Archive for April, 2017


Posted: April 25, 2017 in Uncategorized

Easter 2A, 2017 John 20:19-31


An Open Ended Future

“In dealing with people, Jesus did not condemn those who questioned or doubted. While Jesus was harsh with scribes and Pharisees who claimed to have all the answers in water-tight belief containers, he was always ready to encourage the genuine doubter” (Webb 1995: 15).

Allen Dixon asked me during the week what being progressive means and my first thought was about how we as progressives might proclaim our point of difference? What is it that distinguishes our approach to Christian life? My reply to Allen in the end was chapter and verse as to what I thought it meant acknowledging that there is not simple one phrase answer to that question. I have since attempted to find a response that contains what I think are key elements that are inclusive of a variety of ‘progressive expressions. It is that I think progressives attempt to rediscover a direct engagement between scripture and the whole human experience within the timeless conversation of tradition.  Human concerns and questions are recognized and addressed in the biblical texts which know the human condition thoroughly and, simultaneously, bear witness to the holy.   The progressive teacher/preacher hosts a “sacred conversation” between all past texts and the present occasion they are read and interpreted in public.

In simple terms the progressive does not ask whether or not God exists but rather acknowledges that that which we call Mystery is a given and the progressive task is to connect the human stories of old with the human experiences of today in search of understanding acknowledging that what we search for is always Mystery.

Applying this approach to our texts for today we find that even Mary Magdalene doesn’t recognize Jesus at first. Then when the disciples heard her news they were huddled behind closed doors “for fear of the Jews.” Here we as followers of the Galilean, a northern Jew the disciples are in fear of the Judean Jews and we could say especially the Sadducees, the very Conservative and Empire collaborating Jews. Without fanfare, John writes simply, “Jesus came and stood among them….” We need to remember here that John is not deriding the faction that exists within the Jewish community but rather acknowledging the diversity of thinking that existed in Jesus time. Unfortunately over time and in defence of Christianity the Church has misinterpreted John making his story anti-Jewish. What is interesting is that some Jewish scholars now find John more pro-Jewish that even they thought.

The author of John then echoes the promise and invitation to “peace” made the last time they were all together, Jesus says: “Peace be among you.” He offers his body, in particular his hands and side, to his disciples with the words: “receive the Holy Spirit.”

Then John’s narrative abruptly jumps forward a week when the disciples are again “in the house.” And here we meet Thomas, who was absent the previous week, insisting that unless he sees and touches the wounds left by the nails in Jesus’ hands and can put his hand in the wound in Jesus’ side left by the spear, he will not believe. This point about believing would suggest a later time of writing for John in that the shift from practice as central to faith to belief as central is linked to the cultural shift that demands a more obvious identity for the Christ following movement. We noted recently this development from the sermon on the mount being about doing and the Nicaean Creed being about believing.

Jesus appears again with the same promise of “peace.” and invites Thomas to touch the wounds in his body and to “believe.”   Thomas blurts out: “My Lord and my God.” John’s narrative continues with two crucial sayings with great importance for the future. First, Jesus now offers a specific blessing for a particular group of people: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” Secondly, John pointedly writes that Jesus “did many other signs” that he did not write about, but the ones he did write about “are written so that you might come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” and that this “believing” will bring you “life in his name.”

Having wrestled with the story retold some 2 centuries later than the event and tried to acknowledge the earlier context and the context of the author we return to the very familiar story of Thomas. The lectionary reminds of this story close after Easter almost every year and in its familiarity we sometimes fail to critique it thoroughly.

Because we tend to hear it nearly every year it becomes a difficult story to tell or preach on, and the reason for this is that we all tend to assume we know the story and jump ahead to ‘our’ endings and miss the story itself. There are also a couple of strange things about this Thomas story. Strange, in that the story is often entitled ‘doubting’ Thomas, in a negative way, and this happens even though we are told that there is no such word as ‘doubt’ in the Greek! It is strange also because it assumes that asking questions is the same as raising a white flag of surrender, and can be understood as evidence of faithlessness! We progressives know that asking questions about our faith is the only way of keeping it active, alive and above all relevant despite cultural influence. Asking questions is less about being unsure and losing one’s faith and more about seeking a viable, practical faith that lives into the future. It also says that an evangelical faith is not about proclaiming a belief as unassailable truth but rather about exhibiting a wondrous, peace-filled life that speaks to others.

It was the German/American theologian Paul Tillich who in his small, blue bound book, called Dynamics of Faith, claimed that authentic faith included doubt as well as affirmation. And that questions were not a sign of faithlessness, but rather a willingness to take faith seriously. We progressives would say that our faith walk has to be one of intellectual integrity. Doubt is a prerequisite and parking one’s thinking brain at the door is not a faith journey. Others have followed Tillich’s lead, such as Val Webb in her excellent book of some years back: In Defence of Doubt.  An Invitation to Adventure. And as we have explored the progressive study resource called ‘Living the Questions.

Returning again to the story Rex Hunt commented on some things he hadn’t noticed in earlier years. One of these was that the storyteller we call John sets his interpreted story within a particular community which was experiencing debates on mission strategy, leadership issues, and discipleship. This raises the point that Thomas does not receive a blessing as do the other disciples, despite his so-called faith statement? This is an unexpected realisation. The second thing Rex noted was that the storyteller John seems to be making it fairly clear that the faith which marks a true disciple relies on the witness of others rather than a personal experience of the Christ.  (Jenks FFF Web site, 2008)

A true disciple is in the place where they can practice belonging, practice hospitality, practice respect, practice humility, practice conversation and disagreement (Bessler-Northcutt 2004). Faith is a safe place in the company of others, and that place is a place where we can be shaped and reshaped by our questions and our search.

Greg Jenks from Faith-Futures Foundation, puts it another way: He says: “Faith depends on accepting the witness of others, not in securing a personal miracle that removes all opportunity for doubt.”  (Jenks FFF Web site, 2008)

Rex acknowledges that he had not heard that before in this story. And then he suggests that the third thing he heard, is what some claim is the underlying theme running throughout the whole of John’s collection of stories: namely; that we experience the creative, transforming power of God routinely, quietly moving through life, our life, not as an, other-worldly, supernatural, experience but as an everyday routine experience. Bruce Epperly of Process & Faith notes it as often subtle, unpredictable and evasive. “It is less like a hammer on the head than it is a gentle prod”, he says: “a tickle, sometimes as gentle as a feather, touching each moment into being.”  (Epperly/P&F Web site, 2008)

These are wonderful images that transform faith from a ‘what if’ ‘tit for tat’ sort of contract into a shared, co-creative experience born out of the positive potential of questioning and thus out of doubt.

I have told this particular story before but I think it bears retelling.

During his 1990 Edward Cadbury Lecture given in the University of Birmingham, England, Brazilian Rubem Alves told a story of a boy who found the body of a dead man washed up on the edge of a seaside village. There is only one thing to do with the dead: they must be buried. In that village it was the custom for the women to prepare the dead for burial, so the women began to clean the body in preparation for the funeral. As they did, the women began to talk and ponder about the dead stranger.

He was tall… and would have had to duck his head to enter their houses. His voice… was it like a whisper or like thunder. His hands… they were big. Did they play with children or sail the seas or know how to caress and embrace a woman’s body. The women laughed “and were surprised as they realised that the funeral had become resurrection: a moment in their flesh, dreams, long believed to be dead, returning… their bodies alive again”.  (Alves 1990: 23)

The husbands, waiting outside, and watching what was happening, became jealous of the drowned man as they realised he had power which they did not have.

And they thought about the dreams they had never had…

Alves ends this part of the story by telling that they finally buried the dead man. But the village was never the same again.

This suggests that to know the reality of resurrection is to experience it. Not as some doctrine which involves belief in a supposedly empty tomb. Or an insistence on the literal historicity of the biblical stories.

Again Bruce Epperly says: “we all experience it by simply being alive, and going through all the normal, routine transformations of human growth and love and death”.   (Epperly, P&F Web site, 2008)

So, the good news of Easter, is not the so-called final scene as it is in fairy tales that says everyone ‘lives happily ever after’. Nor is it the horrific death at the hands of betrayal and evil but rather it is the beginning of an open-ended future. The faith moment, the wondrous infectious experience is the moment in our flesh, when dreams long believed to be dead, return, and our bodies – individually and as a church community – are alive again.


Notes: Alves, R. 1990.  The Poet, The Warrior, The Prophet. London. SCM Press/Trinity Press. Bessler-Northcutt, J. 2004.  “Learning to See God: Prayer and Practice in the wake of the Jesus Seminar” in (ed) R. W. Hoover. The Historical Jesus Goes to Church. Santa Rosa. Polebridge Press Webb, V. 1995.  In Defense of Doubt. An Invitation to Adventure. St Louis. Chalice Press.

When We Get Past The Joke!

Posted: April 25, 2017 in Uncategorized

When We Get Past The Joke!

Palm Sunday 9.4.2017

Matthew 21: 1-4, 6-11

All three synoptic gospels contain the story of Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem, but only Matthew cites the passage in Zechariah 9:9 as providing the prophetic backdrop for the Triumphal Entry. Matthew’s rendering of the passage from Zechariah includes the parallelism reflected in the phrases “humble and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” This parallelism leads to the very strange picture in verse 7 of the disciples putting their clothes on both the donkey and its colt and Jesus riding on both. It may be that the author misunderstood the nature of Hebrew poetic parallelism, which repeats an idea in different words, giving “sense rhyme” rather than “auditory rhyme.” On the other hand, the author may have pushed his narration almost to the edge of common sense (he doesn’t explicitly say how Jesus rode the two animals) in order to emphasize the parallels between prophecy and fulfilment in the life of Jesus.

Another dualism in the message is of course the dueling processions: Jesus was approaching Jerusalem from the east. Bethphage is just to the east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives is just east of the Temple. Here again we have the connection with the tradition. The Mount of Olives was, in Israel’s Sacred Memory, the place from which an assault on Israel’s enemies was to begin (Zech 14: 2-4). We note also that the direction of approach is significant for at least two reasons: (1) Coming to the city from the Mount of Olives is a prophetic and eschatological image, and (2) there were two processions into Jerusalem during the time of passover; one–the procession of the Roman army–came from the west; the other–those with Jesus–came from the east. The Roman army was coming to maintain order during passover, a time when the population of Jerusalem would swell from around 50,000 to well over 200,000–both conservative estimates. Moreover, passover was a celebration of liberation from Pharoah in Egypt, and Rome was uneasy about the anti-imperial message of this association.

The Romans were headquartered at Caesarea Maritima, a city built by Herod the (so-called) Great to honour Caesar Augustus and make money for himself. Herod built monuments to Caesar at every opportunity. Caesar Augustus was Octavian, Julius Caesar’s nephew and adopted son. During the Roman civil war, Herod had been an ally of Octavian’s enemy, Mark Antony. Shifting his loyalty to Octavian after Antony’s defeat was a nifty piece of political footwork on Herod’s part, and may also have added to Herod’s ebullient enthusiasm for all things Octavian. He even named the harbour Sebastos, which is Greek for “Augustus.” Sebastos was one of the finest harbours in the world. It was constructed over a 12 year period (25-13 BC) and was state-of-the-art for its day, rivaling both Athens and Alexandria. It was used primarily for the export of agricultural products from the region–or, to put it another way, it provided an efficient harbour for the plunder of the region–and could also be used to supply the Roman Army in case of war with Parthia.

The procession of the Roman army from Caesarea Maritima to Jerusalem would have been an imposing sight–Legionnaires on horseback, Roman standards flying, the Roman eagle prominently displayed, the clank of armour, the creek of leather, the stomp of feet, and beating of drums. The procession was designed to be a display of Roman imperial power. The message here is that resistance is futile!

