tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26627875621673567632024-03-13T22:09:48.255+00:00The Hadley RectoryGleanings and Musings from the Study of the Rector of Monken HadleyThomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comBlogger331125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-7206223265387203502023-07-02T17:07:00.000+01:002023-07-02T17:07:40.374+01:00A Farewell Sermon<p> Matthew 10:40–42 </p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever
welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will
receive the reward of the righteous; and whoever gives even a cup of cold water
to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of
these will lose their reward.</i></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">It may seem odd for a farewell sermon to focus on a text
that within the span of three verses refers to ‘welcome’ six times. But as I
step down as your parish priest the idea of welcoming and offering hospitality
to God’s servants remains critically important for all of us.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Monken Hadley Church is a welcoming church. Gabi noticed
that on her first, incognito, visit. Being truly welcoming to visitors can be
one of the strengths of smaller churches. But being welcoming on Sundays is not
the same as welcoming people into our lives. In relation to this we have perhaps a more
mixed record.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have strengthened a welcoming and hospital atmosphere
over the last decade with the installation of our glass doors, with Open Church
music, and with community breakfasts. The last did not survive Covid but will
hopefully be revived once the new Church House is up and running, alongside perhaps
a Wellbeing Café. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I said a few times before that hospitality is an important
Christian value and is not the same as entertaining. We, the middle class in
the southern part of England, are arguably better at entertaining than we are
at offering hospitality. The latter is opening up our homes for people to drop
in, sharing meals spontaneously without much if any additional preparation. In
other words, sharing our lives rather than organising an entertaining evening. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What does Jesus mean when he speaks about welcome in this
passage? Let us first note how closely Christ identifies with those who belong to
him. Last week we saw some of the challenges involved in being a disciple of
Jesus:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->(1)<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>they <b>cannot expect to be
better treated than Jesus</b> <b>himself</b> (vv 24–25) which is rather
worrying given that Jesus was crucified in the end;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->(2)<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>they <b>must be prepared
for hostility even from within their own households</b> which is sadly a
regular occurrence in many societies today;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->(3)<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>they <b>must make their
relationship with Jesus the top priority</b>, above even love for their parents
or their children.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But with that set of challenges comes this amazing statement
about welcome. Jesus addresses his first disciples, the apostles:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><i>Whoever
welcomes you welcomes me </i><i>and
whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me</i>.</blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Those who offer hospitality to Christ’s apostles, those who
make space for them, actually welcome Christ, and those who welcome Christ
welcome God. The very disciples of Jesus who so often messed it up,
especially before Christ’s death and resurrection: Jesus recognises them here as
his representatives and so God himself is welcomed when the apostles are
welcomed.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think this means that we can test the health of our
relationship with God by the welcome we give to the apostles. Are we on good terms with God? We can find out by exploring
whether we make room in our lives for the apostles, Jesus’ first disciples and
ambassadors.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But how so? The apostles have died. We cannot welcome them
in person today. How do we offer hospitality to the apostles today? We have the teaching they left as a deposit of their
apostolic ministry. And so the first take-home lesson for us today is that <b>if
we accept the teaching of the apostles, we let God himself into our lives. </b>You don’t need <i>me</i> to welcome God into your life, to
have authentic fellowship with Him. But you do need the apostles. You do need Holy Scripture.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jesus expands on this with a more general saying that uses
two familiar OT designations:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><i>Whoever
welcomes a <b>prophet</b> in the name of a prophet w</i><i>ill
receive a prophet’s reward; </i><i>and
whoever welcomes <b>a righteous person</b> in the name of a righteous person </i><i>will
receive the reward of the righteous;</i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Jesus no longer addresses his first disciples specifically;
he speaks more generally about welcoming someone in their capacity as a prophet
or because they are a righteous person. <b>We can receive a reward appropriate to the importance of
the person we welcome. </b>And we are not looking for their title, their status in the
world, their wealth. We make space and extend hospitality to those who are
authentic spokespersons of God and those whose lives reflect God’s
righteousness.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">During the interregnum you will meet more ministers than
usual. Hopefully, they will be preaching God’s word faithfully and will be
people of integrity that reflect God’s righteousness. (Some of them will be ordained clergy but not all; some will
come from other churches around us but there will be prophets and righteous
people from within the Monken Hadley community as well.) Offer a warm welcome to God’s servants. Honour them, most of
all by listening attentively to the word of God they preach and by imitating
what is good and right about their way of life.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Try not to let visiting preachers leave with a simple ‘I
enjoyed that sermon’ – they have not come to entertain you. Tell them what
specifically struck you, what you have learned for the first time or seen
afresh, or what puzzles you, or ask them how what they said related to this or
that part of God’s word. These would be ways of welcoming them in their
capacity as prophets, God’s spokespersons. In this way you can reap a reward
for yourselves. In other words, it will do you good.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do the same with righteous people. In the Bible righteous
people are those who are in faithful relationships with God and neighbours, who
care for the needy and marginalised, who do not pursue their own advantage but
seek the welfare of others. Look out for such people, make them welcome,
appreciating and imitating them. It will do you good.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So (1) make sure that you accept the apostles as Christ’s
representatives because this is how you welcome God in your lives. (2) Offer hospitality to those who faithfully teach and live
as God’s representatives today because Christ promises a reward for those who
recognise and make space for prophets and righteous people.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But then note how Jesus proceeds:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><i>and
whoever gives even a cup of cold water </i><i>to
one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—</i><i>truly
I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.</i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a sense, giving a cup of cold water is really nothing
special. In the culture into which Jesus speaks this would have been basic
decency. Yet Jesus is talking about people doing this <u>because someone is a
disciple of Jesus</u>. There are places in the world in which showing basic
kindness to a Christian is dangerous because you might be identified with them.
Not so in Monken Hadley – thank God! </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What are our opportunities to show a bit of kindness to a
Christian because he or she is a Christian? What does creating a space of
hospitality for someone because they are a Christian look like? I’m not entirely
sure. And in a sense, we perhaps need not worry too much about that. As those
who belong to Christ we are called to love one another as Christ has loved us –
that is a clear enough challenge, I think. (If we ask whether helping out on
the coffee rota is the equivalent of giving a drink of cold water, we have
rather missed the point.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But this text also reminds us that ‘<b>the way the gospel
is known is by one person being for another person the story of Christ</b>.’ (Stanley
Hauerwas) By God’s grace, some people do come to faith simply by reading the
New Testament. But most people need to see what this means in the lives of
flesh and blood people. Jesus summons us throughout this chapter to a life that
is so shaped and infused by Him that we too become His credible representatives,
his ambassadors. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He tells us that being a Christian cannot be something
incidental or even something that is a significant element <i>part</i> of our
lives, something alongside things like being British, being a pianist, or
whatever…If we are people that are known to be Christians first of
all, then acts of kindness extended towards us have a fair chance of being done
‘in the name of a disciple’, which is to
say because we bear the name of Christ. At its most beautiful, people want to be close to us, want to make space for us in their lives and extend kindness to us
because there is an aroma of Christ about us that intrigues them and to which
they are attracted. In meeting and welcoming us people should be able to
encounter Christ. If they do, they can show love and honour to Christ by
meeting and welcoming us.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does this sound like something that applies to big saints
only? Well, I think Jesus uses the designation ‘little ones’ deliberately. He’s
not talking about people with big shoes to fill and big achievements to their
name. Just like children can get all excited (for a while) about dinosaurs,
fairies, dolls, football or whatever, so each one of us can become saturated
with Christ by spending time with Him, thinking about Him, following Him. If
our hearts and minds keep returning to Christ, it will become more obvious to
others that we are His disciples, Christ-people, Christians. And this gives
others the chance to get themselves a little reward by doing us good just
because we are Christ’s disciples.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there is some good in even just giving a cup of water to
one of the little ones, how much more rewarding must it be to do good to a
whole community of Christ’s disciples! Alas, I cannot claim that I have
consistently served you in Monken Hadley because you are Christ’s. I trust that
many of you will have seen something of Christ in me but you will have seen
also some shortcomings and weaknesses – and there are many more that (thank
God) you have not seen!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If at any point I have not taught the apostolic message
faithfully, I beg your forgiveness. In welcoming the apostles, in letting the
apostolic teaching shape your lives, you make space for God in your life. Few things
could give me more joy than knowing that my preaching has helped you welcome
apostolic truth. Where instead my preaching has been a hindrance I am truly
sorry.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">William Perkins in his 1592 work <i>The Art of Prophesying</i>
notes well: ‘There are two parts to prophecy: preaching the Word and public
prayer.’ I have made both a priority in my own ministry and I know that some of
you are grateful that the daily office was said in church morning and evening
every day of the week. But here too I must admit to shortcomings. I wish I had
aided and assisted you better by praying more consistently for everyone on the
Electoral Roll by name. And I regret not having kept up for longer the
discipline of praying for the different streets in the parish. I am not putting
myself down. I am just saying. I did some things well but not as well as they
could have been done and I ask your forgiveness for that. I could have handed
out more cups of cold water by way of naming you individually in my prayers.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope I have never impeded your labours for Christ in other
ways but I know I could have done more to cheer you on. Most of you will know
that I find it easier to spot the things that need setting straight than to
look out for the things that ought to be commended and applauded. It’s not good
enough to blame my temperament or personality. I apologise that I have not
fought my natural tendencies harder. Again, I am not putting myself down. By
God’s grace I leave Monken Hadley a better place than it was when I arrived but
I know that I have not perfectly sought God’s kingdom and His righteousness.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I pray that my successor will do better than I and I like to
think that I would be very happy if that were to happen. But in fact I hope
this is the ambition of every one of you</p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">to welcome God by
welcoming apostolic teaching</li>
<li class="MsoNormal">to find a reward in
recognising prophets and righteous persons for who they are</li>
<li class="MsoNormal">to be such people that
others see and honour Christ in us</li>
<li class="MsoNormal">to leave Monken Hadley a
better place than it was when we arrived. Amen.</li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-40165141743411391052023-06-14T10:51:00.001+01:002023-06-14T10:51:17.855+01:00Luckock on Communion in Both Kinds<p>Clearing out books, I read a few pages of Herbert Mortimer Luckock's <i>The Divine Liturgy: Being the Order for Holy Communion Historically, Doctrinally, and Devotionally set forth in Fifty Portion </i>(London: Rivingtons, 1889). Given his Catholic stance, he seemed worth noting his comments on the doctrine of <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2020/09/concomitance.html">concomitance</a> (pages 340-341, footnotes removed) to add to earlier posts <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2020/09/against-withholding-cup.html">Against Withholding the Cup</a> and <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-history-of-withholding-cup.html">A History of Withholding the Cup</a>:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>It has been sought to justify Communion in one kind by the doctrine of concomitance, which implies that "whole Christ is present after consecration under either species of bread or wine." The Eastern Church, though opposed entirely to the denial of the Cup to the laity, has sanctioned the principle of concomitance by its administration of Wine alone in infant Communion.</p><p>Without entering upon a subject, which has been largely debated, it must suffice to plead the example of Christ; what He gave could not but have a virtue of its own. Through the refusal of the Cup therefore, the laity are deprived of their rights, and even the doctors of the Council of Trent indirectly admitted it; for they dared not to deny that those who received in one kind only were deprived of any grace, but they limited the loss to any grace that was <i>necessary for salvation</i>.</p><p>While then it is our bounden duty to take every precaution against any accident which may lead to even the least irreverence, nothing can justify our withholding that which Christ Himself gave at the institution of the Feast, or which He designated as of such vital import when he said, "Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you. He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me and I in him."</p></blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-75745478440414556582023-05-22T10:45:00.002+01:002023-05-22T10:45:12.485+01:00Giving a Child to Christ<p>What is the greatest gift we have been given? Our life, our
breath and body, is an obvious candidate. Next the life of another in
friendship and love and perhaps marriage. Furthermore the gift of new life in
the form of a child, even if this gift is a loan really, as we need to let go
off our children as they grow mature. Having been given a child for a season,
why would you want to give them away so soon, as in effect you do in baptism? In
a Christening a child is given to Christ who claims the child as His own – it is
no longer yours. Why give your child to Christ? Because there the child is in
good hands.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In John 17:1-11 we read four times of God the Father having
given people to Jesus and these verses can also help us see why it is a good
thing to give a child to Jesus. First, using the NCV,</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">You gave the Son power over all people so that the Son could
give eternal life to all those you gave him. </p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even if we have in some way been involved in giving life to
a child, Jesus can give the child something we cannot give: eternal life. If
life is about relationships, life ends when our relationships come to an end.
