August 23 NOTES FOR
REFLECTION
Texts: Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-18; Ephesians
6:10-20; John 6:56-69
Theme:
This week it’s decision time for the Israelites (first lesson), and for
the followers of Christ (the gospel); so something like “Over to You”, or “It’s
Your Call” may provide a good theme.
What about “When All’s Said and Done”?
I’m leaning towards “Hard Teachings – Hard Choices”.
Introduction. Joshua is now an old man, close to death, and
calls the people of Israel land of Canaan Ephesus St John’s
Background. From time to time during my ministry
parishioners have raised with me their individual difficulties with particular
clauses in our Creeds, particularly the Nicene Creed. Ironically, those
provisions that the early Church struggled with for about 300 years before
coming to any sort of consensus that enabled them to issue this Creed are
rarely cited by these parishioners. I
don’t think anyone has ever asked me how we can possibly state with absolute
conviction that we believe that Jesus Christ is “of one being (or substance)
with the Father”; nor does it seem that any of them today lie awake at night
struggling to accept that he was “begotten, not made”. Most of us charge untroubled through these
phrases in the Creed – and joyously sing them in verse 2 of the great carol “O
Come All Ye Faithful”.
The
difficulties start when we affirm our belief that he “was incarnate of the Holy
Spirit and the Virgin Mary”; and they flare up again with “he ascended into
heaven”. It’s the word “Virgin” that’s
problematic, isn’t it? If only that word
had been omitted, we could easily rest in soporific complacency if we were
affirming that he “was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the woman Mary”; but
the idea of a virgin woman giving birth to a boy? “This teaching is difficult: who can accept
it?” The same might be said about the
Ascension. It’s that word that is
difficult. We could accept that Jesus
“returned to the Father”, but that “he ascended into heaven” is just too much
for many children of the space age to cope with.
“Difficult
teachings” – perhaps better known as “hard sayings” – are a constant challenge
to people who wish to take their Christian faith seriously. Sadly, many people give up the struggle and
leave the Church altogether. We seem to
have an example of this in this week’s gospel passage, and I’ll have more to
say about that later. But first a more
general overview of this issue may be helpful.
My experience suggests that there are four broad categories of these
“hard teachings”, each of which tends to elicit a particular type of
response.
I
have already touched on one of them, which we might call the science-based
difficulties. Anything supernatural can
fall into this category: in addition to the so-called virgin birth and the
ascension, the various miracles fall in this category, along with all claims
that Jesus is divine, and any suggestion of a bodily resurrection (for him or
anyone else). This category usually
elicits a response of ridicule: “how can anyone in this day and age seriously
believe that?”
The
second category concerns all claims to the uniqueness of Christ, which seems to
be mixed up with charges ranging from personal arrogance to Western imperialism
and just about everything in between.
Theologians who spend too much time in academia call this the “problem
of particularity”: here the question might be “how can one person in one
country at one time in history be of such universal and eternal
significance?” Of more urgent and
practical concern is the effect all such claims have on our relationship with
people of other faiths or of none. Here
our modern response tends to be to privatise our faith to the point where we
don’t even talk about it among our fellow believers, to abhor any form of overt
evangelism, or to adopt the pretence that all religions are basically saying
the same thing, aren’t they? In short,
this category is one happy hunting ground for political correctness.
The
third category is closely related to the second, and also is infected by
political correctness. We might call
this one “teachings about personal behaviour or ethics”. A classic example in the headlines at present
concern the apparent hacking of the Ashley Madison website set up to encourage
and facilitate marital infidelity.
Notice how this is being portrayed as a technological failure on the
part of the site managers, and a serious breach of privacy, complete with
warnings that people who pass on any of this hacked material may find
themselves in serious trouble. Few if
any, inside or outside the Church, have said anything about the sin of adultery
or the teaching against causing others to sin.
The response here is to insist that no one has the right to judge
others: what they do in their private lives is entirely up to them, etc. Who are we to judge?
The
fourth category is my personal favourite.
It includes the very many examples of teachings that condemn
materialism. Who among us has heard a sermon
on the Rich Young Ruler, ending with “Now go and do likewise”? Who has been encouraged to adopt as a memory
verse Luke 14:33? To all such teachings
on the cost of discipleship, up to and including a willingness to accept
martyrdom, love our enemies and practise or advocate pacificism, our response
is either a conspiracy of silence, or a variation on the theme of ridicule:
“Come one – get real!”
This
week may be a good time to reflect on which sayings or teachings you find
difficult, and why?