The counter-demonstration of Jesus came from the east, the opposite direction. Jesus comes to the city not in a powerful way, but in a ludicrously humble way, inciting not fear, as in the Roman procession, but cheering crowds who clear his way and hail his presence. We should not underestimate the significance of this picture. Sarcasm and irony are often the only mechanisms available for the oppressed to express themselves. The procession of Jesus creatively mocks the Roman procession.

G K Chesterton captures Palm Sunday from the perspective of the donkey that Jesus rode.

G.K. Chesterton (1874–1936)

The Donkey

When fishes flew and forests walked And figs grew upon thorn, Some moment when the moon was blood Then surely I was born;

With monstrous head and sickening cry And ears like errant wings, The devil’s walking parody On all four-footed things.

The tattered outlaw of the earth, Of ancient crooked will; Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb, I keep my secret still.

Fools! For I also had my hour; One far fierce hour and sweet: There was a shout about my ears, And palms before my feet.


Looking at the available texts we see that Mark has three predictions which are mirrored in Matthew (16:21-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19), each with some Matthean additions. In the first prediction, Matthew adds to Mark a statement about the necessity of going to Jerusalem (16:21): “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem.” (Jesus doesn’t actually head south until 19:1.) In our text for Palm Sunday, he has arrived. But there is an important thing to note and it is that just before he makes his final approach to Jerusalem, Jesus sends two people into a nearby village. The two disciples are instructed to go into the village and, as soon as they get there, they “will find a donkey tied and a colt with her.” They are to take this donkey and colt. If anyone were to ask them about it, they are to give the “secret password” and say, “The Lord has need of them.” Here we have an indication that there is a network of Jesus supporters operating “under the radar.” Moreover, this network of Jesus supporters reaches even to a village just outside Jerusalem. The Galilee-based Jesus movement reaches even into Judea, even to the very gates of the city of Jerusalem itself!

In this passage, Matthew, for the first time, directly associates Jesus as king. (The magi were looking for the “king of the Jews” in 2:3, but here the association is more explicit.) Jesus is treated as a royal figure throughout. He doesn’t get on the donkey. He is “sat” on it by others. Therefore, when Jesus’ secret followers in the nearby village hear that “the Lord needs them,” from Matthew’s perspective, that is enough to say.

We recall here that Jesus is to ride two animals and maybe at once: And this had happened so that it might be fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, “Speak to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek, and mounted upon a donkey, and upon a colt, a son of a beast of burden.” And the disciples went and did just as Jesus appointed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and they placed the garments upon them, and they sat him upon (them). Two animals have a significance to the story.

What Matthew has done here is insert the twelfth of fourteen “quotation formulas” from the Old Testament: “Speak to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek, and mounted upon a donkey, and upon a colt, a son of a beast of burden.” The quote appears to be a combination of Isaiah 62:11 (“speak to the daughter of Zion”) and Zechariah 9:9 (the rest). This (mostly) Zechariah text is the interpretive centre of the passage. And from that Zechariah text, Matthew leaves out the phrase “triumphant and victorious is he.” Jesus is obviously not going to be that kind of king, at least not yet. As Matthew recounts it, the quote accents the humility and meekness of Jesus.

In referring to both a donkey and a colt–“humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey”–Zechariah was using a grammatical device known as “hendiadys,” which means expressing a single idea with two nouns. This parallelism is quite common in Hebrew poetry. For example: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path”. (Ps. 119: 105) The statement expresses one thought in two complementary ways.

At this point scholarly opinion is all over the place. Some say that Matthew flat misses the parallelism. Others say he knows about it but ignores it. In any case, Matthew does clearly refer to two animals, both a donkey and a colt.

Some have cited this as evidence that Matthew didn’t really understand the Hebrew language or the Hebrew people, but there is no evidence of this and it is reasonable sure that Matthew was Jewish, and knew full well about Hebrew poetry and the parallelism in Zechariah. He also knew full well that Mark, his source, clearly has only one animal involved in Jesus’ procession. Therefore, Matthew was deliberate in making the change to two animals–“and he sat on them” (epekathisen epano auton).

When he quotes from the Old Testament, Matthew like most Hebrew scholars feels free to tweak the texts he quotes in order to suit his purposes. This is not the style of a literalist. What we are left with is that Matthew quite obviously refers to two animals and everybody since has been scratching their head over why. Most likely, it was to underscore the fulfilment of the Zechariah text–not just one fulfilment, in other words, but a double one! Matthew knows full well that Jesus did not ride two animals at once and he doesn’t care. His point is not historical precision, but theological insight. His point is that “your king comes to you,” which is the fulfilment, in a complete and total way, of the prophetic Zechariah text.

Lets return to the entrance: We find a very great crowd spreading their garments in the way, and others were cutting down branches from the trees and were spreading them in the way. And the crowds, the ones going before him and the ones following, were crying out, saying, “Hosanna to the son of David. Blessed (is) the one coming in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.” And when he entered into Jerusalem, all the city was shaken, saying, “Who is this?” And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.” Matthew anticipates the Hollywood “red carpet” by about two millennia. He shifts focus to the action of the crowds–“a very great crowd” spread both garments and branches onto Jesus’ path. In 2 Kings 9:13, strewing cloaks onto the path was a sign of royal homage. The crowd, by strewing cloaks onto his path, is treating Jesus as a royal and kingly figure, which is further underlined by their comparison of Jesus to the Great King David.

We notice here that Jesus was not welcomed by the people of Jerusalem. The noisy crowd is not composed of Jerusalem city dwellers, but rather “the ones going before him and the ones following.” Most likely, this refers to the disciples and those who joined the movement along the way to Jerusalem.

The composition of the crowd is suggested when Jesus actually enters into Jerusalem, Matthew says that “all the city was shaken.” Seio means moved, shaken to and fro, with the idea of shock or concussion. It’s the word for earthquake, and where we get our word “seismic.” An earthquake will also occur at the death of Jesus (27:54). The city shook with fear when Jesus was born (2:3)–Now, the place is roiled, shaken, and shocked when he enters as an adult.

Here we have a dialog between the city and the crowds. The city asks the question: “…all the city was shaken, saying, “Who is this?” The crowds answer that this is “the prophet Jesus.” In doing so, they are fulfilling the text of the prophet, Zechariah. They are telling “the daughter of Zion,” which is Jerusalem, who comes.


The crowds’ assessment is said to be lacking by many scholars because the crowds only identify Jesus as “prophet” and not as “king”–the assumption being that “king” is a higher title than “prophet.” Is a political title really higher than a Biblical and spiritual one? We have a question of Matthew here. Would that have been his point of view?

The crowds are also providing some cover for Jesus. The high regard in which the crowds hold Jesus, particularly as prophet, prevents the political authorities from arresting him in public (21: 46). Yet, we also know that this is also the city that kills the prophets (23:37), and we are under no illusions as to what will come next.

In summary then we have the entry linked to the tradition of the ancients, we have the use of Hebrew parallelisms to communicate the entry and Jesus to the tradition and we have the clear subversive political challenge of the mocking of Rome. And we have this set within the subversive network of Jesus followers.

The environment for this show is the other factor in the dramatic story about palm Sunday We need to remember that at the time Palestine was an occupied country.  It was ruled by the Romans. Nobody wanted them there. So Jerusalem was something like Paris during World War Two. People hated the Romans, despite the collaborators. And even the collaborators hated the Romans.

Jerusalem was a big city. There were at least 50,000 people lived in the city, and some people estimate it was a lot larger than that. At Passover each year, thousands more people would come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. The population would swell to four times its normal size… maybe more. Passover was so important, and so ingrained, that the Romans couldn’t stop it happening. It was easier to let it happen and try and manage things.

What is the resistance the Jesus movement was up against? Why would Rome want to stop the Passover? Well, let’s remember what it was about. It was about Israel being set free from Egypt. It was about God rescuing the chosen people from the overlords, and from Pharaoh, King of Egypt. We don’t have to be a genius to work out that at each Passover festival some firebrands would be suggesting that maybe a new Moses was going to arise, and with the help of God, set Israel free from the new overlords. This Passover, remember in Hebrew thinking is actually the revisiting of the stories from the past not just a symbolic remembrance. those wild preachers would say with some degree of certainty, God will set us free from the Romans.

The Romans would know the significance of this way of thinking even if not fully understanding it so, to make sure nothing got out of hand, the Romans would boost the Jerusalem garrison each Passover. The Romans had their base at a port called Caesarea, which was to the north west of Jerusalem. To avoid the mountains, they would march down the coast from Caesarea and then cross over into Jerusalem from the west.

Maybe you can begin to see what was happening. Each year at Passover, there was already a big procession into Jerusalem. What better challenge than to have an alternative and a sarcastic mocking of that tradition and its attending power assumptions. The two processions gave people a choice about which procession to follow, and highlights the fact that we too have a choice. In This case it is empire or people.

The authorities understood what Jesus was saying because he was dead in a week. The question is will we laugh at what he did, and just enjoy his street theatre, just treating it as one more episode of The Chaser, to be forgotten by next week. Or… even though there will be “Thursday nights” when we desert him, and fail him, are we going to see the message and follow him? Amen.

Life After Death.

Posted: April 25, 2017 in Uncategorized


Life After Death.

John 11: 1-45

2nd April 2017


The story of the raising of Lazarus brings us back to the overarching question – can there be life again in stale, barren places? In all the death and dryness that sometimes surrounds us, can hope live and breathe and resurrect through Jesus Christ? We note that this is an intriguing story that brings Jesus face to face with a very personal grief. In the gospel stories, the only individuals who are singled out as ‘loved by Jesus’ are the family in Bethany, Mary, Martha and Lazarus, and the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’.

This is not to claim that Jesus did not personalize faith because there is no doubt that, Jesus ‘loved his own’, had compassion on the crowds and called his followers to love each other, but here is a more intimate scene. He endures a personal grief in the death of Lazarus.

The story begins with Mary and Martha’s brother Lazarus who was weak. He was unwell. And they inform Jesus by saying “Lord, you know who you love is weak.”   You know who you love is the key to the personal relationship that exists between Jesus and the family, and Jesus responds by saying, “This weakness is not to death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God might be glorified through it.” Jesus’s response is pastoral, comforting and supportive of their plight. Jesus was loving Martha and her sister and Lazarus and he remained with them for two days.

Jesus’ response to the message is reminiscent of what he said about the man born blind in chapter 9.  In that case, the man was born blind “so that God’s works might be revealed in him.”  In the case of Lazarus, his sickness is for “the glory of God, so that the Son of God might be glorified through it.” In the sisters’ message, they had referred to Lazarus as “he whom you love.”  The word is phileis–“friendship love.”  The narrator informs us in verse 5 that Jesus “loved” the three siblings.  The word here is egapa–unconditional love.  Jesus loves Lazarus more than his sisters know.  (This is odd:  Here, Mary is the one who is referred to indirectly–Jesus “loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”)

Even more odd, Jesus hangs around for another two days “in the place where he was”–presumably, “across the Jordan.”  No two ways about it, this seems cold.  On the other hand, we’ve already been told that Jesus loves Lazarus unconditionally.  Even though he seems to delay unnecessarily for two days, he also seems unperturbed, and also seems to know exactly what he is going to do.  The reader’s trust level in Jesus is, somewhat paradoxically, enhanced.