We have not the power to maintain relationships forever but God has:</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">And this is eternal life: that people know you, the only
true God, and that they know Jesus Christ, the One you sent</p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">This relates closely to a second reason for giving a child
to Christ. Jesus says in His prayer</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">I showed what you are like to those you gave me from the
world.</p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Jesus we see exactly what God is like. Others can tell us
about God but no one else can show us God. We give a child to Christ because we
long for the child to see what God is like. Why would we need to know what God is like? Because in any
case we belong to God:</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have
obeyed your teaching.</p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">As creatures we all belong to the Creator but we long for
our child to belong to God in a more intimate way, responding with obedience rather
than rebellion to the teaching of their Creator. Baptism signals a homecoming,
belonging again to the One to whom we really belonged from the beginning and
from whom we have been snatched away. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jesus cares for all people but those given to Him are His
first priority:</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">I am praying for them. I am not praying for people in the
world but for those you gave me, because they are yours. All I have is yours,
and all you have is mine. And my glory is shown through them. </p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christians are Christ’s first priority because through them
His glory is shown to others. A Christening is always also a commissioning: we
are claimed by Christ also for the sake of others. By showing off the beauty,
goodness, grace and truth of Christ to others we can become the means by which
others come to know Jesus Christ and the only true God and so find eternal
life. It is a glorious task even if it is not undertaken in a safe space which
is why Jesus prays</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">Holy Father, keep them safe by the power of your name, the
name you gave me, so that they will be one, just as you and I are one.</p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">With Jesus we pray for children (and adults) that are
Christened that they will be kept safe, not by the power of a mighty hand that
eliminates all obstacles and evil, not by the power of a superior intelligence
that easily navigates the deceitfulness and treacheries of this world, but by
the power of God’s name, which is to say God’s character, being made like
Christ who by innocent suffering defeats evil. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For that the baptised needs the community and unity of the
church, as we each receive with gladness and obedience the name and teaching of
God.</p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-54376030180004971962023-05-21T17:04:00.005+01:002023-05-21T17:04:40.141+01:00Accepting Put-Downs<p>The final instalment in the series of Easter season reflections
from 1 Peter.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Being marginalised or maligned for the sake of Christ should
not come as a surprise to Christians. First of all, it is not at all strange
that a world that is in rebellion against its Creator should show hostility
towards those who have pledged allegiance to Christ, in whom and for whom the
world was made. Secondly, those trials are not without purpose – they test and
reveal the genuineness of our faith and that we have made Christ, not being at
ease, our true joy. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A proper perspective on suffering for the sake of Christ enables
us to endure rather than succumb to external pressures and so leads to the
greater (and noisier) joy when Christ is revealed to all for who He is. It is
not a case of suffering now for the sake of joy later; we are called to rejoice
now. We find joy not in the suffering as such but in the fact that suffering for
the name of Christ makes us partners with Him. We rejoice in our association
with Christ.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This of course presumes that we do not have brought suffering
upon ourselves for good reason. If we suffer as a Christian, there is nothing
shameful about it for us and we are to accept this suffering by entrusting
ourselves to our faithful Creator, ‘while continuing to do good’ (1 Peter
4:19), refusing to repay evil with evil. Our non-retaliation bears witness to
our trust in God. Undeserved suffering will be vindicated, this is why 1 Peter
4:14 speaks of those who are reviled for the name of Christ as blessed, echoing
the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:10-12). If the Beatitudes suggest that ‘you are with
the king, therefore you will inherit the kingdom,’ 1 Peter 4:14 perhaps means
to say that ‘you have the Spirit of God resting on you, therefore glory will be
yours, the Spirit of God being the spirit of glory’ but the syntax here is
difficult.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Having stressed the importance of putting on ‘the apron of humility’
(TEV of 1 Peter 5:5), the letter comes back to the encouragement to humble ourselves,
or perhaps (interpreting the passive form as a genuine passive) to accept being
made low, knowing that the hand of God which is mighty in bringing judgement
(beginning with the household of God, 1 Peter 4:17) is also mighty in bringing deliverance.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How do we accept humiliation? By casting
all our anxiety on God. We can do so because we know that He cares for us. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The call to alertness in 1 Peter 5:8 indicates
that we are not talking about passivity here but active resistance to the one
ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. The devil wants to devour us,
enticing us to give in to the desires of the flesh (2:11; 4:2-4) or to respond
inappropriately to suffering. By not taking matters into our own hands we
remain steadfast in faith. Remembering that if we are being harassed or
ostracised for the sake of Christ, this is not unique to us – brothers and
sisters all over the world are ‘undergoing’ (better: enduring, completing) the
same kind of suffering (1 Peter 5:9).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The critical thing is our calling in Christ whose
resurrection has born us into a living hope (cf. 1 Peter 1:3). We know that the
short while of suffering will have to give way to eternal glory. Our God is a
God of all grace and He will make everything right beyond our wildest dreams.
He will take charge of this Himself (1 Peter 5:10). ‘To him is the power
forever and ever’ (1 Peter 5:11; cf. 4:11).<o:p></o:p></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-30006560244307454762023-05-14T22:39:00.000+01:002023-05-14T22:39:16.643+01:00The Blessing of Unjust Suffering<p> <b>Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is
good? </b>(1 Peter 3:13).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The rhetorical question expresses an ideal. This is how it
should be: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>people who do good are applauded and rewarded, and </li><li>people who do harm are reprimanded and punished.</li></ul><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the world doesn’t work like that. Being eager to do what is good is no guarantee for people
wishing you well. Treasuring the truth, seeking the good, doing what is right
can even get you into trouble.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you
are blessed</b> (1 Peter 3:13) — how so?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How can this be true? How can unjust suffering be a
blessing?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(1) This is a question of what we fear and what we hope
for [what we think lies <u>ahead</u> of us].<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do we fear being uncomfortable now? Do we fear being
side-lined? Put differently: Do we hope to be respected by those around us and
to have a comfortable life? Such hopes and fears will lower our pain threshold.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Or do we, e.g., fear being a part of the problem rather than
a part of the solution in relation to climate change? Are we truly afraid of
benefitting from the exploitation of others? Such fears would increase our
threshold for pain. We would be more ready to make sacrifices or to pay more
for the products we buy to ensure fair compensation of workers and minimising
our negative impact on the environment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Examples could be multiplied. Our hopes and fears profoundly
shape what kind of suffering we are prepared to tolerate or desperately seek to
avoid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><i>Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated…Always
be ready to make your defence to anyone who demands from you an accounting for
the hope that is in you </i>(1 Peter 3:14-15)</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It would be good to examine our hopes and fears and, if need
be, seek to correct them. Do we hope to hear the ‘well done, good and faithful
servant’ (Matthew 25) from the lips of Jesus on the last day? And so we are
talking about<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(2) A question of authority [who or what holds sway <u>over</u>
us].<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are we governed by our hopes and fears? Or are we submitting
our hopes and fears and everything else to Christ our Lord? <i>But in your
hearts sanctify Christ as Lord</i> (1 Peter 3:15).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are we ready to follow his example, trusting that all powers
are subject to him? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Conflict challenges us to take sides. Sometimes such a
challenge to take sides should not be taken up. But when it is a matter of
truth or falsehood, good or bad, right or wrong, we proclaim our trust in Christ
by choosing what is true, good, and right even if this seems to get us nowhere,
nowhere pleasant anyway.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And so this is also<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(3) A question of conscience [what we listen to <u>within</u>
us]<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do we believe that there is good and evil, right and wrong,
true and false? That life is not simply about powers and preferences? <i>Keep
your conscience clear</i> (1 Peter 3:16). God wills that we do what is
right…even if and when this results in suffering.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christ has forged ahead and shown us suffering as a path to
glory. And so this is also<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(4) A question of our belonging/calling [what carries us <u>underneath</u>]<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A righteous one has led us unrighteous people to God through
his death and resurrection (1 Peter 3:17). Christ <i>was put to death in the
flesh</i>, in the weakness of human nature, <i>but made alive in the spirit</i>,
in the power of the life to come (1 Peter 3:18). He has moved from a mortal
existence into the realm of undying resurrection life.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christ has suffered even unto death but has overcome death
and reigns victorious over the forces of evil. He thereby demonstrates that the
way of suffering for doing good leads to glory and vindication from God. Are we
Christians? Then we can and should be confident following on this path that he
has trod before.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Back in <b>1 Peter 3:9</b> we have a basic principle
expressed: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>don’t give as good as you get (responding to abuse with
abuse) </li><li>but give what you expect to get (repay abuse with a
blessing).</li></ul><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The natural human response to hostility (in the flesh) is
retaliation. But giving as good as you get perpetuates the cycle of violence
and death. Our giving what we expect to get (in the spirit) breaks through the
cycle of violence and death and is evidence of resurrection life.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Now what about the second half of our text?<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1 Peter 2:19-22 counts as one of the most difficult texts in
the NT. But there are big clues to the correct understanding if we first of all
bear in mind that this is still about Jesus showing the power of suffering for
doing good.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Suffering for doing good was vindicated when Jesus was made
alive in the spirit. He then went to the underworld to make a proclamation to
‘the spirits in prison’. Who are they? In Jewish tradition they are the
supernatural beings whose intercourse with human beings was a key factor in God
bringing the flood (Genesis 6).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Their imprisonment in the underworld is the punishment for
their disobedience. They are suffering for having done evil and this holds them
imprisoned. But Jesus entered death having done no evil, therefore death
has no hold over him. When he enters the underworld he says in effect ‘hello –
and goodbye’, thereby announcing his victory over death.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In other words,<b> Christ announced his triumph over evil</b> – bad
news for the imprisoned spirits but good news, comfort and encouragement for
the few who suffer now for their righteousness. Like Noah for whom the destructive
waters of the flood were also a means of salvation, as they carried the ark.<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">‘The water of the flood washed away sin and wickedness and
brought a new world with a fresh start before God. The water of baptism does
the same thing, providing a passage from the old to the new.’ (David Guzik)<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is because the death of Christ washed away sin and
wickedness and the resurrection of Christ brought a new world into being.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21) in the sense that it unites
us with Christ who has made all powers subject to him. Not automatically but
‘as an appeal to God for a good conscience’ (NRSV) or perhaps better ‘a pledge
of a good conscience towards God’ (NIV, cf. NRSV footnote).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Such a pledge is made possible through the resurrection of
Jesus. He has forged ahead and shown us suffering as a path to glory, His
perfect righteousness bringing victory over death.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we give as good as we get, we reveal our fear that if we
don’t defend ourselves, forcefully if need be, no one will. (We thereby reveal
that we do not really trust that God’s eyes and ears are open towards us, verse
12.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we respond to abuse with blessing, we give expression to
the hope of our calling and wonderful inheritance (shortly I will come into so
much blessing that I can afford to be generous now). This expression of hope is a blessing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we are prepared to suffer for doing good, we proclaim that
Jesus is Lord and that we trust in his victory. This proclamation and expression of trust is a blessing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we seek the good even in the face of criticism, insult
and worse, we keep a clear conscience, as pledged in our baptism. A clear conscience is a blessing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we follow Christ on the path of suffering to glory, we
