moment if, instead of the Scots, the poster had targeted, say, Moslems, or immigrants: in New Zealand, how would we react if such a poster was directed at the Maori Party or the Asian community?)  Is there not more to playing politics than simply scoring votes?

With the election over, Mr Cameron is now fully committed (he says) to working with our "compatriots" across the border to ensure that they, and all other parts of the United Kingdom, share fairly in the fruits of the present economic recovery.  Hurrah!  Hurrah!  We shall see.  For now, Scotland is left to lick its wounds while this particular Apostle for Unity sets his sights on Europe.  It's unlikely that Angela Merkel will appear on a poster in the role of a pick-pocket, but the Greek leader is probably already at short odds with the bookies.

 When Christ ascended to heaven, did he not rise above all that tends to divide us?  Did he ascend as a man, leaving women behind, or as a human being, taking us all with him?  Did he ascend as a Jew, leaving all other ethnicities behind?  The unity that is in Christ, as St Paul made so clear on many occasions, is one that knows no distinctions of gender, race or class.  The Kingdom of God is the real United Kingdom.  It includes English cricketers, it includes the Scots, and more amazing still, it even includes Old Etonians.

The question remains, does it include non- Christians?  St John does not think so.

Acts 1:15-17, 21-26.  This seemingly short, simple passage has so much to offer those who read it or listen to it carefully.  We are now in that short interim period between our Lord's Ascension and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  We are told that, after three years of Jesus' ministry, healing hundreds, feeding thousands, and preaching all over Galilee, there were about 120 believers, presumably including the eleven remaining Apostles.  Peter is already emerging as the leader of the infant church.  He reminds the members of the painful fact that it was one of their own company, Judas, that had betrayed the Lord, and assured them that was in accordance with Scripture.  We are spared the gory details of Judas' fate, but, deserved or otherwise, his death has given rise to a vacancy in the leadership group – Vestry or Ministry Team, take your pick.  He then calls for nominations, first outlying the "qualifications" required for the job, and the job description.  To be chosen a candidate would have to have been a follower of Jesus from the beginning of Jesus' ministry – one who had been with the Apostles through all that time; and the job was to witness, with the Apostles, to the resurrection of the Lord.  Presumably, he would have personally encountered the Risen Christ.  Two suitable candidates were nominated from the floor – Joseph Barsabbas (also known as Justus), and Matthias.  Notice how the choice was made: not by a secret vote by the members present, but by the drawing of lots (the tossing of a coin) guided by the Holy Spirit.

Taking It Personally.

·        How does this approach differ from that used in your church today?  What about at Diocesan level?  If you are asked to chose a Warden, a Vestry member, or a member of a Ministry Team, what criteria would you use?

·        Should each person nominated be required to speak about his or her personal encounter with Jesus – to give some indication that he or she knows Jesus personally?

·        Should each person nominated be asked to "witness to the resurrection", before the meeting proceeds to a vote?

·        At an Electoral College to choose a new bishop, would you be happy if the names of those nominated were put in a hat, the Holy Spirit was asked to show which one of the nominees he has chosen, and then a name is picked out of the hat?  Would that process be more likely, or less likely, to produce the best bishop than the present system of balloting all members?

 

1 John 5:9-13.  We are nearing the end of this letter.  Once again it seems clear that John is writing to a deeply divided community.  One (of possibly many) points of dispute between the factions clearly concerned Jesus' divinity.  John makes this the absolutely non-negotiable bottom –line.  Either you believe that Jesus is the Son of God (that is, divine, one with the Father, etc.) or you do not have eternal life.  And we know what happens to those who do not have eternal life.  They perish.  (John 3:16)

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        This is not sweet, pastoral stuff from a kindly old man who just wants everyone to get along.  This is hard-edged, black-and-white, in-your-face stuff.  You're either in or out, with us or not.  How do you feel about it?

·        Is it consistent with what he has written in 2:2 of this letter?

·        What would you say if someone close to you who is not a believer asked you to explain this passage to him/her?

 

John 17:6-19.  The same difficulties, only magnified, arise with this passage.  Here they are said to be the very words of Jesus uttered on the night before he died.  This passage certainly does not sound like the Jesus of the gospels to me.  The difficulties start a little earlier, in verse 3.  While I have often heard pray-ers telling God things that he might need to know in order to understand the context in which the petition is to be considered, it seems most unlikely that Jesus would have considered it necessary to explain to his Father exactly what is meant by "eternal life".  But that point is quite minor: for the universalists among us, the whole of today's passage must rattle a few cages.  It starts in verse 6 where we first find the expression "those whom you gave me from the world", which necessarily infers that there are others in the world whom the Father did not give to the Son.  From then on a clear distinction is made between those who belong to Christ (God) and those who belong to the world.  Clearly, this is a great prayer for the unity of believers; it is not a prayer for the unity of all humanity, much less of all creation.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Read the passage through several times, taking note of any particular word or phrase that jumps out at you.  What is your general feeling about this whole passage?

·        Read closely verses 7 and 8.  Can you truly apply them to yourself?