Another supporting claim for the intimacy of the relationship and for the claim for Jesus being the outsider as he was in the woman at the well story, the word “Lazarus” comes from the Hebrew eleazer.  “Lazarus” is believed to be a Galilean pronunciation of Eleazar, indicating that Lazarus and his sisters were likely “Galileans.”  We also remind ourselves here that to be a Galilean in the fourth gospel was not determined solely by geography.  To be a Galilean means to share a “Galilean” frame of mind. Here we have the basis for many Jews to see Jesus as the crazy Galilean with an affinity for Samaritans.  Thus the fourth gospel can be said to be an argument between a Galilean and Judean worldview.  The Judean view represents that of the empire, what Walter Wink calls “the powers.”  I would suggest that part of the problem is that the Judean view had to deal with the merger of empire with temple and thus the Galilean point of view is that exemplified by Jesus–a new world of equality, mercy, justice, and true life. Part of our problem is that here was also the seeds for the anti- Jewish sentiment that Christendom was later to become corrupted with.

We note here also the continuing argument for the sacredness of the everyday. Like the claim a couple of weeks ago that it is the ordinary, everyday water, the water we take for granted that is the living sacred water. We find that the fourth gospel uses two words for “life.”  One is bios.  Bios is day-to-day physical life—or “the phenomenon of life in its outward manifestation,” according to John Sanford.  The current way of life is bios.  The empire is bios.  Bios life dies.

The other word is Zoe and Zoe is “saved” life, God’s life–with both an inner, mystical element, and an outward connection to Life itself.  Zoe is Jesus, according to the fourth gospel.  “I am the resurrection and the life,” he will say in today’s lection.

Here we have the clear setting of the scene which is the debate at one level between the meaning of words and at the other level, the everyday life that is at the same time spiritual and sacred. Lazarus, we are told, is sick.  The word is astheneo.  In psychology, the word “asthenia” has the sense of lassitude, without energy–“weakness,” defined broadly.  The word had this same sense in the first century.  It appears five times in the first six verses.

Another thing to note here is that we have not yet been introduced to Mary, yet she is referred to here as if we already knew the story that comes in the following chapter.  In chapter twelve, Mary of Bethany applied an extravagant ointment to Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair. What about Martha, her sister, Is she being placed in a slightly secondary position to Mary?  Their home, Bethany, is described as the “village of Mary and her sister Martha.”

In the chapter previous to this one, Jesus had been in Jerusalem, but, under threat of arrest, Jesus left Jerusalem and hid out “across the Jordan” (10:40).  Jesus’ specific location is not mentioned, but Mary and Martha seem to know where he is.  Underground movements often have their own methods of communication.  They send a message to Jesus in which they tell Jesus that Lazarus is sick.  They make no request, however, for him to come to Bethany, perhaps because Bethany is only two miles outside of Jerusalem.  Bethany is in the heart of Judea–a place which, for Jesus, is very dangerous.

Then after this, he was saying to the disciples, “We may go into Judea again.”  The disciples are saying to him, “Rabbi, just now the Judeans were seeking to stone you, and again you are going there?”  Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?  If a certain one might walk around in the day, that one is not stumbling, for that one sees the light of this world.  But if a certain one might walk in the night, that one stumbles, for the light is not in them.”

These things, he said, and after this, he was saying to them, “Lazarus, our friend, has been sleeping, but I go so that I wake him.”  Then his disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has been sleeping, he will be saved.”  But Jesus answered concerning his death, but they seemed he is speaking concerning the rest of sleep.  Then Jesus said to them openly, “Lazarus is dead, and I rejoice through you so that you might trust.  But we go to him.” Then Thomas, the one called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, “We go, and you, so that we may die with him.”

The disciples are unnerved at the idea of returning to Judea.  They had only recently escaped Judea by the skin of their teeth, and now Jesus wants to go back?  John again plays with the darkness and light motif when in chapter 9, he has Jesus say that, while he is in the world, he is the “light of the world” (9: 5).  This indicates that there will be a time when he is not “in the world.”  This will be “night.”  Staying faithful will be difficult in that circumstance.  But, for now, he is “in the world.”  His followers are able to follow him, even into treacherous situations, while he is with them.

Jesus identifies Lazarus as “our friend.”  This, incidentally, is the first indication that the disciples even knew who Lazarus is.  Lazarus has “fallen asleep.”  The disciples make the common-sense point that, if all he is asleep, “he will be all right.”

It could as well–and perhaps better–be translated this way:  “Lord, if he has been sleeping, he will be saved.”  The word is sothesetaisozo, in its future passive form.  In the fourth gospel, sozo, when used by Jesus, means spiritual salvation.  Here, however, it is used by the disciples, and seems to indicate a recovery from illness.  Both uses of the word are acceptable, although its usage here is an indication that, as per usual in the fourth gospel, Jesus is speaking on one level, where everybody else is thinking more concretely. Asleep means not awake verses asleep means dead.

We note also here that prior to the resurrection of Jesus, there are seven “signs” in the fourth gospel.  If the number seven is the number of God–the number of completion and wholeness–then the seven signs of the fourth gospel, taken together, give us a complete picture of Jesus.  (After Easter, there is an additional sign, the eighth one, which is a sign of the new creation.)

The first sign is the wedding at Cana where Jesus revealed his “glory” and his disciples “faithed” in him.  The story of the raising of Lazarus is the seventh “sign.”  In this seventh “sign,” God is “glorified” and the disciples will “faith.”  The seven “signs” begin and end in “glory” and “faith.”

The disciples had resisted going back to Judea.  Thomas says that, yes, they will go with him, but, rather fatalistically, expects the journey not to end well.  In fact, he supposes that all of them will die with Jesus, a not unreasonable assumption.  As the story progresses, however, there is no mention of the disciples actually being with him as he goes to Bethany, and, indeed, they appear not to have gone.  The next time we see the disciples, it is verse 54, and they are “out in the wilderness.”

Back to our story and we find that when Jesus arrives, he is told that Lazarus has been dead–“in the tomb”–for four days.  He is thoroughly dead, in other words.  Moreover, Judeans are at the home of Martha and Mary.  The Judeans are professional mourners who were hired to come in and do the job of mourning with the family.  These Judeans are “the death people,” you might say.

Martha goes out to meet Jesus.  This would seem to say, somewhat contrary to verse 17, that Jesus wasn’t all the way in to Bethany.  We are not told how Martha knows that Jesus is in the vicinity.  Nor are we told why Martha goes to meet him while Mary stayed home.  One wonders:  Is Jesus’ visit a secret?  Does he not want the Judeans to know where he is?  Is Mary staying at home with the mourners in order to provide cover for Martha to leave?  Does Mary even know that Jesus is near?

Jesus’ conversation with Martha is also odd.  Martha expresses faith is Jesus’ ability to ask God for special favours.  Jesus replies that Lazarus–“your brother”–will rise again, most likely an indication of what he is about to do.  The fourth gospel has already told us that “the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out (5: 28-9).”  Martha, however, responds with a statement of belief in the general resurrection “on the last day,” a rather typical pharisaic belief of the time.  What about Jesus’ ability to raise someone right now?

Jesus said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life.  The one trusting into me, if that one might die, that one will live, and anyone living and trusting into me might surely not die forever.  Do you trust this?”  She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I have trusted that you are the Christ, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.”  Jesus responds with the divine name–ego eimi, “I am.”  “I am the resurrection and the life”–zoe life. He goes on to explicate both resurrection and life.  Those who “trust” (pisteuein) will live again even if they die, and those who “live” and “trust” will not die at all.  Zoe life is not only “life eternal,” but true life–the essence of life, the Life Principle itself–right now.

At the same time, death literally hangs in the air in this text.  Lazarus is already dead, the “death people” are wailing, but Martha has somehow freed herself from that process, that which is expected of her for a time in order to be with Jesus.  The fourth gospel is again raising the pressure in the confrontation between death and life.

For the Johannine community reading this text, c. AD 90 or later, the persecution of Christians had already begun.  It was sporadic and localized, yes, but also brutal.  The Emperor, Nero c. AD 65, had used Christians as human torches, after all, and Emperor Domitian would soon ratchet up these persecutions another notch.  Trusting in the Lord’s ability to bring life out of death would have been a crucial aspect of discipleship for a beleaguered religious minority.

Can there be life again in stale, barren places? In all the death and dryness that sometimes surrounds us, can hope live and breathe and resurrect through Jesus Christ? We who follow Jesus would like to think that is true and say that all the texts we know off in some way speak to that call to be an embodiment of hope in stale or scary places, to hear the cries of our brothers and sisters, to breathe life into the body of Christ by living fully like Jesus did.

There is a story I want to leave you with that I think speaks in to the place between the spiritual and the concrete, that perhaps approached the question of how the Jesus of thousands of years ago can speak to us today. It is a story of the parents who, angling for a bit more time with their coffee and papers, offered their young daughter a puzzle to put together. On one side of an insert of the paper was a current map of the world, so they cut it up and told her they would go out for a walk as soon as she’d put the puzzle together. Fairly happy with themselves, they settled down with their second cup. Two minutes later she came back and said the puzzle was finished. ‘How did you manage that so quick?’ they said. ‘It was easy she said. There was a person on the other side of the page, so I put the person together and the world followed.’


Life begins with relationships – listening, waiting with each other, realising that we are part of something so much bigger. If we are to bring life, justice, healing – hope, then we need to begin with ourselves and the possibilities our changed lives may bring to the world. Yes, there can be life again in stale, barren places? Yes, in all the death and dryness that sometimes surrounds us, hope can live and breathe and resurrect through Jesus Christ? Amen.

Blind from Birth

Posted: April 25, 2017 in Uncategorized

Blind from Birth

March 26th, 2017

Ephesians 5:8-14; John 9:1-14


“As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” — John 9:5

I was reading a sermon on our text by Robert Hamerton-Kelly this week and I have unashamedly used some of his material because I thought it was interesting. His sermon was written in 2008 so some of it is out of date but some key points are worth revisiting.

We begin with that old bugbear Original Sin and we acknowledge that very few of us thinking people accept the doctrine today even if we agree that the human species is not perfect but rather yet to be fully realized. Being human is an evolutionary journey that is not yet complete thus the definition of being a sinful, fallen being has nothing to do with our origins but rather the recognition that we have a way to go to be better human beings. Our reading this morning from John presents a statement that the man in question was blind from birth, that is, that his was an original blindness. Blindness from birth is as radical a visionary affliction as there is and easily distorted be naming it as an original sin outcome. Sins of the fathers and all that.

Prof Bill Newsome, an authority on the neuroscience of perception, suggested that a blindness that has never, ever seen, can only be overcome by a laying of all kinds of physiological and anatomical foundations anew. We are reminded at this point of the phenomenon of Helen Keller who went blind and deaf before the age of one year, and although consequently aphasic as well, could write an autobiography full of vivid visual imagery. Her loving mentor Annie Sullivan must have mediated the world to her, which is remarkable enough, but if she had never seen at all, had been blind from birth it would have been impossible, for her to perceive what she wrote about.

This raises the question: is there more to perception than the sense of sight alone, and by extension, the other senses? Is it possible to enjoy not extra-sensory perception but para-sensory perception, that is that the perceptual process, which is a function of the brain, is not wholly dependent on the eyes? Who says it is a law of nature that perception must go only through the senses? As we learn more about the brain so we learn that the 19th century scientistic fundamentalism, of the kind Richard Dawkins and others represent, might actually be wrong and misleading.

Much of the new discoveries about the brain and how it works leads us into greater complexity as to how it works and asks serious questions about our previous assumptions about what truth is and how we use it. I don’t intend to spend too much more time on the science of this other than to say that the brain and how it works is a fascinating subject and our understanding of what it is to be human is developing at a rapid rate. In regard to our topic today it is suffice to say that the recently emerging new understanding of processes of perception in the brain and their unsteady link to the senses, are a watch this space phenomenon.