reveal to whom we belong. The greatest blessing is belonging to Christ.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-1414793314327242942023-05-13T21:00:00.003+01:002023-05-13T21:00:31.016+01:00What does it mean to be a Christian?<p></p><b>What does it mean to be a Christian?</b> One way of answering the question, looking at 1 Peter, is to say that Christians have experienced that the Lord is ‘good’ or ‘kind’ (1 Peter 2:3; the Greek word sounds very much like "Christ" which is surely deliberate) and so they nurture a taste for uncontaminated truth by which they grow into salvation (1 Peter 2:2). <br /><br />Another way of answering the question is to say that Christians are those who have come to Jesus, the living cornerstone, and so are being built into a spiritual house to be a royal priesthood. <br /><br /><b>Being a Christian is all about Christ Jesus.</b> Re-using ‘chosen race’ and ‘holy nation’ (1 Peter 2:9) paradoxically underlines the point because the church is formed as a people from all tribes and languages. Ethnic identity is not a factor in true Christianity (unlike Judaism, Hinduism). It is the new birth which is all decisive and which creates a unity from diverse ethnic backgrounds. <br /><br />Being Christian is about <b>the person of Christ</b>. While the teachings of Christ are of supreme importance to us -- indeed, our longing for the Scriptures shows our (spiritual) health -- Christianity is not primarily about the teachings of Christ (not like Buddhism is primarily about the teachings of the Buddha, "the enlightened one"). <br /><br />Being Christian is about <b>belonging to Christ</b>. This does of course mean that allegiance and submission to Christ are pretty important but Christianity is not primarily about submission (unlike Islam as traditionally understood). Being Christian is about being incorporated into Christ which does involve submission to Christ, listening to Christ (“the sheep know his voice”) but is more than that: <b>being made one with Christ</b>. <br /><br />The experience of being marginalised and rejected by others while being God’s chosen was Christ’s before it was that of Christians then and now. As one commentator put it, ‘Peter reads the situation of his Christian audience from the perspective of the career of Jesus Christ, and the career of Jesus Christ from the perspective of the Scriptures.’ <br /><br />The image of the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-8) also implies as much: everything centres on Christ, the decisive stone which sets the direction of the walls and so the orientation and alignment for the whole house. His experience (living stone) becomes ours (living stones who belong to Him):<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>He is rejected by society, so those who belong to him get rejected too.</li><li>Christ is chosen by God, so those who belong to him are too.</li><li>He is holy, so those who belong to him are holy too.</li></ul>The house being built is a ‘spiritual house’ – the place where the Holy Spirit is to be found; the building is a temple. Hence the language of a holy priesthood which is to offer spiritual sacrifices. <br /><br />The resurrection of Christ makes it possible for us to offer our lives to God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Such lives dedicated to God include bearing witness to the mighty acts of God in Christ. Why? Because of <b>the inescapability of Christ</b>. He is not only the be-all and end-all of the church; Christ affects the fate of every person, depending on the reaction to Him, whether positive or negative.<blockquote><div>‘We must either build on Him, or be dashed against Him.’ (Calvin)</div></blockquote><div>The second half of 1 Peter 2:8 can be understood in one of two ways. Either: ‘Yes, they stumble at the Word of God for in their hearts they are unwilling to obey it—which makes stumbling a foregone conclusion.’ (JB Phillips). Or: God is in control of all things, He establishes the evil as well as the good. <br /><br />In any case this does not exclude responsibility of those who reject Christ, who are said to ‘disobey’ him. Our responsibility towards those who reject Christ is to be a holy nation, proclaiming with our words ‘the mighty acts of him who called us out of darkness into his marvellous light’ (1 Peter 2:9) and showing forth in our lives the truth of this proclamation. <br /><br />Let this joy of ours be made known:</div><blockquote><div>Once you were not a people,<br /> but now <b>you are God’s people</b>;<br />once you had not received mercy,<br /> but now <b>you have received mercy</b>. (1 Peter 2:10) <br /><br /> <p></p></div></blockquote>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-70870036164670055272023-04-30T16:47:00.001+01:002023-04-30T16:47:17.111+01:00APCM Address 2023<p>Change is
natural in any organism; it is a sign of life. There is good
change and bad change, planned change and unplanned change. Some get
excited about change, some anxious – we need to recognise that. The church was
created as a movement – a body that always grows, or dies. A maintenance
mentality and church do not go together. But we are not
always good at managing change.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">From the world
of philanthropy and development: “<b>theory of change</b>” to articulate more
explicitly </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">(a) what outcome the organization
wants to achieve in the world, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">(b) what strategy it is going to
use to accomplish that outcome, and </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">(c) what assumptions are made that
lead it thinking that strategy X will result in outcome Y.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">What <b>outcome
</b>might we want to achieve? What is it we
really want as a church?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">[NB the use of
the first person. If we ask what it is we want <i>from</i> the church, we talk
about the church in the third person, in the language of outsiders.]</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">E.g., do we want for the resurrection of Christ to have a greater impact
on us and on our society in the form of <span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span dir="LTR" style="text-indent: -18pt;"></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">more new births,</span><span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span dir="LTR" style="text-indent: -18pt;"></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">more growth towards
conforming to the life of Christ?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">The parish
profile to be written in connection with the search for a new incumbent must be not only about what we want to preserve but about
the change we desire.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">The <b>strategy
</b>depends on the outcome and the assumptions we make. E.g., if we want new births and accept that we are ‘born
anew through the living and enduring word of God’ (1 Peter 1:23), the strategy must be for the living and enduring word of God
to be released. This is why
preaching has been a priority for me although I know of course that God’s word
is not dependent on excellent preaching!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">My <b>assumption
</b>is that truly spiritual work is done by the Spirit of God, <i>through</i> us
(God willing) but not <i>by</i> us – we need the means of grace. Prayer is the
key part of the strategy: ‘You do not have because you do not ask (or ask with
wrong motives)’ (James 4:2-3).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">In short, if we
want <i>God’s</i> transformation, we need to ask how <i>God</i> works to
transform us.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">What do you see
as the most important part of your Christian life from week to week? What do you
look for on Sunday, and what sort of ministry have you found most consistently helpful?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">Different
clergy have different theories of change. In the early church Pelagius thought that God worked in Christians through two means: Firstly, he had
created them with a powerful will. Second, God had given them a blueprint for the
flourishing human life in the Bible. His theory of change, then, was to read
the Bible and then try very hard to do what it said.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Augustine found this view both naïve and at odds with what
Scripture says about human nature. Drawing, e.g., on Paul’s statements about how
the divine law which calls for righteousness is unable to produce it, Augustine
argued that the core engine of human nature is not the will but the heart and
its desires. And he pointed out that it is extremely hard to change hearts—so
hard in fact, that only God can do it, through the Holy Spirit. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The way you change a person is by getting through not to
their head or their will but to their heart. Which is precisely the work of the
Holy Spirit: to fill us with new desires for the things of God, and to make us
hate and flee from our bad, self-destructive desires.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even the best clergy cannot do that. But it is useful to
have an incumbent<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span dir="LTR" style="text-indent: -18pt;"></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">who knows that human beings
are driven not by knowledge or will but by desire; who knows that we are creatures of the
heart, creatures of love – and who will love you and seek to help you towards
an emotional encounter with the God revealed in Jesus rather than just seek to
convey accurate knowledge about God and will therefore, e.g., value the place
of music.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">It is useful to have an incumbent <span style="text-indent: -18pt;">who knows that the human
heart strongly resists direct efforts to change it and who will therefore rely
on God’s Holy Spirit. (Have you ever tried to change someone’s mind about
politics through rational argument? Have you ever tried to talk someone out of
loving the person they have fallen in love with?)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">It is useful to have an incumbent <span style="text-indent: -18pt;">who knows that human beings
are wired in such a way that judgment kills love. When we feel judged, we hide
our love away, we put up our walls, we resist. A minister who knows this will
not pivot on telling people what is wrong with them and leave them with a moral
exhortation or a set of behavioural guidelines.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I make it sound as if the most important thing on the agenda
for the coming year is to find a strong incumbent. But if, as I believe, Augustine has seen correctly that human beings are
above all else creatures of love, then human relationships and human community
are really important and this should not and cannot depend on an incumbent.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Remember also: the more diverse our congregation is the more
the glory of God is manifest as the spectrum of his grace is revealed. And the
more there is genuine, mutual love across that diversity – not just birds of a
feather flocking together – the more evident will be the presence of Christ.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There will be fundraising to be done in the coming year,
there will be the search for a new incumbent but the focus must be on remaining
and strengthen us as a community centred on Christ.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to
accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory
in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.</p><p class="MsoNormal">(Ephesians 3:20)</p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-31507065289755780112023-04-29T15:07:00.003+01:002023-04-29T15:07:35.440+01:00The Cruciform EmployeeOn the basis that 1 Peter presents the the cross as a paradigm of Christian existence with special reference to slaves, Howard Marshall offered guidelines for Christian employees to help them live a cruciform (cross-shaped) life. They are summarised in Scot McKnight's NIVAC volume on 1 Peter as follows:<br /><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>All of our social relationships should find a behaviour that is driven by a desire to do God’s will.</li><li>Our conduct ought to be consistent with the obligations we assume in our relationship to that person and job.</li><li>Our conduct ought to be determined by that relationship, not by what we think of the personal traits of the employer.</li><li>When we disregard our relational contract with its obligations, we do disservice to the gospel.</li><li>If we suffer as a result of our obligations, such suffering is both commendable and Christian; it is not unchristian to suffer! </li></ol><div>McKnight adds: “In a world driven by litigation (which is itself driven by the desire to sustain personal rights), it is hard for us today to see that sometimes it is best not to assert our rights but to endure some kind of social pressure. That is, it might be best for a Christian man to endure the shame of not being promoted or getting a raise, or of a Christian woman of not asserting her equality or fighting for equal pay, because of the gospel!” (175)</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>In the business world, Christians should not be known for their assertiveness as much as for their industriousness, their work ethic, their kindness, their loyalty, their fairness, and their honesty…</li><li>In our personal lives we need to suppress the desire to be noticed…</li><li>Another area of life where we need to let the pattern of the cross infiltrate is that of personal finances…A cruciform lifestyle with respect to possessions is found in persons who do not find their greatest pleasure in shopping, who are not motivated to buy more things when they get their paycheck, and who are not using the credit cards well beyond their limits. (177) </li></ul>He observes: “It may not work – in the short run. But the way of suffering is the divinely intended manner of bringing the greatest victory of God into the world. What really works is what works with God, and what works with God is the cross!” (178)</div>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-64977849230790376962023-04-24T20:10:00.001+01:002023-04-24T20:10:19.948+01:00Fear-Shaped Love<p></p><blockquote><p>If you invoke as Father the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds, live in reverent fear during the time of the exile.</p><p>! Peter 1:17</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Belief in the final judgement often gets a bad press. Does the belief that God will reward the righteous and punish the evil dull our senses to the pain and injustice of the world, helping the oppressed to put up with things with which they should not put up? Karl Marx arguably had more respect for the religious sentiments of the oppressed than some of his successors and perhaps did not use "opium of the people" in an entirely negative sense but he made the notion popular that belief in a God who will sort out everything in the end is harmful to the fight for justice. No doubt religion has sometimes functioned in this way. But distraction by entertainment has perhaps always been the greater threat, cf. "bread and circuses" in ancient Rome.