·        Are you one with Christ as he is one with the Father?

·        How deeply unified are the members of your faith community?

·        Do you agree or disagree that the Church is more interested in diversity than in unity?  Are those two things compatible or not?

·        In your view, if a licensed minister, lay or ordained, publicly affirmed a belief that Jesus was not divine, was not raised to life, and is not in any sense alive today, should that minister have his/her licence revoked? 

Sixth Sunday of Easter

May 10                  NOTES FOR REFLECTION             Sixth Sunday of Easter

Texts: Acts 10:44-48; 1 John 5:1-6; John 15:9-17

Theme:  From the gospel reading a good choice might be "Becoming the Friends of the Lord", which seems to me to offer a range of possible avenues to explore.  A shorter, but also interesting, option might be "From Servanthood to Friendship", if only because it would be interesting to see what any suggestion that we are no longer servants of the Lord might do to the blood-pressure of someone of a more conservative bent.  From our second lesson we might go for something bold, if not brassy, with "Faith that Conquers the World".  But once again the reading from Acts seems to me the most fertile field to plough this week.  Try "Breaking Down the Walls that Divide", or "Making the Two One".  My choice of the week is "Thinking the Unthinkable".

Introduction.  We start with a small extract from a much longer, and probably the most significant, story in the whole Book of Acts, which begins at the start of chapter 10 and comes to a formal conclusion in chapter 15.  The Spirit falls upon Gentiles, as well as Jews!  In the second lesson the elderly John is still largely repeating himself, but verses 4 and 5 add a new sharpness to this period of his teaching.  In the gospel reading we continue with the Farewell Discourse as Jesus appears to raise the status of the apostles from that of servants to that of friends.

Background.  My mind has had a rather lazy time this week; it seemed more interested in trivia than usual.  It started off musing about the Royal Birth; how appropriate it would be if the happy event occurred on 1^st May, International Labour (get it?) Day; and developed the theme by hoping the little girl would be named May, so one day she might become "May the First".  Of course, in the event her mother delayed for 24 hours, but May the Second could still be a remote possibility.  On reflection the names chosen for the new little princess are probably more suitable and certainly more domestically and politically savvy.

Midweek brought the end of the U.K. football season; at least, it did for Sheffield Wednesday, which is all that matters.  In their last game they drew against Watford, a result that cost Watford the championship, and secured 12^th-equal place for my team.  Given its performance in the last two seasons this was such a glorious achievement I fully intended to celebrate with a whole bottle of cider, but alas, the cupboard was bare.  I had consumed the last bottle celebrating the Northland by-election.  Winston can be such a mixed blessing sometimes.

Undaunted, my mind continued on its free-wheeling jaunts, this time pondering the British election campaign.  It has always loved irony, and Scottish accents, so it was revelling in the fact that the Conservative and the Labour Parties, having fought so hard against Scottish independence, and against changing the electoral system from First-Past-the-Post to some form of proportional representation, are now aghast at the possibility of a hung Parliament with the balance of power held by the Scottish National Party, led by a woman with a glorious Scottish accent! 

And, of course, what is good enough for Scotland, my roaming mind thought, ought to be good enough for the other Celtic nations suffering so grievously in the English-dominated 'United Kingdom'.  It turned what little attention it was capable of giving to Mebyon Kernow, the Party for Cornwall, and its (comparatively) charismatic leader, Dick Cole, who, as I'm sure you all know, is contesting my home constituency of Newquay and St Austell and is strongly tipped to finish in the top 5 in that seat on election day.

And then came the launch of the campaign to help us agree with our Prime Minister that the most pressing issue facing our country at the moment is the need for a new flag.  A whole parade of real Kiwis (or possibly unemployed drama students glad of any gig) are flitting across our screens inviting us to ponder what we stand for.  Still in flippant mood my first thought was "I stand for pregnant women and old ladies, but only on public transport" – and then suddenly with a sharp jolt my mind returned to its usual more serious and even logical self.

That is a very good question.  What do we stand for?  As friends of Christ, that is.  And do we friends of Christ all stand for the same thing?  And if not, why not?  If we are to have the mind of Christ, surely we should stand for the same thing, for Christ is single-minded, isn't he?  So how would it be if all of us who consider ourselves friends of Christ agreed on one answer to that question and then found someone to express that in a suitable design to be used on a new flag?  Say, an outline of New Zealand under a cross?  How would that be?

It was at this point that I realised that in all my its idle wanderings my mind kept coming across  the same word – "unthinkable".  Pundits love that word.  It was "unthinkable" that Prince William would not insist that his daughter should bear the name of his late and fabled mother, even if it had to be tucked away in third place.  It was "unthinkable" that the Scottish National Party should have power in the U.K. Parliament  to influence policy and even, horror of horrors, to determine who should be the next Prime Minister.  (It was so unthinkable that Mebyon Kernow should win any seats in Cornwall that nobody seems to have thought about it.)