The point we return to here that Jesus can enlighten the dark world of one born blind, that is, in metaphorical mode, Jesus, the light of the world, is the antidote to this perceived, congenital darkness of the world. Despite the limitedness of dualism the imagery in both our lessons uses the fundamental symbols of light and darkness to express good and evil, and in the Gospel, the symbol of darkness is the man born blind, that is originally blind, and the symbol of light is Jesus Christ the light of the world.

We choose this one point to focus on out of the many one might treat in such a rich passage, the darkness of congenital blindness and the man who is the light of the world. Darkness then, especially in the human form of radical blindness, is a vivid symbol of self-deception. Self-deception being the choice to concretize an understanding or to remove it from critique. The Gospel suggests in original sin type of thinking that we are radically self-deceived from the day of our birth, that darkness, in the sense of a fundamental fraudulence about who we are and what the world we live in is like, is historically speaking our “natural state.” This of course goes to our understanding of what it is to be human and I would want to suggest that both the darkness and the light is our natural state and not just the darkness. and that the metaphor is about us being afraid to engage with the light. To leave the womb of darkness, to enter the path of evolution and development. And it is this fear that is the fallen-ness we know and struggle against as human beings.

To add to this discussion we remember that we are in lent and heading toward Easter and the meaning of the cross. This immediately introduces another blindness so to speak. The blindness that appears to be original or part of the natural state of being human, the propensity for violence. We face the question not as to whether there “is a link between the Cross and the violence of the 21st century but rather “What is the link?” because we can assume such a link, as it seems the gospel does, and more than that, we have to deal with the idea that the Cross on which a young man is being tortured to death by church and state together, is the first true word to be spoken about who we are, not “they” but “we,” you and I. Another choice of darkness over light, another avoidance of our limitations that we can slot away into the too hard basket by naming it Original sin and thus unchangeable.

Hamerton-Kelly writes of his view of the American situation in 2008 and he calls his talk, “From Golgotha to Guantanamo,” or “From Joseph Caiaphas to Dick Cheney,” and he suggests through their own American Caiaphas, they are torturing and blaspheming the living Christ as he dies right then under the weight of their congenital sin, which is scapegoating violence. We might want to locate today’s violence in the area of globalization of economies, global movements of refugees and world migration. Pressure are on economies to rationalize taxation policies to deal with online and multinational companies and to provide infrastructure that copes with movement of peoples and integration of cultures and social difference.

“In as much as you have done it to the least of these my brothers you have done it to me” (Matthew 25:40 &45), is not a metaphor, or symbol, but a spiritual fact; when we torture hurt others or cause others pain we hold the Risen Christ on the cross, we engage in violence. So this Lent when we look on the Cross and think “violence” we also reflect on what happens for people who commit violence. Evidence seems to suggest that in many cases people lose their souls, shrivel up and die long before their biological system stops working. Clearly the image, of a young man in the throes of being tortured to death, is one of the central iconic proclamations of our faith, and that image says that the Christian revelation is primarily a revelation to a self-deluded species, unrealistic about the fact that we potentially, are violent to the core and have throughout human history got some strange sort of satisfaction by torturing people to death, and it is a revelation of who God is, namely, the opportunity and potential that we do not have to succumb to that way of settling our differences. Nor do we need to avail ourselves of a need for a scapegoat to do it for us.

The call is to see that the need to avoid confronting our own failures as a species is not alleviated by a scapegoat, nor is it dealt with by ignoring it and choosing the safety of the darkness. The choice of the darkness is to choose to be like those who are blind from birth, and who are they? They are you and I, unoriginal sinners. None of us are able to avoid the light and sit in darkness, none of us can wallow in our self-esteem because it just might be self-delusion, and self-delusion is to give in to the natural reaction to all threats and all challenges which is to use violence of some sort to seek self-esteem

The challenge for us is to accept our congenital blindness, not congratulating ourselves because we can see no evil nor hear any evil, especially of ourselves, but rather being self-aware enough to see the light of the world, and I hear the Calvary cry of pain both as the agony of our cruel race as well as our own personal responsibility and seek not to rage against others or pass on the violence we receive by some miraculous reorganization of responsibility.

We resist seeing ourselves as we really are because we hide in the sacrifice of others. violence. We sit in the dark. ”Don’t bother I’ll just sit here in the dark” and because we think there is no alternative, we call the darkness light. If all we have is darkness our religion will take the form of so much hyper-moralistic exhortation aimed at others,

Last week we spoke of the living water as the water that is not some magical water that stands above life but rather the very water that we take for granted, the water of our everyday and it is that that made it precious and sacred. We also suggested that the Samaritan woman see who Jesus really was. Hamerton-Kelly offers a story that pulls all these themes together under the umbrella of awakening to the light.

“Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as a crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, through the middle of the street of the city; also on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. There shall no more be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall worship him; they shall see his face, and his name shall be on their foreheads. And night shall be no more; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they shall reign forever and ever.” Jesus said, “As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world (John 9:5).” “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).”

So the challenge this lent is to see the light of the Cross as a revelation of who you are and who God is for you, and rejoice, for there is no greater love than what is realized there. There is no need to hide from our reality in our moralistic pride or in the darkness of our self-congratulation. We are all that one born blind and Jesus has applied the mud he made with his spittle to our sightless eyes, and we can see, for the very first time. Amen.

Lent 3A, 2017 John 4: 5-42

Water! The Creative, Transforming God…

Over the last few days and weeks we in New Zealand have been reminded just how fortunate we are compared to some other countries. We have experienced some downpours of rain that have challenged our infrastructure and cause havoc among many lives. Thank fully loss of live has been minimal and in most cases confined to livestock trapped in the sudden deluge. These events have reminded us again just how fortunate we are to be a nation with water aplenty. The blessing of this is highlighted when we think of our nearest neighbour Australia with its vast dry deserts. One of the driest continents on earth, where water is a precious commodity. In fact it would be fair to say that water is everything. Water is life…

You might even remember here the words of the Baptism liturgy where we spend quite a number of words on water with a focus on the active, dynamic symbol of water. We might also make connections with the middle east, the birthplace of Jesus and make connections also with the precious nature of water in a dry climate. We might also perhaps remember that too much water has powerful destructive potential be it in New Zealand a land of plenty water or Australia a land with less. We might also note that the story we heard this morning from the storyteller we call John uses the symbol of water and then that we are in the middle of the season called Lent, which begins with stories around a time in the desert, a place of little to no water,
When we explore this in its context a bit we might see that like Australia Galilee is one perhaps not the driest but of close to a driest inhabited place on earth, and so we might say they have some inkling of how precious water is. Australian maps boldly show some rivers that only flow once a year. And in some cases only flow a few times in a century. The truth is that numerous travelers, from the early explorers through to present day have perished for lack of water. No water, no life. Water and life go together. One quote is that to survive in the Australian desert “is to know the sources of moisture and how to tap into the watertable” (Ferguson & Allen 1990:37).

And that’s what the early settlers found so difficult. A dry, hot place. A place that had to be ‘conquered’ to get anywhere. So hostile and barren did the land appear to them, that they could never dream of co-operating with it. We in New Zealand perhaps are so blessed with water and so used to co-operating with it that we err on the side of exploiting it and end up being reminded of its preciousness when our exploitation hits back. When our homes get flooded by a rising water table or a failure of our control systems. We are reminded to treasure water because it means life.

When we look at the collection of stories told by John, we see that he tells several stories using water. Water turned into wine. Water to wash disciple’s feet. Jesus walking on water. And of course, there are all those exciting fishing stories. A bit like those TV programs where the presenter kisses the fish before throwing it back depicting the thrill of the catch is not about killing and eating the diminishing number of fish but rather about the thrill of the chance to catch or not and when the randomness has been beaten the satisfaction of the catch is manifest Randomness has been won over by certainty. Order is restored and chance banished and the throwing back is rubbing it in. The living water has delivered and been dominated.

Today’s story of a Samaritan woman Jesus met at a well, belongs in this collection. In this story John has Jesus asking the woman for a drink of water. Indeed, the conversation between the two, is the longest of any Jesus is supposed to have had with anyone. Traditionally, the substance of the story is said to be about ‘liberal’ Jesus talking to an immoral Samaritan ‘outsider’ woman. The difficulty with this interpretation is that it trips up the rest of the story. Immediately after Jesus describes her past, she says, “I see that you are a prophet” and asks him where one should worship. If you believe the worst of her, this is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to change the topic. But if you can imagine another scenario, things look different. “Seeing” in John, it’s crucial to note, is all-important. “To see” is often connected with belief. When the woman says, “I see you are a prophet,” she is making a confession of faith. Why? Because Jesus has “seen” her. He has seen her plight — of dependence, not immorality. He has recognized her, spoken with her, offered her something of incomparable worth. He has seen her — she exists for him, has worth, value, significance and all of this is treatment to which she is unaccustomed. And so when he speaks of her past both knowingly and compassionately, she realizes she is in the presence of a prophet. For this reason only does she risk the central question that has divided Samaritans and Jews for centuries. This is no awkward dodge or academic diversion; this is a heartfelt question that gets to the core of what separates her from Jesus. And when Jesus surprises her with an answer that is simultaneously more hopeful and penetrating than she’d expected, she leaves her water jar behind to tell her neighbours about this man.

So if this seems at least as probable an interpretation as the more routine traditional one, why do so many preachers assume the worst of her? There are two possible reasons for this. First, there is a long history of misogyny in Christian theology that stands in sharp contrast to the important role women play in the gospels themselves. Women, the four evangelists testify, supported Jesus’ ministry. They were present at the tomb when their male companions fled. And they were the first witnesses to the resurrection. Yet from asserting that Eve was the one who succumbed to temptation (conveniently ignoring that the author of Genesis says Adam was right there with her — Gen. 3:6) to assuming this Samaritan woman must be a prostitute, there is the ugly taint of chauvinism present in too much Christian preaching, perhaps particularly so in those traditions that refuse to recognize the equality of women to preach and teach with the same authority as men. But as many scholars have pointed out, this and similar interpretations are an awful misreading of an important story.

A second reason preachers cast this woman in the role of prostitute is that it plays into the belief that Christianity, and religion generally, is chiefly about morality. Treating the Bible as one long, if peculiar, cartoon, we read every story we find in terms of sin and forgiveness, moral depravity and repentance. But this story is not about immorality; it’s about identity. In the previous scene, Jesus was encountered by a male Jewish religious authority who could not comprehend who or what Jesus was. In this scene, he encounters the polar opposite, and perhaps precisely because she is at the other end of the power spectrum, she recognizes not just who Jesus is but what he offers — dignity. Jesus invites her to not be defined by her circumstances and offers her an identity that lifts her above her tragedy. And she accepts, playing a unique role in Jesus’ ministry as she is the first character in John’s gospel to seek out others to tell them about Jesus.


If we preachers can rise above the misogyny and moralism that characterizes too much Christian theology, we have the opportunity to tell this woman’s story for what it is: a story of the transforming power of love and the capacity to receive and live into a new identity.