</p><p>1 Peter speaks of a new birth through the resurrection of Christ which allows us to address God as Father. It is a new existence which breaks with the inherited ways of life and sets us on a path that takes the long view. No longer focused on short-term benefits which could be gained by silver and gold which are so often acquired at the expense of the life of others (ancient mines were notorious as places of agonising death) but becoming part of a story that begun before the foundation of the world with the predestination of Christ's self-offering as the source of life (his blameless purity embodying the maxim he taught that "it is more blessed to give than to receive," Acts 20:35). This does indeed put value on enduring pain while suffering unjustly but Christ becomes instrumental in defining for us the God in whom we put our trust, our faith and hope and it is not as a God who above all demands submission but "the one who raised Christ from the death and gave him glory." Christ's vindication encourages us to seek God's kingdom and his righteousness, trusting that goodness, beauty and justice will have the last word. </p><p>Yes, Christians do not believe that all depends on us and may be less in a hurry to bring revolutionary change than those who have not been born into a living hope but addressing as Father "the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds" should not lead to complacency. This is why 1 Peter 1:17 speaks of "reverent fear" for God - being in awe at the majesty, goodness and power of God not in the way of being "too heavenly-minded to be of earthly use" but with trembling that shapes the way we live in this corrupt world in which we are not quite at home.</p><p>We tremble before the one who loves the world so much that He will not allow His good purposes and the beautiful order he put in place to be disregarded without consequences. And it is such trembling, such reverent fear which enables true love. How so?</p><p>1 Peter 1:22 spells it out. We purify our souls by bringing them in line with divine truth and this purification makes unfeigned, mutual love possible because such love cannot exist with lying and hypocrisy. There is a world of difference between mere niceness and mutual love. You do not have to be born anew to be nice, friendly, smiley but the genuine mutual love to which we are called is only possible through the new birth. We need to have become purified by obedience to the truth for which the living and enduring word of God is essential (1 Peter 1:23).<br /></p><p>Niceness will cease, friendliness will pass away, smileyness disappears - love born out of faith and hope in God remains, a love that dares to speak the truth rather than hides in the superficial comfort of niceness, and a truth-telling that is not judgemental (the final judgement belongs to God) but has the other's best interests in mind because this is how God loves.</p><p>When you look at the cross, do you see the precious blood of Christ shed for you? (If so, how can we not encounter others in humility and forgive them as we have been forgiven?)</p><p>When you contemplate the empty tomb, do you submit to the truth that Christ is risen? (if so, how can we not rejoice in a living hope even in suffering for doing good?)</p><p>Let these truths sink in ever deeper and so let genuine love arise deeply from the heart.</p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-76823722823500230982023-04-16T17:59:00.004+01:002023-04-16T17:59:52.271+01:00A Living Hope<p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;">Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.</span></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">1 Peter 1:3</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;">In 1 Peter faith is spoken of as
hope, a living hope – not dead, futile, empty hope without reality and validity,
a hope that makes alive. Let’s talk about hope (indebted to R. Feldmeier, 65-70).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;">“We are full of hope throughout our
whole life,” says Plato. Having hope is one of the defining characteristics of
being human. Human beings anticipate their future. They are ahead of their
time. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><u>On the one hand</u>, hope is our
strength. Our ability not to go from stimulus to immediate response makes for
human development and culture. We can imagine different scenarios of the future
and make long-term plans. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><u>On the other hand</u>, as the Latin
proverb has it, <i>Hope often deceives</i> (Spes saepe fallit). There is
therefore an ambivalence to hope which seems to be expressed in narrative form
in the myth involving Pandora’s box (jug). Hesiod (ca. 700 B.C.) related that opening
the container released misery and evil upon humanity. When Pandora hastened to
close the container, only one thing was left behind. What is left when
everything goes wrong is…‘hope’. But is it this a comfort that alleviates some
of the suffering or, in the form of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“deceptive
expectation” one more evil?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><b>The hope of believers in the Bible is
very different. It is not portrayed as ambivalent.</b> It is ‘a hope [that] is not
founded upon the unstable foundation of human expectation and fears but on the
certainty of the trustworthiness of God; it bases itself <i>not on something </i>that
one wishes to obtain or avoid but <i>on God, the basis and content of hope</i>.
Right in the prayers of the Old Testament, the Psalms, one continually comes
across confessions such as “the Lord is my hope” or something similar…’ Hope is
not anticipating what we desire but a synonym for the relationship with God of trusting
faith.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;">The NT builds on this: ‘<b>The
Christian hope is … based upon <i>God’s act </i>in the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead</b>, through which he has defined himself as creator out
of nothing and thereby as the death-conquering life force, who thus through the
cross has saved from sin, death, and decay. <b>The future is already decided in
Christ</b> and, with reference to the gospel, believers are then also certain
of their future’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;">Having or not having such hope is
the characteristic difference<i> </i>between Christians and non-Christians (cf.
1 Thess 4:13; Eph 2:12). We have an anchor laid in the future (E. Schweizer). There
is a renewed reality (a new heaven and a new earth) which we get hold of by our
trust in God. This trusting anticipation of the future is ‘virtually the life
principle of the regenerate Christian humanity.’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><b>Do you know the new birth? Are
you born again?<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;">The question is not or should not
one about American culture politics. The question is: Do you accept that Jesus
rose from the dead, that in the resurrection of Christ God has shown himself to
be the God who makes alive? If you are alive with this hope, you have been born
again.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;">To find out whether you have been
born, you don’t try to dig out a birth certificate. You live, therefore you
must have been sired.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;">But to find out whether you are a
child of God, you don’t even directly examine your heart to see whether there
is a sufficient level of joy and confidence. No, you look to the cross and you
look to the empty tomb.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;">If at the cross you see blood that
was shed to cleanse you from your sins and if you accept that the tomb is empty
because God raised Christ from the dead, then you have been given the new
birth. You are a child of God. You have a fabulous inheritance waiting for you.
You have a living hope.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">May God grant us to love Jesus Christ whom we have not seen, to believe
in him whom we do not see now, and so to receive the outcome of our faith, the
salvation of our souls, when Jesus Christ is finally revealed. Amen.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-6571650302989104012023-04-16T17:57:00.001+01:002023-04-16T18:01:40.032+01:00A New Birth<p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">1 Peter 1:3</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>The Easter season</b> helps us to
let the significance of the resurrection of Christ sink in. Each year readings
from Acts trace some of the impact, the positive ripple effect, the negative repercussions,
the shock waves emanating from Christ’s resurrection, tracing the story from Jerusalem
to Rome, from east to west. Every third year readings from 1 Peter supplement
this. This letter is written to Christian communities in Asia Minor (Turkey)
and generally thought to have been sent from Rome. So we have a west to east
movement.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Together these readings give us a
glimpse of the re-ordering of many lives and relationships, the turmoil in the
immediate aftermath of the resurrection. Are we still aware today just what big
a revolution was started “on the third day”? It is of course to be expected
that over time the new norms and revolutionarily outlook gets normalised and established.
And it is not an altogether bad thing for cultures and societies being shaped
by what happened “on the third day” in such a way that it no longer seems
unusual. But institutionalisation often means that the message gets neutralised,
accommodated and made safe. Are we failing to get hold of the (full) reality? The
Easter season is an invitation to take a fresh look.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Gospel shows us <b>the
immediate response</b> which was not very encouraging: suspicion (‘they have
taken the body’), confusion (why is the linen left in the tomb?), fear (of the
authorities), resistance to belief (on the side of Thomas who does not really
have a good reason to refuse to believe). It is like people going around asking
<b>“what just happened?!”</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">By the time 1 Peter was written the
followers of Jesus are no longer disorientated but the revolution is still in
full swing. The letter is addressed to “the exiles of the Dispersion” which is
to say people who have become outsiders <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">in connection with being</span> chosen by God –
a theme that runs through the letter.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The author points as to <b>an appropriate
response</b>, namely <b>thanksgiving</b>. ‘Blessed be God’ is a typical
Hebraic/Jewish way of acknowledging God’s goodness. The author does not ask us
to be grateful, he leads by example: ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ.’</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What just happened? We have been
given <b>a new birth</b>. It is hard to imagine a more sweeping concept. What
does this language about a new birth mean? Let’s tease it out. First, it points
to <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b>God’s initiative</b>. No-one is responsible
or contributes anything to their being sired. And just like our natural </span>birth
ideally was the fruit of <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">an act of love, so our new birth is attributed to</span> God’s
great, abundant mercy. His decision, His love.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Secondly, a new birth speaks of <b>new
relationships and identity</b>. Our natural birth relates to ethnic identity,
citizenship, socioeconomic class, innate potential and much more. Language of a
new birth suggests a new identity, new citizenship, new innate potential. We
are taken into the Father-Son relationship, being made children of God. We are
given a new home, paradoxically one that makes us in a sense homeless <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in this world (as D. S<span lang="DE" style="mso-ansi-language: DE;">ölle once pointed out</span>), because Christians ‘no
longer fit in well with the society in which they were once at home; <span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">their Christian faith brings them
into conflict with the values and priorities of the society in which they live.’
(K. Jobes). But having God as our Father more than makes up for it. And of
course it means that every Christian of whatever class or ethnic identity is
our brother or sister.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Thirdly, this new birth brings</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><b>new prospects</b>:
the children of God are heirs to ‘an inheritance that is imperishable,
undefiled, and unfading.’ It won’t rot away, won’t be spoiled, it won’t fade.
It is <span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">kept safe for us in
heaven while we are <b>kept safe</b> by God’s power. Through the death,
resurrection and ascension of Christ</span> the<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> rescue is all ready, our <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>salvation is secured. We are just waiting for
it to be revealed.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Everything happened within three
days. ‘It is through the resurrection that God has conquered the world’s
separation from himself, a world that is subjected to transience and thereby
sin and death, and has made a new beginning possible.’ (R. Feldmeier)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Christian existence is first all
about what God has already done:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">He took the initiative.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">He reconciled us to Himself and to one another.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">He keeps our salvation secure.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Christian existence is secondly
responding to what God has done:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 110%;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">thanksgiving (<span style="text-indent: -24px;">which is the overall context here)</span></span></li><li><span style="text-indent: -24px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">living hope: a key concept in 1 Peter</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: -24px;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span dir="LTR" style="text-indent: -24px;"></span><span style="text-indent: -24px;">joy: the risen Christ </span><span style="text-indent: -24px;">is</span><span style="text-indent: -24px;"> not a figure of the past</span></span></li></ul><p></p>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: -24px;">This response is often summed up as ‘faith’ which is of course more than merely holding something to be true. </span><b style="text-indent: -24px;">Faith</b><span style="text-indent: -24px;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -24px;">is accepting</span><span style="text-indent: -24px;"> ‘the message of salvation, by means of which the human is at once placed into a new relationship to God, into an attitude of trust that embraces and determines his or her whole existence, of commitment, of hope (cf. 1:21).’ (R. Feldmeier) But 1 Peter talks about faith as <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2023/04/a-living-hope.html">hope</a>, thus giving us a particular perspective on what it means to have faith in God.</span></span><div><div><div style="text-indent: -24px;"><br /></div><p></p><div><span style="text-indent: -24px;"><br /></span></div></div></div>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-86951022972034238082023-04-12T09:09:00.004+01:002023-04-12T09:09:33.432+01:00Cur Deus Homo?<p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cur_Deus_Homo">Cur Deus Homo?</a> (Why did God
became man?) is one of the most famous works on the atonement.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="line-height: 105%;">Why did Jesus come into the world?</span></b><span style="line-height: 105%;"> In John 18 we hear Jesus’ own
answer: <b>to testify to the truth</b> (John 18:37). He says so in answer to a
question about whether he was a king, clearly implying that he is indeed a king.