So is it unthinkable that we friends of Christ should have a collective say on the design of a new flag for this country?  The logical part of my mind tells me that nothing can be unthinkable if we are thinking about it.  So what do you think?  And may I particularly address that question to my fellow Anglicans in the Diocese of Dunedin as we are about to go into yet another period of reflection on who and what we are as 21^st Century followers of Christ.

What do we stand for?  Under what flag, banner or sign do we live and move and have our being?  Do we really "lift high the cross" or do we just sing about it?

Acts 10:44-48.  When pundits want to be even more portentous than usual they substitute for the word "unthinkable" the phrase "the day the world changed for ever".  Here in this story from Acts we are probably closer to seeing the day the world changed for ever than we have been since.  Okay, it took longer than a day, but think for a moment how different the world would have been – at least the Western World – if the unthinkable hadn't been accepted by the early church and it had remained to this day a minority sect within Judaism.  That's what these chapters are all about, and in Peter we see embodied the enormous struggle that went on before God managed to convince these faithful Jews that his love was as strong for Gentiles as it was for them.  We are used to the story in chapter 9 of the king-hit that was necessary to turn Saul around; but read through this chapter 10 about Peter from the beginning and decide for yourself which of the two was the harder nut to crack. It took an angel to recruit Cornelius, who wasn't even a Jew, and two of his slaves plus one of his army subordinates just to get a message through to Peter.  Then a vision, repeated three times, was needed to convince Peter that arguing with a "voice from heaven" was not only unfaithful but ultimately futile.  Slowly the penny dropped, and Peter began to follow instructions.  This week's passage is the result.  Even Peter recognised the action of the Holy Spirit when he saw it.  But, as newly elected leaders like to say while trying not to look smug, the hard work was only just beginning.  Peter had to face down the "circumcised" in Jerusalem, and the issue presumably rumbled on until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.  (Acts 11:4 is a special favourite of mine:  Peter began to explain everything to them "step by step".  The inference seems to be that "they" were so thick and slow on the uptake, whereas he had got it first time!)

Taking It Personally.

• Notice how the fundamental change in understanding came about through spiritual manifestation(s), not through radical thinking: in that sense it was unthinkable.  I have found this whole story very helpful in considering radical changes in the practice and policy of the Church.  One female priest exercising a ministry that is clearly blessed by God is a far more convincing argument for the ordination of women than any ideological treatise based on the concept of human rights.  What do you think?
• Can you recall any issue in the Church on which your own position changed (new Prayer Book, new type of music, ordination of women, etc)?  Who or what brought you to a different view on that issue?
• Read slowly though chapter 10 and map the process through which Peter came to his new understanding.  Notice how it started around the issue of "clean" and "unclean" food at a time when he was "hungry and wanted something to eat".  What do you make of that?
• In this week's passage, the coming of the Holy Spirit precedes baptism?  What, if any, significance do you attach to that?

 

1 John 5:1-6.  In John 16:33 Jesus assures the disciples that he has "conquered" (or "overcome") the world.  Here John presumably has this thought in mind as he assures us that those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God "conquer the world".  Notice the choice of tenses in these different texts.  Jesus "has conquered", even before his death and resurrection; his believers "conquer" the world in the present.  Again, the Spirit is at work – this is a spiritual, not an intellectual, truth.  The challenge is to conquer the world daily, refusing to accept the ethos and God-denying views of the world.  To the extent that we stand and withstand in the name of Christ so we are overcoming or conquering the world.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• In what ways do you find yourself at odds with "the world" as you seek to live out your faith in Christ?
• Can you recall an incident when you stood firm in your faith – conquered or overcame the world?
• Take an issue that is "hot" at the moment.  For example, suppose you were offered a lower price by a tradesman for a "cash-only" job.  How would you respond to that offer?  Do you agree that your faith should inform your response?

 

John 15:9-17.  This passage contains some extremely difficult questions, which we usually deal with by ignoring them.  Here are some of them.  If, as we constantly tell ourselves, God's love is unconditional and unearned, what does verse 10 mean?  It seems to mean that Jesus' obedience to God has "earned" an abiding place in God's love; and likewise, IF we obey Jesus' commandments we will earn an abiding place in his love.  Verse 14 raises the same issue: our friendship with Jesus depends on our obedience.  As already noted, verse 15 seems to suggest that his disciples have been raised to the status of friend from the previous lower status of servant.  Are we not then "servants" of Christ?  And finally (for now), how does verse 16 equate with our supposed responsibility to evangelise?  Could it be that our mission is to preach, but the willingness and ability to respond is entirely due to the gift of God?  That, in fact, it is not for us to choose who should and shouldn't join us – that is God's prerogative?  Perhaps when Christ said he would build his church (Matthew 16:18) he meant it.  Certainly that would seem to fit with some of the earlier passages we have had in this Easter Season from the Book of Acts: see, for example, 4:4.  A similar idea seems to arise from 2:41-2: the new converts do not seem to have engaged in evangelism, perhaps because they have much to learn before they can preach to others.

 

Taking It Personally.   The questions, plus any of your own, are already before you.  Read through the passage slowly.  Imagine someone is asking you these questions.  What answers are you offering?