Monthly Archives: July 2015

LitBit Commentary – Rowan Williams on the Lord’s Prayer

LitBits Logo - 2

“At the central moment, just before we receive the bread and wine, we pray the prayer of Jesus: we say, “Our Father…” – and that is a great and significant moment, not just a bit of muttered devotion before we start on our way to the altar, but one of the supreme transitions in the drama of the entire service. For when we pray the prayer of Jesus, the Holy Spirit is in us and at work in us. We are affirming that in this act of worship the Holy Spirit is speaking Jesus’ words in us, praying ‘Abba, Father’, just as Jesus did and does.”

Rowan Williams, Being Christian, p.56


 

How to use LitBit Features and Commentaries.

LitBit Commentary – Rowan Williams on the Eucharist 2

LitBits Logo - 2

“If Jesus gives thanks over bread and wine on the eve of his death, if Jesus makes that connection between the furthest place away from God, which is suffering and death, and the giving and outpouring of his Father, and if in his person he fuses those things together, then wherever we are some connection between us and God is possible. All places, all people, all things have about them an unexpected sacramental depth. They open on to God the Giver.”

Rowan Williams, Being Christian, p.49

 

How to use LitBit Features and Commentaries.

 

LitBit Commentary – Rowan Williams on the Eucharist 1

LitBits Logo - 2

“Holy Communion is no kind of reward: it is, like everything about Jesus Christ, a free gift. We take Holy Communion not because we are doing well, but because we are doing badly. Not because we have arrived, but because we are traveling. Not because we are right, but because we are confused and wrong. Not because we are divine, but because we are human. Not because we are full, but because we are hungry.”

Rowan Williams, Being Christian (2014), p.53

 

 

How to use LitBit Features and Commentaries.

19 July – God’s fallen idols

View or print as a PDF

Sunday 16
19/7/2015

2 Samuel 5:1-10
Psalm 48
Matthew 22:41-46


The idol has a special place in our culture – perhaps in all cultures. We seem to need them, whether they be political, intellectual, fashion or music idols, or whatever. Idols image for us something we think to be central, most important or most support to us. To borrow the language of 1 Samuel, we desire that a “king” be appointed over us, to govern, to lead, to protect, to define (recalling the request for a king in 1 Samuel 8).

With this fascination comes the phenomenon of the fallen idol – the great one upon whom we projected our own images and expectations but who turns out to be less than we thought. This is not a desirable roll to play: no one wants to be held up as the warning to others about looking like one thing but being another, whether or not you’ve actually encouraged others to idolise you.

Many of our idols – the smart ones, or the lucky ones – will avoid public exposure in this way but all idols, human or divine, will finally prove less than we need or want them to be.

The dynamic of idols – our need for them and their inevitable failure – is central to the Scriptural story.

So far as the story of David’s rise to the kingship goes, it is so far so good. Our reading this morning is something of a climax in David’s story, towards which the whole thrust of the narrative has been leading and which now is achieved as the last resistance from Saul’s supporters is overcome and David establishes himself in the city of Jerusalem. It has been a remarkable story, with David effectively becoming king through no real effort on his own part other than simply staying alive: Saul died at the hands of the Philistines, Saul’s only successor was killed by two of his captains, Saul’s general was killed by David’s own – all of this against David’s wishes – and finally the northern part of the kingdom has come to acknowledge that David is the only realistic option for king. Our reading this morning ends with the declaration that “David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.”

For David and for the kingship, then, all is going very well. In fact, it will be found in the end to have gone so well that David and the kingship will come to take on unprecedented significance for Israel. The heritage of Moses and Mount Sinai is now complemented by David and Mount Zion, so that when the early church comes to reflect on the ministry of Jesus, Moses and the law are somewhat overshadowed by the kingship of God and the promise of a new Jerusalem.

And yet we know the story, and so we know that for David personally things will slowly unravel. The story of trust and faithfulness which has been David’s story to this point will become complicated by the effect which being king has on the man himself. With the freedoms of being king comes the temptation to arrogance – claiming more for oneself than is appropriate. Perhaps we have seen a foreshadow of that in the treatment of the blind and the lame in our reading this morning; we will see in more detail what this looks like in the weeks to come.

For now, however, we will focus on what David “stands for” as king. In many respects the life of David reflects that of Adam (with Eve) in the garden creation myth – and many Old Testament scholars think that the story of Adam is told with the experiences of David in mind. For in David we see a figure to whom all is given, and who first revels before God in what he has received but then reaches out to take more than was offered. At the same time, David is not destroyed. He continues as king, and so do his successors for 400 years – long enough for Israel to imagine that he and his line were indeed favoured by God.