Jesus is king by way of testifying to the truth, by gathering people around him
who listen to his voice. He is not a king over people who live in a particular
land or over people who are under his military thumb but he is king over those
who submit to the truth, who belong to the truth. He thereby implies that a true
king is someone to whom people listen, whom they follow.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As autonomous adults, mindful of many
bad historical experiences, we, by and large, don’t like to listen to someone
just because they are in a position of authority. <b>Jesus earned the right to
be listened to by speaking the truth reliably</b>. We do not trust Him because
He is the guy in charge. We acknowledge Him as being in charge because He is
trustworthy.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Alas, many post-moderns like their
own self-determination so much that they deny the very existence of objective
truth. Pilate was a precursor for such an outlook in his lack of concern for
truth – or justice, for that matter (ultimately it is hard to maintain a
concern for justice without a concern for truth). For him, as for many today,
it’s <i>all</i> power play.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In fact we find the same lack of
concern for truth being spoken in the Sanhedrin – and Jesus puts his finger on
it: ‘If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken
rightly, why do you strike me?’ (John 18:23)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But it isn’t just the drive for
self-determination, the exercise of power that leads people to turn away from
the truth, it is also the fear of power, of what might be done to them if they were
to speak truth. So we find Peter denying Jesus three times – out of fear.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It turns out that turning away from
the truth is not a modern phenomenon after all but has a long history. It is
because we so readily turn away from the truth that Jesus came into the world. Why
did God become man? To testify to the truth.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="line-height: 105%;">But why does this get highlighted in
the Passion story? </span></b><span style="line-height: 105%;">Why
not in connection with the teaching of Jesus? The parables of Jesus speak of
God’s kingdom. The Sermon of the Mount offers kingdom ethics. But it is here
that the question is raised and answered: What sort of king is Jesus? One who
came to testify to the truth. Presumably this is because it is his passion that
profoundly testifies to the truth.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">How so? E.g., by bearing witness to
the fact that our lives belong to God who cares for us which is why it would be
wrong, a denial of the truth, to seek our own comfort at the expense of doing
God’s will.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The passion of Christ also testifies
to the truth by showing up how readily we turn away from the truth, if it does
not suit us. Christ’s suffering embodies our rejection of God, of God’s rule, our
rejection of truth .It shows us that such rejection leads to death.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Best of all Jesus testifies to the
truth of who God is and that He is worthy of our trust even when it leads to
suffering and death because suffering and death will not have the last word.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Peter’s attempt at self-preservation
at the expense of truth leaves him wretched. Jesus, by contrast, having
sanctified himself in the truth of God’s word, as he had prayed for his
disciples (John 17:17–18), is vindicated in his resurrection from the dead.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jesus earned the right to be listened
to by speaking the truth reliably <u>and</u> by committing his life to the
truth, rejecting the use of power to enforce his rule.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="line-height: 105%;">Can we independently verify the claim
of Jesus to testify to the truth? </span></b><span style="line-height: 105%;">No, not really. But Jesus did not fall from heaven. He was
born to a Jewish mother as the culmination of a long history of God revealing
Himself to humanity. Jesus fulfilled a pattern laid down in what we call the OT
Scriptures. As Ian McGilchrist says about the “argument” he presents in <i>The Truth
of the Matter </i>(London: Perspectiva Press, 2021)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"></p><blockquote><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And yet it is also not an argument,
in the conventional sense, at all. If we want others to understand the beauty
of a landscape with which they may be unfamiliar, an argument is pointless:
instead we must take them there and explore it with them, walking on the hills
and mountains, pausing as new vantage points continually open around us,
allowing our companions to experience it for themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; margin-bottom: 3.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 105%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Come and see! Come and taste! The truth
will set you free and the new life vindicates the truth.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-55489829739308777892023-03-25T10:33:00.002+00:002023-03-25T10:33:39.144+00:00Living with Disagreement<p>Disagreement about the teaching of marriage and
sexual intimacy is arguably more serious than, e.g., the disagreements
between Presbyterians and Anglicans. It is therefore not one more
disagreement which we can add to the list of secondary matters on which
we "agree to disagree" and move on. If a revised
understanding of what it means to be chaste is embedded in
pastoral guidance and/or official prayers, it cannot but do substantial
harm to our unity. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Bishop of London <a href="https://www.london.anglican.org/articles/london-diocesan-synod-living-in-love-and-faith/">believes</a> that God is calling us
to <i>live </i>with our current disagreements. The reasoning she
offered to General Synod in February for having reached this conclusion seemed specious
to me but here I want to make the point that believing that God calls us to
live with our disagreements does not yet resolve the question <i>how </i>we are to live
with these disagreements. There are perhaps three options for the moment,
none of whom especially attractive: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) continuing as before, namely tolerating the revisionist
teaching and (unofficial) practice of blessing same-sex couples without
changing our doctrine or the prayers we commend or the moral requirements we
put on clergy and others, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) creating structural space for "two
integrities" with different approaches to Scripture and different
understandings of sin and repentance, the Gospel and the Christian life, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(3) welcoming revisionist views as consonant with Anglican
teaching and making liturgical space for these new understandings of living out
our sexuality while keeping, for now, the marriage canon in place in the hope
that the relevant parties are prepared to make the required
sacrifices (revisionists foregoing "marriage equality" for now,
traditionalists accepting that revisionism is properly Anglican too).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sarah Mullally favours the last option but this is deeply
problematic because very many who hold to the traditional view of marriage feel
unable to bring the sacrifice asked of them. My preference is for the
second option in the form of creating a separate legal space for those who
want to promote a changed understanding of marriage and sexuality. This would be
challenging because numerous legal issues would need to be resolved but it has the
advantage of preserving integrity. It is not a refusal to live with our current
disagreements but rather a (better) way to live with them. Alas, the discussion
seems to be cut short by the insinuation that being called to live with our
disagreements necessarily means to walk in the way the Bishops lead us,
abandoning the normativity of previous teaching.</p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-68740005901503856162023-03-25T10:12:00.005+00:002023-03-25T10:34:00.289+00:00LLF and London Synod<p>The London Diocesan Synod on Wednesday 22 March 2023, with a
dedicated session on Living in Love and Faith (LLF). The <a href="https://www.london.anglican.org/articles/london-diocesan-synod-living-in-love-and-faith/">report</a>
is sobering. It perpetuates the mischaracterisation of those who are compelled
to resist the new teaching as purists who cannot bear disagreement:</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">There are those who believe that our unity as Christians
depends on our agreement on certain doctrinal issues, including those around
sex and sexuality. Then there are those who believe that unity is possible and
desirable even if we disagree.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">But surely ALL of us believe that our unity as Christians
depends on our agreement on certain doctrinal issues. The question is whether
these doctrinal issues include teaching around marriage and sexual intimacy.
And surely ALL of us believe that unity is possible and desirable even if we
disagree. The question is whether our disagreements around marriage and sexual
intimacy fall in the category of disagreements which we can accommodate or in
the category of disagreements that cannot be reconciled within the same
structures. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Church of England does not ordain Presbyterians or
Baptists, even if we do not deny that they are fellow members of the body of
Christ. We thereby acknowledge that there are disagreements which lead to
structural differentiation. The mischaracterisation of the situation is very
discouraging because it reveals a failure to listen and to ask the right
questions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Other statements made suggest serious deficiencies in
understanding church history. Every heresy within the church has been argued
from scripture. The statement that “both of these approaches can be argued from
scripture” is therefore vacuous. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The claim that “the Church of England has always been an
intentionally and uniquely broad church” sits uneasily with the fact that close
to 2,500 clergy were expelled from the Church of England following the 1662 Act
of Uniformity. It is only in modern times that we begun to abandon the
principle that what we believe and how we worship must conform to a canonical
standard and even then nonconformity is tolerated in some areas but not in
others.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The observation that c<i>lergy will be free to choose
whether or not to use the prayers </i>is not at all reassuring because this
freedom of conscience treats the question what it means to be chaste as one of
indifference when it comes to being a loyal Anglican. It is not only a further step
towards the privatisation of religion but a rejection of the belief that the
revisionist teaching about marriage and sexual intimacy is not in agreement
with Scripture and not consonant with Anglican teaching and tradition. </p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-72954940882113196392023-02-21T19:16:00.003+00:002023-02-21T19:16:24.999+00:00Jesus and the Law<p>Rodney A. Whitacre reflects on the story of the woman caught
in adultery and brought to Jesus (now mostly at John 7:53–8:11):</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">‘We see Jesus upholding the law’s teaching that adultery is
sin while also setting aside the specific regulations concerning the community’s
enforcement of that law. The implication is that the law contains revelation of
right and wrong, which is true throughout history, as well as commandments for
embodying that revelation in the community of God’s people, which are not true
for all times and places. To understand this distinction we must understand
that the law as revelation of right and wrong is not an arbitrary set of rules
that God made up to test our obedience. Rather, the law is the transposition
into human society of patterns of relationship that reflect God’s won
character. Adultery is wrong because it violates relationships of faithfulness,
and such violation is wrong, ultimately, because God himself is characterized
by faithfulness. The morality of Scripture is a pattern of life that reflects God’s
won life. This aspect of the law is unchanging, but the law’s prescription for
how the community is to embody and enforce the revealed vision of relationships
may vary.’</p></blockquote>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-13961115128406766402023-02-12T16:43:00.012+00:002023-04-01T10:49:51.783+01:00What happened?<p><span>The Church
of England press release proclaimed </span><b><a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/prayers-gods-blessing-same-sex-couples-take-step-forward-after-synod">Prayers
for God’s blessing for same-sex couples take step forward after Synod debate</a>.</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="line-height: 102%;">The Church
of England’s General Synod has welcomed proposals which would enable same-sex
couples to come to church after a civil marriage or civil partnership to give
thanks, dedicate their relationship to God and receive God’s blessing.<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The Anglican
Communion News Service reported the event under the headline <b><a href="https://www.anglicannews.org/news/2023/02/church-of-england-synod-endorses-bishops-decision-not-to-change-doctrine-of-marriage.aspx">Church
of England Synod endorses bishop’s decision not to change doctrine of marriage</a>.</b>
The article points out<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="line-height: 102%;">During the
Synod debate, only one of the tabled amendments to the bishops’ proposal was
passed: that the synod endorsed “the decision of the College and House of
Bishops not to propose any change to the doctrine of marriage, and their
intention that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be
contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of
England”.<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">It also points
out that the two amendments urging the Synod to move towards acceptance of
same-sex marriage had both been rejected in all three houses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">All true as
far as it goes, but perhaps neither is telling the true story. I was hoping for
<a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2023/02/generous-orthodoxy.html">generous orthodoxy</a> to prevail and it might still do but things are not looking hopeful.