Joshua 24: 1-2a, 14-18. History is repeating itself here. The Book of Deuteronomy maps the end of
Moses’ great career as the leader of the Israelites. It leaves them poised to enter the Promised
Land, with all the mixed emotions we might expect, from excitement through to
terror. What lies ahead? How might they take possession of the land
from the peoples already living there?
After years of trying to develop a firm faith in God’s promises, doubts
would still arise. Is this a step too
far? Yet what preoccupies Moses in his
final exhortations to the people is the danger that they will turn away from
God when life becomes too easy for them in the new land. Prayer in times of war is always going to be
much more frequent and ardent than prayer in times of peace. This week we come to the end of another great
life of service and leadership, as Moses’ successor Joshua prepares to
die. The hard work has been done, as
real estate agents are fond of saying.
The Israelites have taken possession of the land, their invasion was
successfully completed, and the Lord has given them rest from all their enemies
(23:1). It is time to challenge them
again to remain faithful to God – to resist the temptation to adopt local
practices and beliefs, including the worship of Baal and other fertility
gods. Joshua is not a keen advocate of
multi-faith pluralism. The people must
choose under which flag they will live.
They affirm with him that they belong to God and will continue to
worship him alone.
Taking It Personally.
·
Review the passage as a whole in the context of the history
of Aotearoa New Zealand . What issues are there for you in this
passage? Is it helpful or otherwise to
see Pakeha as the Israelites and Maori as the Canaanites in a passage such as
this?
·
Rewrite verses 16-18 as a Creed: We
believe in the Lord our God who brought us...did great signs...protected
us...drove out... What might a
version for this country say? How do you
feel about this?
·
Reflect on your own journey with God? How might you summarise that in the form of a
Creed?
·
Finish with a prayer of commitment to serve the Lord your God
“in sincerity and faithfulness”.
Ephesians 6:10-20.
Written, it seems, from a prison cell during a time of periodic bouts of
religious persecution, we are nevertheless told that “our struggle is not
against enemies of blood and flesh”.
Rather we are caught up in spiritual warfare, but a battle that is very
much to be seen as defensive, as a resistance movement, rather than a crusade
or other offensive assault. We are to “put
on the whole armour of God” in order to “stand against”, to “withstand”, and to
“stand firm”. We are under attack, not
called to attack. Of the individual
items we are to put on or take up, only the sword is a weapon to be used
against others, and the only sword available to us is “the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God”. The whole
image of soldiery is transformed from aggression to defence.
Taking
It Personally.
·
Reflect on the expression “spiritual warfare”. How do you feel about it? As a Christian have there been times when you
felt under attack?
·
Do you find the image of the “Armour of God” helpful or
unhelpful?
·
In what sense, if any, do you feel called to resist forces
that are antagonistic to God? Is your
local faith community a centre of such resistance?
John 6:56-69. Before
pondering this week’s passage, take time to read slowly through this whole
extraordinary chapter again. Remember
that it starts with the Feeding of the Multitude (category 1 hard teaching),
culminating in the intention of the crowd to make him their king. This is followed by Jesus walking on the
water (category 1 again!). Then follows
a long passage of teaching on the theme of the Bread of Life. The first part provokes no strong reaction,
perhaps because the general feeling among the crowd is one of
bewilderment. This then starts to grow
into anger and opposition, which flares up in this week’s passage. It is in verse 60 that we find this
complaint: “This teaching is difficult: who can accept it?” It is important to notice right away who
voices this complaint. It comes not from
the crowd, nor from his opponents (the Jews), but from “many of his
disciples”. The second thing to be clear
about is the exact piece of teaching that has triggered this complaint. Whatever they may or may not have made of his
call to eat his flesh and drink his blood, the key element seems to be his
claim to have “come down from heaven”.
Verse 62 only makes sense if that is the nub of the argument. Assuming, as I believe, this whole passage
concerns a dispute that arose in the early church, it seems that the community
around the author of this gospel was split over such fundamental issues as the
divinity of Christ, of which arguments over the Eucharist may have been just one
element. Verses 66-69 bring it all into
focus. Some have found this teaching
just too difficult and have left. Where
does that leave the rest? Peter responds
with an early version of the TINA principle: There is no alternative. If we accept that Jesus speaks the divine
truth – if he has the words of eternal life – where else could we go?
Taking It Personally.
·
Go slowly though the whole chapter, making a note of the
teachings that you find hard.
·
Create a dialogue between you and an interviewer who is
asking what you do or do not believe in each part of this chapter.
·
Suppose the interviewer asks you if you believe receiving
Holy Communion is essential to eternal life, what would be your response?
·
Ponder verse 62 and verse 65.
Are they difficult teachings for you?
No comments:
Post a Comment