When we stay with the story… with the help of Amy-Jill Levine, the Jewish New Testament scholar: We find that (One) The woman is not an outsider. Jewish Jesus is the outsider. She is a Samaritan, and they are on her home turf. (Two) that the woman’s visit to the well in the daylight, is a storyteller’s device about seeing the ‘light’, rather than an indication of social ostracism. The Samaritan woman is the one who sees. Who has understood, has received the revelation, has seen the light. And (Three) There is absolutely nothing that indicates she is ‘sinful’ or sexually promiscuous. “The… woman (might be) unfortunate, but she is not sinful…  The only ones who condemn her are the biblical scholars.” (Levine 2006:137)

Another person who might help us appreciate this story beyond the traditional, is a bloke called Rick Marshall.  Taking John’s image of a well and the rising up of the water, Marshall says: “Who knows where (the water) comes from.  But we drink it and go on living our lives…  That’s how the creative, transforming power of God is:  Who knows where it comes from, but it sustains us and we go on living our lives. It is like the randomness of creation, the serendipity of evolution, the potential of water. We are called to trust the ‘Living Water’.” (Rick Marshall. P&F Web site, 2005) It nourishes the dryness and the damp but if in our seeking to control it rather than trust it we will kill it or abuse it and we have a desert flash flood or a sodden earth catastrophe. It sustains us if we trust it and we go on living our lives. “We experience the creating, transforming power of God routinely, quietly moving through life, our life.” (Rick Marshall. P&F Web site, 2005)

I wonder if this is also what the storyteller we call John had in mind, when he told the story of Jesus asking a woman for a drink. Water is life, It is a Living water. It permeates our living, it is our livings life blood. Randal Wehler’s poem attempts to explore this sense of this living water’s place in the scheme of life.

A Face In The River

by Randall Wehler


I stand on a bank of a running river, immersed in a flow of my own called life

Sad, happy, fearful, calm, and joyous awe-filled waves lap up all around me


The waters seem to call to something deep inside me, awakened to a Godly spirit

Seeing that what life gives — the good and the bad — must have meaning and purpose


Though poised on the river’s shore, it’s but a short walk into the cleansing waters

I can suspend, weightless, against the flowing Earthly energy of fluid sustenance


I feel nourished, also, by God’s numinous presence whose works are all around me

Having been created with awareness to contemplate the divine, the world, myself


The Sun shines, coloring flowing waters with changing hues throughout the day

As a divine presence guides me daily to think, feel, and experience the wonder


Were I to stare down into these waters when they’re calm and my spirit serene

I’d see my face reflected, maybe sensing a glimpse of God dwelling inside me


My life and spirit move onward — questioning, seeking, finding, and knowing

As the river’s waters flow, coursing a movement into channels of Earthly design


I can rest assured that God (as understood) can guide us all in Christ-like ways

Reflecting on scripture where Jesus declares God’s provision of “living waters”


This living water is so intrinsically part of life that it is easy to become complacent about it, to take it for granted. That is the nature of this living water. So wonderfully precious yet so invisible it is taken for granted. This living water is how the transforming presentness of Creativity God is. It sustains us as we live our lives, quietly moving through life, our life. So we might live life to the full, love wastefully, and be all that we can be.  (John S Spong)


Notes: de Mello, A. The Song of the Bird. 10th edition. India: Anand. Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1988. Ferguson, G. & R. Allen. ”Thirsty in a Dry Land: The Migrant Experience of the Absence of God” in G. Ferguson & J. Chryssavgis. The Desert is Alive. Melbourne. JBCE, 1990. Levine, A-J. The Misunderstood Jew. The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. New York. HarperOne, 2006.

Lent 2A, 2017 John 3:1-17

What does Nicodemus say about human life?

As a Pharisee he is expected to know a bit about life and about how it should be lived. He believes this man Jesus to be a learned person and he has heard of the stories around this man’s healing ministry and he wonders how he does it? He is not sure that he wants to be seen to be seeking advice from Jesus but he knows he needs to find answers to his questions. Sounds normal doesn’t it? Jack Shea in writing of this suggests, that Nicodemus is in a searching mode, he is seeking understanding, he is “stranded in twilight.  He is not mesmerized by the signs…but he wants a teaching, not another miracle.  But before he can receive a teaching from God, he must receive a teaching about himself”.  (Shea 1998:83-84)

Nicodemus goes to Jesus by night and asks ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God because what you are doing cannot be done without God’s participation. Jesus answers him saying that he is right, no one can understand what he is doing without being born from above.’ Nicodemus’s reply then shows that he is stuck in the literal world and cannot see how anyone can be born a second time. It is a onetime only event and being born again isn’t possible. Then Jesus says that this birth is more than that. It is fundamental to life. It is water and spirit, water as the foundational element of all life and Spirit which is like the wind. We know of its existence but we don’t know what it is. We know it is fundamental to our being yet it always eludes our definition and thus our control.

The other point to consider when approaching this story is that both Jesus and Nicodemus are Jews and learned Jews as well. Jesus was a first century Galilean Jew. His prayers were Jewish. His thinking was Jewish. His ‘voice’ is thick with Jewish history – personal and cultural. He is a Galilean Jew as well, which means he has a radical charisma about him. This suggests that what we need to be careful not to do is to convert him into a proto-Christian. Be careful not to add ‘Greekness’ to his Jewishness. Christianity did not emerge as a sect within Jewish religion until much later let alone develop its organizational and doctrinal views which came even later. Amy-Jill Levine suggests that, “With the stress in some churches on Jesus’s divine sonship, the cross, the resurrection, and the redemptory role of saving humanity from sin and death, his historical connection to Judaism gets lost along with his very Jewish message of the kingdom of heaven”.  (Levine 2006:19) Levine than goes on to point out that in popular Christian imagination Jesus is presented as: against the Law, against the Temple, against the people of Israel, as the only one to speak with women, as the only one who teaches non-violent responses to oppression, as the only one who cares about the ‘poor and marginalised’. It is “No wonder even today Jesus somehow looks ‘different’ from the ‘Jews’: in some movies and artistic renderings, he’s blond and they are swarthy; he is cute and buff and they need rhinoplasty and Pilates”. (Levine 2006:19) This ‘divorcing’ of Jesus from Judaism in biblical stories and traditional Christian theology is neither honest nor helpful. Especially when we hear John’s story about Nicodemus.


So here we have a Jewish Rabbi we call Nicodemus, and the story is of his encounter with the Galilean sage or Mystic we call Jesus. Nicodemus was a pilgrim.  A sincere religious seeker. A student who uses his precious study time to “expand his search beyond the standard texts… and distractions of the day”.  Nicodemus, was a member of the religious institution of his day, as a mover of theological boundaries. Willing to risk leaving behind past ‘truths’ as he and his colleagues have been taught them and known them, in order to explore something new. Jesus affirms Nicodemus by indicating that there is no other way to discover that our lives and our thinking might be different than by taking the risks, asking the questions? Not just by re-shaping, but by re-thinking and reconstructing! Here we have Nicodemus showing that life is about using the mind to shape the new future.  Thinking about life in its potential.


I want to divert a little here and suggest that we might do this Nicodemus task by thinking of life as art. The journey of life is not then about the technical achievements of science but rather about the question of meaning in human existence. We know we exist as human beings but what is our meaning? It is very easy in today’s world when we accept evolution and a universe that unfolds endlessly with no obvious purpose to it. In this view the human experience seems to be of little worth. There is little point in seeking to understand how much meaning the human place holds in the dynamics of the cosmos. There is in fact no answer to that question on an objective scale other than the obvious. That human life is only a momentary blip in the unlimited history of the cosmos. A fraction of a second in a billions of year’s environment. How to experience a second birth is a question that can only be answered in metaphor and takes us no further, whereas the task might be to ask how the human experience has value in the fleeting moments of life and the changing history. This takes us into more and more questions about meaning and giving meaning to an experience is an interpretive act. Using our human experience to evaluate one’s life and to creatively become something more is an artistic endeavour. Spirituality then is the task of art like the paintbrushes that reveal the view or the poem that feeds the interpretation. As David Galston writes, “Life expressed as art consists of standing before the abyss of the threatening, curious, unknown, amazingly full, and amazingly empty nature of the cosmos and saying yes to it all”. The ‘yes’ is not due to scientific facts; it is due to hermeneutical acts; that is to the acts of interpretation that create meaning and value as the art of being alive.

The Nicodemus story asks us to consider what would we do differently if given half the chance? How would we grow up differently? How would we re-edit the story of our life? And it goes on to invite us to be curious about life. To rethink and re-construct assumptions. Not just to conduct an autopsy on our past, but to look to the future through the eyes of new possibility. To be born anew, metaphorically if you like, but maybe even more than that! To engage in the event of life changing experience. To understand how life might be different!

Galston suggests this is what Tillich expressed when he said the Yes to life is to stand before the abyss and say yes to the courage to be. Grasp the vast nature of the question of meaning and answer yes to the question with courage. This is a Spiritual act that gives form to life dynamics, and enables us to be artists. The Nicodemus story also invites us to be saints of the curious. To protect the curious in each of us. To join with the company of earnest and compassionate teachers, of whatever faith tradition, whose openness defines a new community of hope and grace. To have the courage to dare to know creativity as God or God as creativity, with heart and mind, with courage and strength, and not to be afraid as traditional theological boundaries are pushed to their point of rebellion… The task is to be born again and this means to be pushed and to push again, with honesty and originality, wisdom and imagination. Amen.

Notes:. Levine, A. The Misunderstood Jew. The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. New York. HarperOne, 2006. Lowry, E. L. “Strangers in the Night” in W. B Robinson (ed). Journey Toward Narrative Preaching. New York. Pilgrim Press, 1990. Shea, J. Gospel Light. Jesus Stories for Spiritual Consciousness. New York. A Crossroad Book, 1998.

Galston David. God’s Human Future ‘The struggle to define theology today. Polebridge Press Salem Oregon 2016


What is Lent?

Posted: April 25, 2017 in Uncategorized

Lent one


What is Lent?

What is lent?

Traditionally Lent has been a time of preparation for Easter, a preparation for the resurrection of the mind from the darkness of its sins, doubts, and false beliefs into the light of understanding. It has also been a time for evaluating our Spiritual growth process by fasting on the negative and feasting on the positive. It has also been a time of seeking a greater degree of balance in one’s life.

What has become clearer over the years is that behind this debate lies the line of demarcation which is our notion of God. The first thing many of us ever learnt about God was that God is everywhere and that we can still believe today. The trouble is the story that developed to support that belief.  Many of us were nurtured into a story of a “fall” and we learnt more about a God who lives somewhere else – a God in heaven, a God who was male. And it seems that here we have a major stumbling block as on the traditional side of Christian thinking, or on the conservative side if that category still means anything, people focus on what we might call the “elsewhere” God, the God who lives in “heaven”.

The truth is that many of us want more than that. We want to walk in that basic Christian understanding that God is not a human construct, even if we use human limitations to talk about our God, give shape to and meaning to our God. We are no longer satisfied that our projection of God is the human projection of a “person”, a deity in the sky. Most of us would rather a universal presence in the expansiveness of our universe and beyond. Most of us think of God as energy, force, or love.

We know that God is not a localized being somewhere. In fact God is more like that reality we learnt about as a young Christian: a universal reality that holds everything in existence, a reality that sustains, energizes and gives life. Not as some sort of form in charge human but a God where nothing exists outside of God. While this is challenging to our thought patterns we have to take this seriously because it seems to us that this is the best way we can talk to people about God in the world view of today, as we learn more and more about the universe in which we live our God needs to be bigger and more in tune with our cosmic view.


The challenge of this is that with a focus on an elsewhere God, we are more likely to lock ourselves into the story that most of us have been nurtured into:  a male God in heaven who looked down, an overseer who chose one group and not other groups. The chosen group (and here we are talking about us) is privileged because they (we) are God’s people and Scripture is understood as God somehow directly speaking to this group – and not to the rest of humanity. This religious viewpoint is fine for the members of the chosen group because it gives them (us) special status and identity. We are God’s people and our scriptures are inspired. We have certainty on our side. But the stories of those outside are not inspired, nor are the traditional religious stories of the Buddhists or the Hindu’s or the native American people, in fact any others who don’t think like us.