It would require greater transparency and integrity from the House of Bishops
than has been on display thus far. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The Church
of England appears to be split three ways. There are those who urge a change to
our doctrine of sex and marriage on the grounds that the received teaching is unloving
and harmful. There are those who feel compelled to resist such a move towards
(what they perceive to be) heterodoxy. And there are those who are torn in between
and just wish for the whole debate to go away. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">And then
there are those who wield power, who hope they can hold everyone together by
offering prayers that can (a) be said not to be indicative of a departure from
the church’s doctrine of marriage, and (b) nevertheless be used to bless
same-sex couples in sexually active relationships and without regard for
whether the couple is in a civil partnership, in a civil marriage, or in a covenanted
friendship. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Those who
feel compelled to resist such a change are told that they do not have to use
these prayers. They only have to accept that those who do use them are faithful,
orthodox Christians too.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The first
group above is not altogether happy because it is clear that the Church of England
is still a long way from endorsing same-sex marriage. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The second
group could be happy if it could be convinced that what is on offer is not
indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine. Alas, most in this group think it is and that saying otherwise is merely adding insult to
injury or lack of integrity to lack of faithfulness. What is asked of them is
nothing short of a redefinition of what constitutes orthodoxy. This is why it’s
a big deal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The third group
has no reason to be happy. The one thing that seems certain in all the
confusion is that this debate will not go away and that the divisions within
the Church of England will deepen and solidify.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The Archbishops urge that it is our Christian duty to stick together and show the world that disagreements do not need to lead to walking apart. But you cannot walk together in different directions. There are disagreements with which one can live and others which must divide us. Tolerating injustice is not loving, neither is tolerating heterodoxy. For as long as the Bishops do not succeed in convincing the one group that refusing same-sex marriage is not unjust and the other that the prayers of blessing on offer are not heterodox, the appeal to unity is just so much whitewash. Painting over harmless hairline cracks in the wall is one thing, covering up structural damage with a bit of paint is another.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">For Ian Paul's take on what happened see <a href="https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-exactly-happened-at-synod-on-the-prayers-for-love-and-faith/">What exactly happened at Synod on the Prayers for Love and Faith</a>? This also includes links to comments on the legality of what the Bishops offered by <a href="https://ecclesiasticallaw.wordpress.com/2023/02/03/canon-b5-and-the-prayers-of-love-and-faith/">Philip Jones</a> and by a <a href="https://www.psephizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Comment-on-Legal-Note-GS-Misc-1339-dd-4-February-2023.pdf">group of lawyers</a> who are mostly members of General Synod.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">UPDATE: Christopher Cocksworth, who led the LLF process, offers his reflections <a href="http://covenant.livingchurch.org/2023/02/21/living-in-love-and-faith-where-do-things-stand-where-do-we-go-from-here">here</a>.</span></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-77267557518279786022023-02-08T10:13:00.001+00:002023-02-08T10:13:22.191+00:00Development of Doctrine<p>How does one distinguish between a faithful development of
doctrine and a change that is corruption? John Henry Newman suggests “seven
Notes of varying cogency, independence and applicability, to discriminate
healthy developments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay.” These
serve as his litmus tests that may be applied to any doctrine.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a genuine development of doctrine we find</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>preservation of one and the same type</li><li>continuity of the same principles</li><li>power of assimilation into the same organization</li><li>logical consequence of an earlier sequence </li><li>anticipation of subsequent phases in its beginnings</li><li>preservation of that which came before</li><li>vigour to endure</li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John Henry Newman, <a href="https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html">An Essay on the Development of Doctrine</a> (1845, 1878) </p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-24677174159318976672023-02-05T15:56:00.003+00:002023-02-21T19:22:18.585+00:00Generous Orthodoxy<p>I do not know the origins of the phrase “generous orthodoxy”
but it seems to fit the Church of England as it was designed rather well. The
Roman Catholic Church was not broad enough in the sixteenth century to include
those who held Reformed views. But among Reformed Catholics there was also
disagreement which by and large could not be lived with (“good disagreement”)
so that Lutherans ended up forming one denomination, while those who followed
Calvin and Zwingli formed separate churches. Perhaps only in England did the
Reformed Catholic consensus hold so that both those holding Lutheran views and
those looking to Geneva (or Scotland) were held together in the one established
church. Roman Catholics were of course excluded, as were Baptists, and in the
end even Presbyterians (the Great Ejection). So there were clear limits not
only to orthodoxy but perhaps also to generosity. The Thirty-Nine Articles circumscribed
the parameters, while the Homilies filled it with more content and clearer
definition.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Tractarian movement pushed the boundaries, declaring the
Church of England a <i>via media</i> not between Wittenberg and Geneva but between
Rome and the Reformation. The English Church moved from seeking and finding doctrinal
agreement among the disagreements on details to accommodating strikingly
different readings of the same words. But it is arguably liberal revisionism
since the 20th century that is killing off generous orthodoxy, making people forget
that “generous orthodoxy” requires both generosity and orthodoxy, tolerance and
discipline. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The proposed <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2023/01/prayers-of-love-and-faith.html">Prayers of Love and Faith</a> were presumably meant
and agreed upon as an expression of “generous orthodoxy.” The Christian doctrine
of marriage and the Christian ethics around sexual intimacy were left intact, or
so it is alleged, and a new freedom was found within this consensus which would
allow some to celebrate the good and healthy aspects of same-sex relationships with
couples who form a household, and others to refrain from endorsing patterns of relationships
that might invite sexual temptation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alas, even before the proposals were presented to the public
it became clear that this “generous orthodox” line could not hold. A number of
bishops argued that the doctrine should in fact change and the claim made by
campaigners that the doctrine of the Church of England discriminates against
LGBTI+ people remained largely unaddressed. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An analogy may help to explain what might have happened:
Imagine the Bishops, in view of concerns about the gendered language of the
traditional formula, had allowed for “In the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit” to be regularly replaced by “In the name of the
Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer.” Imagine that some Bishops were very uncomfortable
with this because the triune God is then no longer spoken of as who He is in
Himself from before the creation of the world (the gendered “He” seems
unavoidable, even if God is of course not male) but defined in relation to us.
But, being generous, they allowed for this provision on the understanding that
it does not as such mark a departure from orthodoxy.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now imagine further that there are people complaining about the
discrimination against Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witness and others in the selection
process for ordination in the Church of England and there being no official explanation
forthcoming why such “discrimination” is in the nature of the thing. Add to
this Bishops who argue that the insights of modern philosophy lead us away from
a Trinitarian understanding of God. Even without them also adding that “In the
name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer” could be used by those
who believe that God is <i>one</i> person who has revealed himself in three <i>modes</i>,
it is clear that this is not about being more generous within the existing <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>orthodoxy <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>but about re-defining what constitutes orthodoxy,
given that we all take the Scriptures seriously. Whatever the Bishops think,
for those who hold to the received understanding of orthodoxy and have seen no
reason to change this, Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses are without question
outside the bounds, even if it may be granted that subjectively they hold a high
view of Scripture and “merely” read it differently and even if one affirms
gladly that they have all the civil rights of other people. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The question whether we can be more generous within our
received orthodoxy is one and it relates to attitudes and behaviour and
pastoral practice; the question whether in order to be truly “generous” we need
to redefine what constitutes orthodoxy is another. Let us distinguish between
the two.</p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-64640912647972051642023-01-27T20:00:00.002+00:002023-01-27T20:00:34.914+00:00A Letter to my Bishops<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, "serif";">I have now let the House of Bishops’ proposals for ‘Prayers
of Love and Faith’ and the legal advice sink in and reflected on them. This has
refined but not fundamentally altered my initial response which was one of deep
dismay.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif";"><span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Since Cranmer our patrimony includes a beautiful
use of the English language and an ability to find words on which people of
somewhat different persuasions can agree. This has perhaps on occasion
degenerated into a studied ambiguity which made us settle on words which people
of different convictions are able to use because they read them differently
rather than because they have found a consensus.</span> Now we are at risk of
playing with words instead of seeking genuine accord.</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">I delight in the generous orthodoxy of our
Reformed Catholicism but it grieves me that the Church of England also includes
clergy who scoff at parts of the Scriptures, even declaring them toxic, or who might
laud Paul and the writers of the Gospels as people who made magnificent
attempts in their time while urging us to move on from their failures, as we
discern a gospel beyond the Gospels.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif";"><span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">My comfort has been that clergy who care little
for the Thirty-nine Articles or the Book of Common Prayer are usurpers and that
the Church of England does not truly belong to them. I feel that this comfort
is in the process of being taken away from me.</span></span><br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">The ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ may have been
carefully crafted not to fall foul of the Church’s doctrine in the eyes of
canon lawyers but they were not presented with a sufficiently clear,
transparent and honest explanation of how they apply the Church’s teaching to
various pastoral situations. No theological rationale was offered for
continuing to uphold Church teaching. The morality of extra-marital sex appears
to have been moved to the adiaphora. Several bishops, while welcoming the new
resources, expressed their desire for a change to our doctrine and ethics.
Phrases like ‘at the present time’ in the accompanying document clearly suggest
that far from drawing our various listening exercises to a conclusion the
debates are set to continue. And given that pronouncements like the booklet
published by Steve Croft show little awareness of the discussions and research
of the last few decades, we must assume that the debates will continue without
making progress. Unlike our Archbishop I find no joy in this kind of diversity.
</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Doctrinal differences of the kind that relate to
our formularies should be a source of grief for us. We must continue to make
every effort to re-establish sufficient common doctrinal ground rather than
make ourselves believe that we can still walk together, as if these differences
did not directly impact on how we exercise Christian discipleship and pastoral
care and how we proclaim afresh the good news of Christ in our generation. We
cannot walk together if we seek the deeper unity for which Christ prayed in
different directions. In words from the <i>Book of Common Prayer</i> we must long
for ‘the spirit of truth, unity and concord’ and therefore petition God to
‘grant that all they that do confess thy holy Name, may agree in the truth of
thy holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.’</span></span><br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">I want to put it to you that while there are these
divisions among you, you can be certain that you are not led by the Holy
Spirit. Compromise is not a dirty word. But true Christian unity is not found
in the attempt to appease different factions while sidestepping proper
theological reasoning. We are at grave risk of becoming an ecclesial community whose
participation, as a body, in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is suspect.
