Notes for Reflection

July 19                                     NOTES FOR REFLECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking It Personally.

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

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

 

Taking It Personally.

 

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

 

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

 

Taking It Personally.

 

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