The challenge for us is that we want to take seriously that God is a universal presence, never absent, at work at all times, in all places, in all peoples, all through human history and all through this universe and that this moment of revelation or awareness is not something handed down from the clouds to a select group of people, For us Revelation has to be the spirit of God working in all peoples of all times, in their world view, in their thought patterns and in particular personalities. How can it be any different?

Whether we focus on an “everywhere” Presence or an “elsewhere” God will radically affect our concept of “salvation” – and this is particularly relevant for Holy Week, especially when we consider Good Friday. What is the story of salvation that we want to tell in today’s world?  The traditional Christian story, the conservative Christian story, will be a story that is tied to a literal understanding of scripture, a “fall” and an elsewhere God who, because of this “fall” refuses to allow presence to his dwelling place in another place somewhere, where this elsewhere God resides. Jesus is interpreted, then, as the incarnation of someone who comes from that elsewhere place – and all our traditional language is about coming down, living on earth, and then going back up. John’s gospel is full of this imagery. So Jesus “saves” us because he gets us into heaven, that place of residence of the elsewhere God, and Good Friday has come to ritualize the  story of a God who won’t let us into heaven until and unless Jesus suffers and dies.

Many of us are asking what sort of God this is.  Will we continue to tell the story of Jesus and the story of salvation as someone who gets us into heaven or will we tell the story of Jesus according to what got Jesus out of bed every morning and motivated him to speak to the “crowd”, the battlers, the down and outs and anyone ready to listen?  When preaching about the reign, the kingdom, the presence of God, to these people, Jesus did not tell the story of a God distant from them, a God who locked them out. Quite the contrary. He urged his listeners to reflect on their everyday experience of life:  You are neighbour, aren’t you? You care, you clothe, you feed, you visit. You do this, don’t you? Grudgingly, perhaps, they said, “Yes”, and Jesus exhorted them to name what was going on in their own lives: Here is the presence of God in your lives. Name it – when you are neighbour, when you do the good and decent human reality. When you live in love, you live in God, God lives in you.

Salvation, then if you still want to use the concept is not about someone getting something but rather about Jesus opening eyes and minds to the reality of the God in whom we live and move and have our being. That is salvation. Salvation is about Jesus freeing us from images and thought patterns that lock us in to notions that God is elsewhere or that God is a deity to be feared, a deity who keeps notes, a deity who will punish. Jesus says in effect, “That is not my understanding of God. That is not my God.” So how have we been set free?

Does Jesus come from God? Of course Jesus comes from God, but where is God and what is the Christian religion about? Is it about continuing to play an elitist role in the world, that we have salvation and only through us will people have access to God? Will Christianity continue to do that? Or will Christianity start to do what Jesus did and go to people and proclaim the good news to all people that the presence of God is in their everyday living. When anyone lives in love, they live in God and God lives in them.

The challenge we face is why does the Christian religion persistently and stubbornly refuse to preach this basic, foundational, inclusive insight that so clearly motivated Jesus’ own preaching? We have heard the words about living in love and living in God all our lives and yet so often it’s like water off a duck’s back. The issue is that this insight has nothing to do with belonging to a particular religion. This is about humanity; this is about humanity doing what humanity ought to do, to be neighbour, to care, to allow the spirit of God to be given expression in our lives. This is the message of salvation. Only a religious institution self-centered, focused on its own elitist, exclusive claims of access to God and fixated on its claims to interpret the mind and the thinking of an elsewhere God, could continue to ignore the core of Jesus’ religious insight and teaching.

So when we come to lent the dividing line is clearly facing us. What is it about? Not what it has been made into but what is it about?

This is a very big topic so I want only to skim through it today. If I was forced to say what I think Christianity is about I think I would say simply its about the challenge of walking the Jesus Way together. I say Jesus because he is at the core of faith, no Jesus , no Christianity, I say the Jesus Way because I think that his way was a Way of living with continuous alternative opportunities and a Way of continuous hope. And I say together because I believe primarily that the Jesus Way is a way of being Community on its fullest sense.

The foundational base of Christian faith has always consisted of a continuous and consistent spirituality of following Jesus. Out of this corporate spirituality have emerged organization, reflection on spiritual experience in the light of new cultures, and the gradual formulation of beliefs through theological reflection on the living experience of the community, and of course this has been codified in the scriptures and in every historical period and place. Again, this process illustrates the meaning of spirituality searching for theology. I think that our current traditional story encourages an imbalanced Christian spirituality in that its vocabulary links into the elsewhere God concept but fails to enlarge on the collective, collaborative, searching mode that much of humanity lives with. In fact “Searching” has become a common descriptor of human life in the Western world. Whether our culture is described as late modern or postmodern, it has lost many of the certainties upon which its stability rested. Those who have internalized an evolutionary worldview recognize the role of randomness in life processes, and how that randomness threatens a sense of purpose. Historical consciousness means that no idea or value can be understood apart from its particular human context. All ideas and values are linked to some particular culture. Many are not transportable. Being has yielded to becoming; process rather than permanence characterizes the world as we know it. Plato’s vision of an eternal superstructure of reality clashes not only with everything people see, hear, and opine, but also now with everything that is critically examined. Each person’s life is a narrative, a particular story within the larger story of a particular group. Narratives are constructed by constant decisions, either/ or, and each path leads in a new and different direction. Yet, precisely because constant motion is as unsettling as seasickness, because it occludes permanent moorings, it highlights by contrast a desire for coherent meaning that drives the phenomenon of searching. Searching is no longer merely implicit in life; it becomes an overt striving for something solid that will help define the self by the self’s relating to it, identifying with it, and appropriating its permanent value. Searching shows that human existence needs to be embraced by something stable that offers coherence and permanence.

Roger Haight suggests that there are two dimensions or characteristics of the dynamism of the world and they are process and complexity. The old story of the universe did not really allow for deep change. Western thought postulated a higher world above, or a metaphysical world of laws, but the ideal world did not include constant generation of new forms of being. Of course, human beings have always had some sense of historicity, in different depths and degrees. No one could ignore the way human beings constantly adjust their social arrangements and the diversity among groups. But change always occurred within permanent structures, forms of being that organized the world universally or by nature. The world itself was not moving, only individual items within it changed as they came and went. By contrast, the current picture of the world depicts change at the level of the structures of nature. New possibilities affect seemingly permanent patterns, so that change constitutes the very character of nature. This is a world of process, a world that is always becoming, where substance and permanent structures only appear so at a given time but not over vast periods of time or in radically changed conditions. Creation becomes an ongoing process that constantly introduces novelty to the given. If creation is ongoing, then the world at any given time is always imperfect, and deficiency is concomitant with being itself.

Reality is dynamic, and the dynamism entails complexity. Toolan describes this complexity in terms of constant interchange between system and new data. Reality for the most part is made up of “systems that exchange energy and matter with their environment; they are open to turbulence, fluctuation, and a degree of random chance.” Systems are never self-enclosed so that they admit no variables. The influx of energy and the ways of processing new data allow a given system to withstand and even move against the tide of entropy. “The typical dynamic system— physical, chemical, biological, or neurological— is almost never truly isolated or self-contained; it is, first, an ‘open’ system exchanging matter and energy with its environment.” The complexity of being is exemplified in the amazing variety of organizational patterns that reality assumes. This is especially true on the biological level. Kinds of being in the flow of reality keep adjusting to their environment by an internalization of new variables. The world can be perceived as layered through various strata in a scale of being according to different criteria of measurement and complexity. Some self-organizing systems are more differentiated than others and are capable of new and different kinds of activity. There seems to be a clear trajectory in evolution toward more differentiation and “higher” forms of being. The history of evolution “shows an overall trend toward greater complexity, responsiveness, and awareness. The capacity of organisms to gather, store, and process information has steadily increased. Who can doubt that a human being represents an astonishing advance over an amoeba or a worm.” Here we have the suggestion that our reflection has jumped ahead in the story. Up to now we’ve described the age, size, and motion of the cosmos that generated and constitutes us. The story has been adaptable within its vocabulary till now. Up till now we have had a story that has told us what to think and it has got us to this point, but now we need a story that takes us in and through a time of no absolutes, a time of intimate engagement with an evolutionary reality, a time when reality is not what it seems. As Roger Haight puts it maybe we need a story that attends to the transition from inorganic being to life. Robot to life perhaps. Amen.


Haight, Roger. Spirituality Seeking Theology (Kindle Locations 687-692). Orbis Books. Kindle Edition.

Epiphany 6A, 2011/2017 Matthew 6: 26, 28-29 (Evolution Sunday)


Today in the progressive religious world, is Creation Sunday and some name it Evolution Sunday and it is perhaps appropriate to celebrate the Baptism of Sangita on this day as well. She is after all a very precious creation of human love of the ongoing creation of the human species. I hope to pull together some notes on creation, evolution and God today in what I think is a progressive theology that places what we do today as a celebration of hope that is born in the life of Sangita and her family.
First of all I need to but some ground rules in place. The first is that I am not talking about Nature and God but rather the Nature of God. Some years back now L Charles Birch, former Challis Professor of Biology at the University of Sydney, wrote a book about Nature and God and in it he wrote that “The concept of God’s operations in the universe as a series of fitful interventions from a supernatural sphere overlaying the natural is quite unacceptable to science” (Birch 1965:7). Then he wrote that “On the other hand, the traditional thinking of science, sometimes called mechanism, is quite irreconcilable with any reasoned Christian position” (Birch 1965:7).

Here we have the science/faith debate that still goes on today. Creationism verses Evolution in the USA is a prime example of this debate at times polarized. In fact the issue is more complex than that as there are at least three major views on this relationship between science and faith. The first is the ‘conflict’ view – that science and religion are inherently, and perpetually, in opposition. The literalist interpretation of the Bible gets caught up in this debate. 6 days, 4,000 years or 4.5 Bullion and 14 billion. The second is the ‘contrast’ view – that science and religion are different because they ask different questions. The selective smorgasbord use of the bible gets caught up in this debate; how long is a day or a year anyway. The third is the ‘integration’ view – that science and religion can be integrated into a self-consistent worldview, and this I admit is my personal view. Unfortunately, what emanates from many non-progressive pulpits is more likely to represent the ‘conflict’ view than the ‘integration’ view, and thus the debate about the authenticity of global warming and climate change are bandied around in opposing camps.

The reality is that ‘G-o-d’ God, is a symbol or word known and used by nearly everyone who speaks the English language. Mostly assuming they are all talking about the same thing, but it is also a word which has many uses and meanings attached to it. The Macquarie Dictionary defines the word as: “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe” (Macquarie Dictionary 1981:763). In a Christian Science interpretation it is “the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. This way of speaking theologically even if the Christian Science tries to deconstruct the anthropomorphic boundary it is still caught in what is called ‘classical theism’. This ‘God’ is supernatural, interventionist, and nearly always couched in male anthropological (or human-like) language and images. And for many this is still the way they think when they hear the word ‘God’.

For Progressives this way of thinking is no longer viable. Rex Hunt an Australian theologian suggests that many have come to think of God as the creative process or ‘creativity’, rather than a being who creates, and this means the use of non-personal metaphors rather than personal ones when talking about G-o-D God. It also means that the ground of those metaphor have changed also. Everything is moving, evolving, experiencing the creation as it changes and develops, including we humans.

Charles Darwin in his 1859 publication, On the Origin of Species, wrote that the world/universe was: (i) unfinished and continuing; (ii) involved chance events and struggle, and (iii) natural selection took the place of “design according to a preordained [divine] blueprint” (Birch 1965:29). Peters and Kaufman put this another way in 2004 when they said that the world/universe is cosmic evolution, biological evolution, cultural/symbolic evolution (Peters 2002, Kaufman 2004). Kaufman in developing this further put is that “In the beginning was creativity and the creativity was with God, and the creativity was God.  All things came into being through the mystery of creativity; apart from creativity nothing would have come into being. (Kaufman 2004:ix).