I urge you to reconsider the wisdom of the current proposals and to strive for
greater clarity and integrity.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">Yours in Christ,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">Thomas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-61006557476863215982023-01-26T10:40:00.000+00:002023-01-26T10:40:25.018+00:00"Prayers of Love and Faith"<p>This is my understanding of the story so far:</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In what is <a href="https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/draft-prayers-thanksgiving-dedication-and-gods-blessing-same-sex">presented</a> as a significant move the Bishops of
the Church of England will offer its clergy a variety of flexible ways to
affirm and celebrate same-sex couples in church. The resource is intended as a
loving and celebratory response to same-sex couples and will include prayers of
dedication, thanksgiving and for God’s blessing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The prayers will be entirely discretionary and have been
formulated with <a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/GS%20Misc%201339%20Legal%20Note%20for%20Synod%20Jan%202023_0.pdf">legal advice</a> to ensure that the formal teaching of the Church
of England as set out in the canons and authorised liturgies – that Holy
Matrimony is between one man and one woman for life – is not compromised.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><b>In some (*) of our Church of England parish churches you
will be able to have your same-sex (**) civil partnership or “marriage” (***)
blessed (****). This offer is also open to couples in covenanted,
non-registered friendships (*****).<o:p></o:p></b></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(*) the prayers are offered in the knowledge that not all clergy
will be able to use them in good conscience</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(**) sexual relations between persons of the same sex cannot
be condoned by the Church because the Scriptures declare extra-marital sex to be incompatible with
being in God’s kingdom but clergy need not tell you that</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(***) the marriage of two persons of the same sex is not
capable of constituting a marriage for the purposes of ecclesiastical law, i.e., a civil marriage between members of the same sex is not a marriage in the eyes
of the church</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(****) your relationship cannot be blessed as such but we
can ask God to bless you as a couple</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(*****) these prayers are not intended for couples who are
not of the same sex</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>There have been angry responses from those who consider the apology offered by the Bishops to LGBTQI+ people to be meaningless, while same-sex couples are not allowed to get married in Church. </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>There have been angry responses also from those who believe that the resources to all intents and purposes change the Church's teaching on marriage and sexual morality.</o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Some are relieved that the Church has found a way to leave "holy matrimony" (marriage as understood by the Church) unchanged while affirming same-sex covenanted relationships, others are concerned that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in relation to sexual intimacy outside marriage might make a return.</p><p class="MsoNormal">For some it is a time for celebrating our doctrinal diversity, for others it is a time of mourning our loss of integrity.</p><p></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-41342161022050220862023-01-01T11:25:00.002+00:002023-02-21T19:23:14.618+00:00Jesus Named and Circumcised<p><span style="line-height: 102%;"><b>A sermon for the eight day of Christmas, 2023</b></span></p><p><i><span style="line-height: 102%;">After
eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called
Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">We are <u>given</u>
an identity long before we shape and refashion it by our <u>own</u> decisions
and habits. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">We are born
at a particular time and space which we did not choose, with a body we did not
form.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">We are born
into families or households which we did not choose, into a particular culture
that will shape us more than we will ever shape it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Identity is
something all of us are given. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">This is true
even in a culture like ours which puts so much emphasis on individual choice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">We may have
greater freedom to choose a career and lifestyle than previous generations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">We even have
a legal right to choose our gender – whatever it is that we mean by that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">But the fact
is that in all the decisions we make, we are still at best sculptors of our
identities,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">sculptors
who work with the material given to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">What is
given to us is like a massive granite block, already shaped by culture and
circumstances before we put our chisel to it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">We can work
with or against the grain of the material but not without it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="line-height: 102%;">After
eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child.</span></i><span style="line-height: 102%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Why? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Because
Jesus was born a Jew and Jewish males are circumcised on the eighth day, long
before they have any idea of what it might mean to be a boy or a girl, to be
Jewish or non-Jewish.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Being born a
Jew means, as the apostle Paul put it, being <i>born under the law</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">As the boy
grows up, there will be decisions to be made whether to <u>live</u> under the
law, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">whether to
receive God’s law joyfully or to accept it grudgingly or to disregard it
altogether,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">but the man
cannot undo the fact that as a boy he was <i>born under the law</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="line-height: 102%;">…and he
was called Jesus</span></i><span style="line-height: 102%;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Long before
we make a conscious decision about the name (and nowadays pronoun) to which we
will answer, others will have called us by a name not chosen by us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">For Jesus
the name encapsulated the mission entrusted to him: God-to-the-rescue,
God-saves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Baby Jesus
was circumcised and was given the name Jesus without being asked what he
thought about it – just like we were all given a name soon after we were born
and were incorporated into a culture or subculture which we did not choose.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">And yet it
was all very different for the Son of God. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Before the
first human children were born, God the Son had already<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>volunteered to come to the rescue of
humanity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Before the
first human children were born, God the Son had already decided to be born to
Mary and to be given the name of Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">For many
generations God the Son had <u>shaped</u> the culture into which He was going
to be born.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="line-height: 102%;">Before
Abraham was, I am</span></i><span style="line-height: 102%;">,
he once said.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Thomas.000/Dropbox/Church%20Ministry/Preaching/Preaching%20Resources/Special%20Days%20-%20ABC/Name%20of%20Jesus%20-%20Mary%20Mother%20of%20God/NCC%20Sermon%202023.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri","sans-serif"" style="line-height: 102%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">He was
behind the call of Abraham out of Ur in Chaldea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">He
determined and promised that in Abraham’s family all the earth should find
blessing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">He met Moses
in a fiery bush and called him to prefigure God’s great rescue operation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">He
accompanied the Israelites on their journey out of Egypt through the wilderness
to Mount Sinai.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">While God’s
promise is for all peoples and nations, God’s law was given to shape a
particular nation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Some of the
commandments, e.g. about circumcision but also about what could and could not
be eaten, were specifically given to separate between Jews as God’s covenant
people, and non-Jews. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Jesus <i>was
born under the law</i>, into a culture shaped by God’s law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">But he was
born also into a culture shaped by alienation from God and disobedience to His
will.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">In fact,
Paul wrote earlier in this letter to the Galatians that the law <i>was added
because of transgressions</i>, namely to show us up as law-breakers and to put
us under condemnation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Because the
law had been given to Israel, it was in Israel that sin was identified for what
it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">This does
not mean that God’s people necessarily behaved worse than others.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">But it was
worse for bad things to have been committed by those who had God’s law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">What’s more
Paul may be suggesting here that the Law, with the accumulation of sin, had itself
become a malignant force, from which oppressed people needed rescuing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">But God’s
law cannot undo God’s promise. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The law was
a temporary measure <i>until the offspring would come</i> through whom the
promise would be realised and who would form <u>one</u> people of God,
consisting of both Jews and non-Jews.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Thomas.000/Dropbox/Church%20Ministry/Preaching/Preaching%20Resources/Special%20Days%20-%20ABC/Name%20of%20Jesus%20-%20Mary%20Mother%20of%20God/NCC%20Sermon%202023.docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri","sans-serif"" style="line-height: 102%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">By being
circumcised, Jesus received the mark of God’s covenant with Abraham, the seal
of God’s promise. – He came into our world to bring the fulfilment of this
promise for all nations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">By being
circumcised, Jesus was identified with his people, Israel. – But he came into
this world to break down the barrier between Jews and non-Jews.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">This was
done in accordance with the law so that now,<i> when the fullness of time had
come, </i>the one<i> born under the law</i> would<i> redeem those who were
under the law</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">This may
sound a bit like someone being born in a collapsed building so that he could
rescue those who were trapped in this building.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">In what
sense had the law become a trap for us from which we needed rescuing?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Probably in
more than one way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">God is one
and therefore God’s people should be one – from every tribe and language and
nation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">God’s
promise to Abraham implies as much but it also designates one family, one
nation as the special carrier of God’s blessing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The law
given to Israel shaped Israel as a distinct nation. The trap was that the
distinctiveness and separation fed an ethnic pride which drove a wedge between
Jews and non-Jews.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The law also
makes known God’s character and so reveals to us how to live as those who were created
in the image of God, as those who bear God’s name. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">But in
pointing the way the law did not actually give the <u>strength</u> to live in
God’s ways and even incited people to sin.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">So we have
all become trapped. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">All of us
who were created in the image of God but failed to live in God’s ways.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">All of us
who were meant to be children of God but lived as slaves to other forces.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="line-height: 102%;">But when
the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under
the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, <u>so that we might
receive adoption as children</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">God-to-the-rescue,
God-saves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Some people
use New Year’s Eve as an opportunity to look back and take stock.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">What have I achieved?</span></li><li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Where have I fallen short?</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">These can be
good questions to ask but above them all stands this: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="line-height: 102%;">He was
born to rescue those who were under the law.<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">The redeemed
are no longer under the law of reward and punishment,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">no longer
under any law that measures worth in accomplishments,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">no longer
under the law that condemns those who fall short of it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">We can be
relaxed and therefore address the question of our failure quite honestly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">This is one
aspect of our rescue: we can admit to have fallen short <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">and we can
do so without being condemned for it<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">because he
was born to rescue those who were under the law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Some people,
as they enter a new year, make new Year’s resolutions <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">or choose a
word of the year as a motto, e.g., ‘persist’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">This can
also be a useful practice to help us sculpt our identity further.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">But above
our plans and schemes let the name of Christ stand: <u>Jesus</u>,
God-to-the-rescue, God-saves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">Jesus has
rescued us from the slavery to sin and death, from the bondage to the elements
of this world, from being under the authority of the law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="line-height: 102%;">so that
we might receive adoption as children. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">This is the
new identity he gives us: <u>children of God</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">By His
Spirit we can now cry out to God, ‘Abba! Father!’ <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">We do not
read God’s law with the anxiety of those who will be punished if they do not
obey<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">but as
children who want to learn about their Father’s priorities and agendas.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="line-height: 102%;">He</span></u><span style="line-height: 102%;"> was born under the law so that we
would no longer be captive under the law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="line-height: 102%;">He</span></u><span style="line-height: 102%;"> shed his blood, for the first time
at his circumcision, so that we would not need to pay for our sins with our own
blood.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 102%;">His name is
Jesus, God-to-the-rescue, God-saves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Thomas.000/Dropbox/Church%20Ministry/Preaching/Preaching%20Resources/Special%20Days%20-%20ABC/Name%20of%20Jesus%20-%20Mary%20Mother%20of%20God/NCC%20Sermon%202023.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri","sans-serif"" style="line-height: 102%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> John
8:58.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Thomas.000/Dropbox/Church%20Ministry/Preaching/Preaching%20Resources/Special%20Days%20-%20ABC/Name%20of%20Jesus%20-%20Mary%20Mother%20of%20God/NCC%20Sermon%202023.docx#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri","sans-serif"" style="line-height: 102%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Gal
3:19.</p>
</div>
</div>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-58877932368600373942022-12-05T15:27:00.000+00:002022-12-05T15:27:56.130+00:00Mixing and Matching<p><b><a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/responding-to-president-bartlet.html">President Josiah Bartlet:</a></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/responding-to-president-bartlet.html"><i></i></a></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i>
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for
planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family
gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?</i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/stoning-and-burning.html">another post</a> I point out that there is
nothing to suggest that the death penalty was ever applied or expected to be
applied in the case of someone planting different crops side by side or wearing
garments made from two different threads. The insinuation here that it might is a
form of bearing false witness to the biblical text.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But what is the significance of <b>YHWH’s instructions for
holy living in Leviticus 19</b>, sandwiched as they are between two chapters
which stress that the Israelites must distinguish themselves as holy by
following YHWH’s commands and not the
nations’ sexual and religious practices? We learn that <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/defining-holiness.html">holiness</a>
is not only about abstaining from certain practices but about being discerning
in every sphere of life (cf. <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/a-jewish-definition-of-holiness.html">A
Jewish definition of holiness</a>). It means, e.g., engaging in economic
practices that are pro-actively helpful to the poor (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.9-10&version=CSB">19:9-10</a>), not just
refraining from stealing and defrauding people (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.11&version=CSB">19:11</a>). It means not to do harm
even when there is little risk of being detected (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.14&version=CSB">19:14</a>) and it means judicial impartiality
(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.15&version=CSB">19:15</a>). It means not only refraining from slander (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.16&version=CSB">19:16a</a>) but also being
pro-active about helping someone discern the wrong in which they are engaged
(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.17&version=CSB">19:17</a>). It means not only that one does not jeopardize a neighbour’s life (or
allow a neighbour to be victimised, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.16&version=CSB">19:16b</a>, the precise meaning is uncertain)
but also not to bear a grudge (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.18&version=CSB">19:18</a>, “but love your neighbour as yourself”).
And then it also means</p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">“You are to keep my statutes. Do not crossbreed two
different kinds of your livestock, sow your fields with two kinds of seed, or
put on a garment made of two kinds of material.” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19.19&version=CSB">19:19</a>)</p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">According to some Jewish interpreters, “statutes” are “those
laws for which no rational justification was obvious. They are to be treated as
‘decrees of the king,’ to be obeyed simply because they come from God. This,”
as Ephraim Radner observes, “represents, at best, a pure fellow following of
God’s will, at worst a kind of blind obedience. Holiness here is a cleaving to
God, but not one imbued with a coherent understanding.” (<i>Leviticus </i>[London:
SCM Press, 2008], <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Leviticus/jdFFyoU1Y5UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA213&printsec=frontcover">213</a>)
It may be the equivalent of a football jersey or a school uniform – a marker of
identity which is largely arbitrary but not therefore irrelevant. Keeping these
statutes may also be a training ground for authentic and faithful performance
where it really matters, cf. Hayim Donin’s comments on <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/holy-eating.html">food laws</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Others, however, do find a rationale. They suggest that the
instructions against cross-breeding and mixing different kinds of seeds in one
field are about keeping separate what the Creator God had made distinct, “respecting
the categories he has established” (Jay Sklar, <i>Leviticus</i>, TOTC
[Nottingham: IVP, and Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013], 247, cf. <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Leviticus.19.19.1?lang=bi">Nahmanides</a>
[c.1194-c.1270], going further than the Rabbinic tradition of interpreting the
mixing of different kinds of seeds as a prohibition against grafting).
Understood in this way, the law could have implications for the ethics of genetic
engineering. “But,” as Ephraim Radner notes, “God’s own love, which creates
these in their discreet character, also seeks to bring them into the fullness
of proximity with him” which leads him to a discussion of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt+13.24-30&version=CSB">Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds</a> and Paul’s use of grafting imagery in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom+11.17-24&version=CSB">Rom 11:17-24</a> (<i>Leviticus</i>,
<a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Leviticus/jdFFyoU1Y5UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA214&printsec=frontcover">214</a>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sklar notes that the use of different kinds of fabric in <i>making</i>
garments is not forbidden but <i>wearing</i> such clothing is. “The rationale
may be that some priestly garments were made from mixed fabrics (woollen yarn
and linen, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exod+28.5&version=CSB">Exod. 28:5</a>). Since non-priestly Israelites were forbidden from doing
priestly duties (Num. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num+3.10&version=CSB">3:10</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num+3.38&version=CSB">38</a>), this prohibition would have prevented them
from heading in that direction (cf. <a href="https://onlineancientwitness.wordpress.com/josephus-antiquities-book-4/#JAnt-4.8">Josephus, <i>Ant</i>. 4.208 [4.8.11]</a>),
something the early Israelites were tempted to do (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num+16.1-40&version=CSB">Num. 16:1-40</a>).” (Sklar, <i>Leviticus</i>,
248). The more specific reference to wool and linen in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+22.11&version=CSB">Deut 22:11</a> supports
this. The abrogation of this priesthood and its regulations would mean that
this specific command is not directly applicable among the new covenant people
although the principle of respecting the calling and ordination of some people
to specific ministries remains. Radner suggests, again, that Christ’s passion
brings together what had been kept distinct (<i>Leviticus</i>, <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Leviticus/jdFFyoU1Y5UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA215&printsec=frontcover">215-16</a>).
In a more beautiful world a Bishop in the Church of England with a PhD in Old
Testament studies would help us explore this further rather than <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/11/of-commandments-and-prohibitions.html">ape
President Bartlet’s dismissive attitude</a> to OT law.</p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-60581895864822908622022-12-05T15:26:00.000+00:002022-12-05T15:26:43.296+00:00Stoning and Burning<p><b><a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/responding-to-president-bartlet.html">President Josiah Bartlet:</a></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/responding-to-president-bartlet.html"><i></i></a></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i>
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for
planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family
gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?</i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These questions apparently relate to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+19%3A19&version=CSB" target="_blank">Leviticus 19:19</a> (cf.
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+22%3A9-11&version=CSB" target="_blank">Deut 22:9-11</a>), except that the punishments are gratuitously added from
elsewhere. It is presumably a case of combining what appear to us the most
ridiculous Old Testament statutes with the most abhorrent ancient punishments.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Pelting with stones</b> is the means of execution in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+20%3A2&version=CSB" target="_blank">Lev 20:2</a> for devoting one’s children to Molech, in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+20%3A27&version=CSB" target="_blank">Lev 20:27</a> for mediums and
spiritists, in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+24%3A10-23&version=CSB" target="_blank">Lev 24:10-23</a> for someone who used the divine name in a curse,
and in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num+15%3A35-36&version=CSB" target="_blank">Num 15:35-36</a> for violation of the Sabbath by manual labour. It is a
punishment for sin that goes right to the heart of Israel’s relationship with
YHWH, cf. its use in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+13%3A10&version=CSB" target="_blank">Deut 13:10</a> (“<span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="line-height: 102%;">You must stone him to death because he
tried to entice you away from the LORD your God, who delivered you from the
land of Egypt, that place of slavery.”) </span>and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+17%3A2-7&version=CSB">17:2-7</a> as a punishment for false
prophecy and idolatry. In Deuteronomy it is also specified as a punishment in
cases that were likely seen as jeopardizing the covenant community, namely a
son’s persistent rebelliousness in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+21%3A18-21&version=CSB" target="_blank">21:18-21</a> (threatening the continuation of
the household on its land), a daughter’s sexual affair while in the paternal
household in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+22%3A21&version=CSB" target="_blank">22:21</a> (explicitly designated “a disgraceful thing in Israel”), and
adultery involving a married woman in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+22%3A22-24&version=CSB" target="_blank">22:22-24</a> (raising paternity issues; the
penalty was executed on both if consent could be presumed, on the man only if
the woman’s consent could not be assumed, see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+22%3A25&version=CSB">verse 25</a>). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Fire</b> features as a means of executing the death
penalty in the case of a man marrying both a woman and her mother (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+20%3A14&version=CSB" target="_blank">Lev 20:14</a>)
and in the case of the daughter of a priest engaging in prostitution or promiscuity (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+21%3A9&version=CSB" target="_blank">Lev 21:9</a>). In Deuteronomy burning is associated with items connected to idolatry
(<a href="Deut 7:25">7:25</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+12%3A3&version=CSB" target="_blank">12:3</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+13%3A17&version=CSB" target="_blank">13:17</a>) but not referenced as a form of execution. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The prevalence of <b>the death penalty</b> in biblical law
codes warrants a separate discussion. It would need to take into account not
only the different forms of sanctions available to ancient and modern societies
but also the difference between ancient law codes and modern legislation. Note,
e.g., that even the stark and urgent warnings against adultery in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+6&version=CSB" target="_blank">Proverbs 6</a> do
not use the threat of the death penalty, assuming rather than the cuckold might
ruin you in other ways instead. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">More importantly for the question(s) at hand, there is
nothing to suggest that the death penalty was ever applied or expected to be
applied in the case of someone planting different crops side by side or wearing
garments made from two different threads. The question “Does the whole town
really…” is therefore bearing false witness. As, for “Can I burn my mother…?,”
this is nowhere permitted in the OT. To insinuate that it might be is again a
form of bearing false witness.</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal">So what is the significance of <b>YHWH’s instructions for
holy living in Leviticus 19</b>? That’s for <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/mixing-and-matching.html">another
post</a>.</p><p></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-63076884374031155242022-12-05T15:22:00.002+00:002022-12-05T15:23:55.290+00:00Selling my daughter<p><a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/responding-to-president-bartlet.html"><b>President Josiah Bartlet:</b></a></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i>
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always
cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?</i></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">To become president of the United States you have to be one
thing first of all: very wealthy. This presumably goes for West Wing’s
fictional president as well who feigns an interest in making more money
by selling his youngest daughter into slavery. Her virtues, he suggests, will
fetch a good price. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is very far removed from the situation envisaged in
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+21%3A7&version=CSB">Exodus 21:7</a>. Selling your daughter into slavery was not a choice within a
free-market economy designed to maximise profit. Many in ancient Israel lived
much closer to subsistence levels than modern despisers of the Old Testament.
There was no such thing as a single-person household. Everyone was attached to
a family – for a woman this meant being a daughter (and/or sister), a wife (and
hopefully mother), or a widow (hopefully with children). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Exodus 21:7 concerns the transition from daughter to wife.
This would usually involve a reciprocal financial transaction which binds two
households together. The father of the bride pays a dowry which is meant to
offer financial security for his daughter (if she were to be divorced she would
receive back this dowry rather than be left destitute) and the groom’s family
pays a bride price (which compensates the woman’s first family for lost
labour).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Exodus 21:7 has a situation in view in which a father is
unable to pay a dowry for his daughter. His household may struggle to feed everyone, e.g., if the poverty is the result of a
series of bad harvests. But even if the extra labour of his daughter would make
it possible for her to survive within her father’s household in the short run,
her long-term security is under threat. The following verses indicate that she
is bought as a wife or concubine either for the master of the household (verse 8) or his son
(verse 9). In other words, someone will pay the bride price but no dowry is
received.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Given that the dowry is a back-up for the daughter, getting
married without one presents a risk. The regulation in Exodus 21 seeks to
minimise this risk by forbidding the master to sell her on, as if she were his
possession over which he could freely dispose. (The text specifies “sell her to
a foreign people” because within the covenant community slavery was essentially only permitted for defaulting debtors.) If he wants to be rid of her, he is
not allowed to receive any payment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> In this case, th</span>e
woman would be free to leave without owing the master anything. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The example is taken from case law and regulates a situation
in which an attempt by a poor man to provide a better life for his daughter
might put her at risk by specifying an arrangement which preserves her honour
as an Israelite woman. Insinuating here a parental permission to maximise
profits by selling one of their daughters is bearing false witness to the text.</p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662787562167356763.post-40448052775061480572022-12-05T15:18:00.001+00:002022-12-05T15:25:52.531+00:00Dead Pig Football<p><b><a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/responding-to-president-bartlet.html">President Josiah Bartlet:</a></b></p><p></p><blockquote><i>Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in
this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7.
If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play
football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?</i></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The question assumes that it is important that people avoid
becoming unclean. Why should that be? Uncleanness is not a punishable crime. If
a member of the Israelite covenant community touched the skin of a dead pig,
they were unclean until the evening (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+11.39&version=CSB" target="_blank">verse 39</a>) which means they could not come to the sanctuary on the same day. If they handled the skin, they should also
wash their clothes (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+11.40&version=CSB" target="_blank">verse 40</a>) which, one might assume, football players would
do anyway after a match. Given that the use of pig skin is hardly essential to
playing American football, ancient Israelites would presumably have used a
different leather if they had played American football but they would not have
had to call off a match against the Moabites just because the ball was made of
dead pig skin.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What’s more the function of these laws was to set apart the
Israelites as a holy people of YHWH (cf. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+11.44-45&version=CSB" target="_blank">verses 44-45</a>; see also <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+20.24-26&version=CSB">Lev 20:24-26</a>). Laws touching all of life were a constant reminder that Israel was
to be distinct from other nations. But this does not mean that all the laws
were of equal weight and significance. Idolatry and immorality whose
seriousness is underlined by the punishment specified for them are the real
deal, as it were. Dietary laws were YHWH’s forget-me-not and
forget-not-that-you-are-to-be-holy.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The different cultures suggested by the reference to three
football clubs [*] highlights how strange it would be to make dietary laws a
universal norm, thereby erasing cultural distinctives. It would be like
requiring all teams to wear the same jerseys. The church has always made a
distinction between, on the one hand, laws which reflect God’s character which
God’s people are to imitate at all times and in all places, and on the other
hand, laws which were given to Israel specifically to mark them out as distinct
and remind them of the call to be holy to YHWH.</p><p class="MsoNormal">See also Hayim Donin's <a href="https://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2022/12/holy-eating.html">comments on the dietary laws</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[*] <b>The Washington Redskins</b>, founded in 1932 as the
Boston Braves and renamed “Redskins” after they moved to Fenway Park, were
under pressure from major sponsors to change their name and since July 2020 are
the Washington Football Team. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The <b>Notre Dame</b> Fighting Irish football team is the
intercollegiate football team representing the University of Notre Dame in
Notre Dame, Indiana.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>West Point</b> is The United States Military Academy in
New York.</span></p>Thomas Renzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705647686623100131noreply@blogger.com