What I have just proposed can be said to be a different mentally constructed universe. Both in science and in religion/theology. In science, the most widely accepted modern estimate of the earth’s age is approximately 4.5 billion years.  While the universe – that whole “complex, interrelated and interacting… matter-energy in space-time… of which humans are an integral part…” (Gillette 2006:1), is approximately 14 billion years old.

And “if we put our fourteen-billion-year universe on a clock of one hour, humanity appears in only the last few seconds” (Peters 2002:127). So, ‘modern’ science is saying and has been saying, again and again: the universe must be regarded as a whole; it is of intrinsic value, and each part, galaxy, organism, individual atom, participates in that intrinsic value as each part or web, participates in this wonderful web of life. Each part, rather than one species or organism separating itself out as more important than the rest.

As one overseas colleague has said: “This science is public and cumulative and open to anyone who wishes to pick up a book and read” (JShuck).

One of these books is by Lloyd Geering, called From the Big Bang to God. Our Awe-inspiring Journey of Evolution. From this book I have taken a focus of what we have been participating in today in the Baptism of little Sangita.

When we think about the responsibilities of bringing a child into this world as we know it we are taking a huge leap in faith. We have symbolized this leap of faith by using water and words in a specific ritual to try to make sacred or to fix in our understanding her role in this vast cosmic reality as we know it. Our leap of faith is rooted in the hope that we are doing the right thing; that all that we know and hear about the future of our planet and our civilization is not the only way of looking at things.

In Lloyd’s book he talks about the future of the human race remaining an open question. We just don’t know what the future will bring and the arguments about climate change or no climate change, global warming or no global warming all indicate this reality.

On the one hand we must take full account of the perilous crises already facing us; like black clouds on the horizon, they indicate an imminent period of storms that could lead to catastrophic outcomes. Food shortages on a global scale, land covered with rising waters, an increase in uninhabitable land. In this scenario it seems unlikely that humans worldwide will be able to muster the willpower and the unity of action to avoid these things altogether.

“On the other hand, and here is the faith story; we can draw hope from the Great Story of how we came to be here at all. It is a truly awe—inspiring universe that has brought us forth and, at least on this planet, has come to consciousness in us, displaying the human inventiveness, creativity and entrepreneurial skills that have helped to make us the creatures we are. And this potential this hope-filled journey may lead us to as—yet—unimaginable heights.

“If our children and their children and their children survive and evolve to reach an even more exalted state of being than ours, they will have arrived at what our forbears long aimed for when in their traditions (Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or Christian) they hoped, respectively, to enter Nirvana, the Promised Land, the unity of all nations, or the Kingdom of God.”

Gordon Kaufman, presents God as a non-personal ‘serendipitous creativity’ “manifest throughout the cosmos instead of as a kind of cosmic person.  We humans are deeply embedded in, and basically sustained by, this creative activity in and through the web of life on planet Earth (Kaufman 2004:58).

A growing number of people around the world, religious and scientifically minded, and conscious of this ‘web within a web of life’, are recognising that our modern life-style is: harming other creatures, diminishing the functioning of ecosystems, and altering global climate patterns. Our evolutionary nature and our creativity are dramatically argued to be assaulting the earth!  Indeed it is said that we are killing our very life support system in a manner unprecedented in human history.  And yet, most of us go about our daily lives more or less blissfully indifferent to the devastation” (Hill 2008:10).

But watch out for the emotional fear mongering and remember that progressive religious thought calls each and every one of us to ‘dance with’, to live in harmony with, our world recognizing that in the dance we can damage things, not only ourselves but also the environment we live in. The very fact that progressive religious/Christian thought names that creativity which indwells and sustains all life forms be it galaxy, organism or individual atom… ‘G-o-d’ or ‘the sacred’ or ‘serendipitous creativity’ is an invitation to create the future and by its very nature this responsibility and privilege says that we should take seriously what we do to the planet and all its ecosystems. If we are evolving and the planet is evolving there is great hope for the future and if it we are an integrated part of this evolution then we create the change we experience.

Karl Peters, retired professor of philosophy and religion, when asked: ‘How old are we?’ said: “[p]henomenally, a few decades; culturally, a few centuries or millennia; biologically, millions of years; cosmically, about 15 billion years” (Peters 1992:412).

And when asked ‘How long will we continue?’ he added: “[p]henomenally, a few more decades or less; culturally, maybe a few more centuries; biologically, millions of years or, if we do not destroy ourselves first, perhaps until our sun dies five (5) billion years from now; cosmically, until the universe ends, which may be never…” (Peters 1992:412).

Peters answers are a kind of cosmic recipe for the functioning of all things. And reminds us that nature is in us as much as we are nature. In our context today we might say that Sangita is a web of reality, woven out of the threads of culture, biology, and cosmos…  And as a web of reality she like each of us is a manifestation of a larger part of the universe as a whole…  She and we contain in us… after many cosmic, biological, and cultural transformations, the radiation that was present at the origin of the universe” (Peters 1992:412).

For me this suggests that the evolutionary epic is a religious world view. Science and faith as one and the same.

Notes: Birch, L. C. 1965.  Nature and God. London. SCM Press. Birch, L. C. 2008.  Science & Soul. Sydney. University of New South Wales Press. Gillett, P. R. 2006.  “Theology of, by, and for religious naturalism” in Journal of Liberal Religion 6, 1, 1-6. (An online journal). Hill, J. A. 2008.  Ethics in the Global Village. Moral insights for the post 9-11 USA. Santa Rosa. Polebridge Press. Kaufman, G. D. 2004.  In the Beginning… Creativity. Minneapolis. Fortress Press. Macquarie Dictionary. 1981.  McMahons Point. Macquarie University. Peters, K. E. 2002.  Dancing with the Sacred. Evolution, Ecology, and God. Harrisburg. Trinity International. Peters, K. E. 1992.  “Interrelating nature, humanity, and the work of God: Some issues for future reflection” in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 27, 4, 403-419. Zimmermn, M. 2010.  “The evolution-creation controversy. Why it matters”. Part 1, in The FourthR 23, 6, 11-15, 26.


Posted: April 25, 2017 in Uncategorized

Epiphany 5A, 2017 Matthew 5: 13-20


If there’s one subject that comes up often it has to be the role of the Church. And the word ‘Church’ contains or embodies a wide range of meanings. There is the ‘church’ in a universal sense, the ‘church’ in the local expression called a congregation, the church as in a building, and then there is ‘The Church’ as in the global expression of Jesus followers, and then there is the invisible church, that which is akin to the Spirit of God at work behind the scenes so to speak.

The other thing to note is that perhaps because of this wide and uncontainable thing we call church we push the philosophical or the spiritual aspects away and concentrate on restructuring out of some hidden drive to keep up with change. And the unspoken reasoning appears to be that the institution is crumbling because we haven’t kept up with the physical, embodied realities. Currently our Presbytery is attempting to restructure in the hope that the perils of centralization of control and decision making are minimized, that work loads of particular individuals and groups are minimized and that the sense of disconnect between those in church leadership roles and the people in the pews is somehow restored. Of course this is fraught with a perception that the past was better and we need to return to it. And then the old bogey; how does presbytery fulfil it’s key role of “facilitating and resourcing the life, worship and spiritual nurture and mission of the congregations for which it has responsibility”. And then it lumps all this into the idea that the mission and ministry support is directly within smaller manageable Mission Regions of ministers and elders. Make the admin responsible for a wider region but hobble it by ensuring the real power lies within each isolated congregation.

Now just in case you think I am overdoing the negatives, it is said that I along with many on the Council of Presbytery are old school and set on maintaining the old ways at all costs and that is probably valid criticism. I am old, I have been around a long time and I know the way the structures work. The challenge for me then is that form follows function, that structures serve mission. That the church is bigger than all we might want it to be

So while I think that restructuring is inevitable and necessary I think its goal should always be to enable the Church to more resemble the kingdom/realm of which Jesus spoke. And I want to suggest that we need to stop playing games with the words like church and mission and be honest about what we are trying to do and that is adjust our human organizational model to suit current circumstances and governance requirements. It is very likely that the causes of our dilemma have more to do with dwindling resources, both in volunteers, and in finances, an outdated theology, that no longer holds anyone’s interest outside the church and the rate of change in the world. Even the world is struggling to keep up with the exponential nature of change.

For instance, each generation finds itself further removed from its predecessor. The gap between children and their parents is always a little wider than it had been for parents and their parents (Friedman 2009:10). The same can be said for ‘church’. During this time of continuing change, what will guide us in our understanding of ‘church’? And our theology? We can do all the restructuring we like but if the thing we think we belong to doesn’t exist or the story we tell that shapes our place to stand in this exponential environment doesn’t make sense intellectually then its all a waste of time and energy and it will have very little effect other than to destroy what we already have.

Lets be sure that it is good to look back but only so that we do not repeat all the mistakes we made but some will be about timing and what may not have worked in the past will now. It is always tempting to look back.  Many do, to the so-called ‘good old days’! But as historical beings we are not just nourished by our past. We actually live in the present, a new present, “qualitatively different from any of our human pasts” (Kaufman 2006:106).

It is also tempting to do nothing, lest we upset someone or their pet likes or dislikes, or power structures. Most of you know me and while I am an older person at risk of doing it the way it has always been done I think that the new, different and alternative is more important. The point here I think is that both of these modes or approaches are inappropriate, when not critiqued properly. The questions we must ask ourselves in the current restructuring are; where are our guides amid these calls for change or redefinition? What will shape our new present which is qualitatively different from our past?


Here we also have a scenario we face with building a school or what we do with the old brick building that needs millions spent on it. Do we spend the millions on a building that no longer serves our needs or do we spend it to save an old building we like. The questions here are not about the value of the old building but rather about what questions do we need to ask ourselves that will enable us to be ready for the new world that is already upon us and will be different tomorrow?

Matthew in today’s stories, seems to hint at common everyday life in first century Palestine, and maybe the stories can be a guide, or at least offer a couple of suggestions or signposts for us. The images of the ‘church’ as light or salt, as eagerly grabbed hold of by many church leaders, seem to be in sharp contrast to much of our modern mega-church or mission thinking. They appear to uncover something of the indirect and hidden nature of the church. That is, they reveal a way in which the life of a faith community should seek to express itself.  Rather than calling attention to itself, a church or congregation or a ‘follower of Jesus’, is most effective when it/they are not noticed (Reid 2001:61). Maybe mission is more about the universal invisible church? Likewise, they also make it clear ‘church’ cannot exist alongside of, or in separation from, the community that surrounds and feeds us as human beings. Overdoing either is not about being ‘church’ it seems.

Some years ago, retired Melbourne theologian and educationalist, Denham Grierson, published his book called, A People on The Way. It was a study of ‘congregation, mission and Australian culture’ and in it he picked up the three biblical images of light, salt and yeast and said they provide “a theological foundation for a local congregation as it seeks to define its mission”. He then said that : “That mission is best understood as a continuing persisting presence…  Much of the witness of the local congregation (will be) of the kind that is hidden within the fabric of community”. A continuing persisting presence…  Hidden, you might say, like salt? Just enough salt and we say ‘this steak is juicy and tender’. Too much salt and we spit it out and complain. The salt is not detectable if it is doing its job. Its effects are.

Grierson, also being a storyteller, dugs into his local history and told a ‘salt’ story…  During the post war years in the 1940s in Australia a small but determined Catholic woman heard of the sickness of aged neighbours in small houses in her street. South Melbourne, the suburb where she lived, was hard hit by strikes and unemployment. Many people were sick because of poor nutrition, and unable to act because of advanced age. So Mary Kehoe mobilized some of her friends and they cooked meals for those who were ill.

The problem arose as to how to carry the meals to those in need? A solution was found in the use of an old pram. The meals were loaded into the pram, and pushed up the street to the houses of the unwell and needy, and to a canteen two houses from Mary Kehoe’s place. Her efforts to involve the local council had resulted in the provision of two huts to act as a relief centre. Meals cooked at her house were wheeled to the canteen where many gathered for emergency help.

Thus began ‘Meals on Wheels’, in Australia which today it is so much a part of their social service environment that its beginnings are lost and forgotten. It gives hope and support to hundreds of people, who without it, would not survive. A continuing persisting presence, do you think? Hidden, like salt.

Biblical scholar Barbara Reid puts Matthew’s ‘salt’ story in some sort of context: when she says “…the uses of salt in the ancient world included: seasoning, preservation, purification, and judgment…” She goes on: “In saying to his disciples, ‘You are the salt of the earth’ Jesus could have meant that they perform any and all of these functions: that they draw out the liveliness and savour of God’s love in the world; they are a sign of God’s eternal fidelity; they bring to judgment all that is opposed to God’s basiliea(Reid 2001:48).

Then she makes the comment: “The task of Christians in every age is to discern what it means in a new context to be faithful to the words and deeds of Jesus.  Just as Christians of the last century determined that abolition of slavery was being most faithful to the gospel, even though Jesus’ teachings presumed the institution of slavery, so today we face the challenge of eliminating sexism and systems of domination, though these are woven into the fabric of the Gospels” (Reid 2001:59). This change idea has more to it than we think! It seems that sometimes even if the old way worked there is need for something new.

A Vision Statement and a Mission Statement in today’s world might be to listen to the community first rather than thinking it needs us and talking to it about what we think it needs. It might be letting what we hear and feel and sense genuinely shape our gospel response;, and it might be about letting our response be original and creative. A model of evangelism might be to be a continuing persisting presence, hidden if you like, like salt. And an unswerving acknowledgment that change is happening faster than we can keep up and that means we need to be even more reliant on our imagination and take greater leaps of faith.

If we are to face a ‘church’ which is discussing change and restructuring… And if we are to face this changing situation with integrity and purpose, then how we become ‘church’ in the community, will be more important than how we are structured within a set of Regulations or a Constitution. Form should follow function in other words, because the form will never keep up with a continuing persisting presence… Amen.

Notes: Friedman, E. H. What are you Going to Do with your Life? Unpublished Writing and Diaries. New York. Seabury Books, 2009. Grierson, D. A People on The Way. Congregation, Mission and Australian Culture. Melbourne. JBCE, 1991. Kaufman, G. D. Jesus and Creativity. Minniapolis. Fortress Press, 2006. Reid, B. E. Parables for Preachers. Year A. Collegeville. The Liturgical Press, 2001.


Epiphany 4A, 2017 Matthew 5:1-11


In this morning’s gospel story we have the beginnings of what is known as the Sermon on the Mount, or the Beatitudes. Indeed, some have even paraphrased the title as: ‘Be-Attitudes’ or ‘Attitudes for Being’. And the first thing we might say is that we have heard all this before, is there anything else that can be said? The truth is that it is very likely you have but you also know me and I am always on the lookout for the alternative.

The first thing to note is that the core of this passage is thought to be from Q—the source common to Luke and Matthew to which Matthew adds material. These beatitudes introduce the Sermon on the Mount, which is the first major speech, of five, in Matthew’s gospel. The beatitudes are thought not to be a sermon from the mouth of Jesus but rather a collection of sayings that he may well have uttered put together. Our text follows immediately upon a summary statement of Jesus’ ministry in chapter 4:  “And (Jesus) was going about in all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, healing all disease and all sickness in the people.” (4:23)

The Beatitudes are not, themselves, the gospel but rather in Lutheran terms, they are “law.”  They tell us what we ought to do.  Matthew has a sequence that he follows. First the gospel is announced, and its effects demonstrated (4:23).  Then, Jesus instructs his followers, or would-be followers, on how to live in its light.  The gospel comes first.  This makes the so-called Sermon on the Mount a response to the gospel and consequently a challenge to ones behaviour.

As with all the stories there is a Hebrew scripture on which it is based. In our reading from Micah, a prophet in eighth century B.C.E. Judah, addressed listeners who were familiar with the proper sacrifices that the law required them to bring to the temple. Burnt offerings, thanksgiving offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, guilt offerings–all these and more were required at certain times of the year or under certain circumstances. The idea behind an offering was that God would be pleased by the sacrifice and forgive sin, grant a request, or give a blessing.

Like the beatitudes, Micah questioned the very heart of their belief system when he challenged them to sacrifice their lives, not their animals: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Animal sacrifices weren’t bad, as long as they accompanied proper behaviour. They were certainly no substitute for right living.

This is the same challenge as that of the beatitudes in that people of all religious persuasions put too much emphasis on either doctrines or peripheral behaviours and put too little emphasis on what Jesus called “the weightier matters of the law” (a probable reference to this passage from Micah). Thus is a direct challenge to those who attend church or temple or synagogue or mosque regularly but take no direct action to combat poverty? It is a challenge to those who think they are obeying God by killing others in God’s name? And to those who think of themselves as righteous but who have a cavalier attitude about the sufferings of others, particularly if the “others” belong to a different nation, tribe, ethnic group, or religion?

To do justice means, stand up for the underdog, side with the weak, and oppose the powerful when they use their power to oppress others. To love kindness means to remember the bond that we share with our fellow humans, a bond that crosses barriers of ethnicity, nationality, language, social status, gender, or sexual orientation. To walk humbly with God means to realize that no matter how certain we are about our beliefs and values, we must always allow for the possibility that we do not have the totality of God’s wisdom or truth on our side; in other words, we might be wrong, and our adversaries might be right. If we as people who are serious in our commitment to follow God will observe these “requirements,” and if we can persuade our neighbours and governments to do the same, the world will be a much better place.

All the discussion surrounding the American Election and the new President could be said to be about this concern. Like the President of the Phillipines policy, is absolutizing the law? Is laying down the law by letter the way to create a better world, sure it will purge the cities of the drug dealers but will it make a better world? Is the way to control immigration, globalisation, and encourage growth, about putting up walls, closing borders and encouraging extremism, or is it about seeing the limitations of law and doctrine and finding a non-violent, loving response.


Matthew takes a structural and spiritual approach to these texts than Luke when he argues that this new kingdom, or reign of God will be one where more than the hearers will be challenged to take up new attitudes. All in every situation will need to deal with this issue. West Australian Bill Loader offers this suggestion for the change in emphasis: “Love and compassion are the hallmark of the discipleship for which Jesus calls… Perhaps this reflects the kind of people who made up Matthew’s community.  So… the beatitudes have been changed from promises to the poor and hungry to challenges to people to be ‘poor in spirit’ and to ‘hunger after righteousness’… attitudes and behaviours you need to develop”  (Loader web site 2005).

Justice is not just about simple political policy, nor is ot about imposing a rule of law. Justice is more complex because it is a heart thing as well. It is spiritual. For a behaviour to be effective it has to come from the heart and from a holistic well thought through base. Other-wise it will not stick. It will not be lasting and sound. It might perhaps fill the space of rhetoric for four years but it will not shape the nation or contribute to a long lasting character..

Rabbi Harold Kushner tells a story about a bright young man who was a pre-med student at an American university. To reward him for having done so well in school, his parents gave him a trip to the Asia for the summer. While there he met a guru who said to him, “Don’t you see how you are poisoning your soul with this success-oriented way of life? Your idea of happiness is to stay up all night studying for an exam so you can get a better grade than your best friend. Your idea of a good marriage is not to find the woman who will make you whole, but to win the girl that everyone else wants. “That’s not how people are supposed to live,” the sage admonished. “Give it up; come join us in an atmosphere where we all share and love each other.”


The young man had completed four years at a competitive high school to get into Universty, plus two years of pre-med courses at the university. He was ripe for this sort of approach. He called his parents from Tokyo and told them he would not be coming home. He was dropping out of school to live in an ashram (a spiritual retreat). Six months later, his parents got this letter from him:


Dear Mom and Dad,

I know you weren’t happy with the decision I made last summer, but I want to tell you how happy it has made me. For the first time in my life, I am at peace. Here there is no competing, no hustling, no trying to get ahead of anyone else. Here we are all equal and we all share. This way of life is so much in harmony with the inner essence of my soul that in only six months I’ve become the number two disciple in the entire ashram, and I think I can be number one by June!

You can take the boy out of the rat race, but can you take the rat race out of the boy? Here is the subtle change that Matthew brings to the text. His widening of the text to include all human activity he suggests like the story there is concern for people’s narrow and dangerous ideas about success. Achieving more, getting more, becoming number one. Not that there is anything wrong with healthy achievement. It’s just that there is a difference between earning well and living well. A successful life is not always a high-achieving life. Sometimes it is about accomplishing a worthwhile goal, even a private, personal victory. Sometimes it is about improving one’s character. Sometimes success is best defined by living into one’s own personal mission, or finding a meaningful purpose to organize one’s life around. And sometimes it is about learning how to live in peace, happiness, generosity and love.

Someone put it like this: “I spent my life frantically climbing the ladder of success. When I got to the top I realized it was leaning against the wrong building.” Even if she got to the top first, it made no difference. There is no merit in being first to arrive at the wrong place in life. I am personally always challenged by this when I go on holiday. I drive to the speed limit and sometimes over it. I take advantage of most passing lanes and it seems like I am passing lots of cars, only to find that when I get to the next community and all of us slow down all those I passed are just behind me. We can be successful in ways that matter and that is not about always being first. And our life can be truly meaningful and that is not about always being right. If we are leaning our ladder against the right building, it doesn’t even matter if we make it to the top. Any life spent going after things that count, will count as a life well spent.

What seemed to matter for Matthew the storyteller, was the building-up of his young, struggling community. And to do that Matthew had to recruit more followers who would take upon themselves the responsibility for dreaming and for re-imagining the world. But they had little or no inkling how to live out that dream. How to be a ‘kingdom’ of equals. So, Matthew tells a story… of Jesus leading a group of supporters to the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, where he, Jesus, begins to teach stretch their imaginations.

In conclusion then, Matthew sets the stage.  And he does that in story… A story which has us and the members of his community overhearing a Jesus’ conversation… A story which invites a response in favour of those who are adversely affected by the powerful goings-on of the ‘empire’. And encouraging a response that will want to do away with all that oppresses, limits, restricts, deprives, and imprisons others.

To borrow some 21st century words of social commentator, Hugh Mackay: “The acid test of the decency of any society [or group] is the way it deals with the disadvantaged, the drop-outs, the criminals and, yes, the ‘aliens’”  (SMH, 2 February 2005. p22).

While the list a disadvantaged for the Americans might seem longer it is the same for us here in New Zealand. The test will be not only how you and I treat the disadvantaged but also how the government administration treats them. While our numbers may be less the issues of equity are very similar.

In all these story suggestions we can sense Matthew’s hope that at least some of the community will reply:  Gosh that risky stuff. If we do it will mean change. But… we can be that!  We can live out that dream! Like Matthew’s community, we are also invited to listen and to respond: The same. But… we can be that!  We can live out that dream! Not perfectly. But as best we can on any given day. Amen.

Notes: Dylan’s Lectionary Blog. Sarah Dylan Breuer. 2005. Funk, R. W. et al. 1993.  The Five Gospels. The search for the authentic words of Jesus. NY: New York. Macmillan Publishing. Jerome H. Neyrey. <; “Honoring the dishonored: The cultural edge of Jesus’ Beatitudes,”