But David’s failures are not forgotten. And so the question has to be asked why his failures do not see him also cast aside. What is happening, that David and his kingship is not rejected? The answer is also given in the story of Adam and Eve. In the creation myth Adam and Eve, in the same way as David, are given dominion over all the world and live in direct relationship to God before overreaching and being cast down. And yet, even though God’s judgement is then spoken and hardship now becomes a dominant mark of their existence, still they stand – clothed now by garments of leather given by God to replace their own flimsy fig leaves. As we will hear in a few weeks, this corresponds very closely to the judgement on David following his taking of Bathsheba and the murder of her husband – the sword will ever be active in David’s house and, yet, he will remain king. David is not rejected, but his existence takes a different shape and style on account of the failures which are to come. It is perhaps this historical memory of David which colours the pre-history account of Adam in the Garden.

But, in the broader context of the Scripture’s reflection on the nature of the human being, David’s moral failings ought not to bother us, and neither should we be distracted by the form of the story as a story about a monarchy. It is, of course, about a kingship. But it is also something of a parable about every one of us. For the question is not the seemingly obvious one as to whether David is fit to be king, but whether any one of us would be. The answer of the Scripture writers, reflecting David’s own story in the legend of the Fall in the Garden, is No – the favoured one(s) will overreach. As it was for Adam, so it was for David. Or, as it was for David, so it must have been for Adam – and so also for us, for we are the same as they, before the same God.

And so wondering about the quality of David’s kingship, and whether David or we deserve God’s favour is to ask the wrong question. For the story of David’s failure as king, and the story of the failure in the Garden, is written not from the perspective of failure itself but from the inexplicable experience that the fallen, favoured one is still favoured. (How this can be so when, for example, it didn’t apply in the case of Saul, we will see in more detail in a couple of weeks when we come to God’s covenant with David). The amazing thing about the story of Eden – taking it at face value – is that the Scriptures do not end with the sad departure of Adam and Eve. And the reason is that it is that Adam and Eve still stand after exiting Eden, and David’s line continues in the kingship despite the fact that he and his descendants continuing to failure before God.

This is the critical thing, and the key to making sense of these stories: David is untrustworthy, and yet trusted to carry on. It is this situation which provides the answer to what is perhaps the question motivating the writers of Scripture, put so succinctly by the prophet Ezekiel: can such dry bones as these live (Ezekiel 37.3)? Can life come out of what is deathly? Can human fear and loathing and arrogance be overcome? Can divine faithfulness endure human unfaithfulness? The answer is, Yes: we who created are after God’s image and so are now all “literally” fallen images – fallen idols – nevertheless are raised again to our feet.

And here are the first intimations of the gospel. Although the story of David is the story of any one of us, it echoes another story which is strangely like ours, and yet is not. This is the story of Jesus, who comes after David and yet who finally defines David – as Jesus teases in his game of words with the Pharisees in our gospel reading this morning (off RCL: Matthew 22.41-46). If the story of David or Adam in their failure to stand properly before God might be said to be our story, the gospel is about Jesus who perfects what it means to stand before God. He also receives the life of the favoured one. As the true image – or idol – he suffers the fall into the death of the rejected and godless. He encapsulates David’s story and Adam’s story, and ours. Yet his new existence as the risen Lord is not the qualified and always potentially miserable existence under judgement which becomes the lot of Adam and David. Rather, he exceeds them, for in him is death and judgement put behind, no longer colouring and limiting his future.

We are Davids and Bathshebas, Adams and Eves, called and gifted, fallen and tarnished images. And yet – the most important and surprising thing – we are not discarded. In Jesus is the both act and the promise of perfection. What he suffers is our failure, and that God restores him would only be good news for him were it not that Christ himself returns to those who sacrificed him with the healing words: “peace be with you”.

This offer of peace to those who persecuted him is the beginning of our restoration. In this way we meet ourselves as we are – falling very short of God’s glory – and yet also overcome, forgiven, embraced. In this way we meet for the first time the God who created us in his image, and restores that image when we fall.

For the story of Jesus which meets, embraces and sets right our story, all thanks be to God, now and always. Amen.

12 July – Why ethics is not enough

View or print as a PDF

Sunday 15
12/7/2015

Galatians 2:15-21
Psalm 30
Mark 5:13-20


[Notes in lieu of a sermon, in response to an article by Lorraine Parkinson in Crosslight, July 2015]

In her response to Randall Prior in July Crosslight, Lorraine Parkinson takes issue not only with the ecumenical impetus which saw the birth of the Uniting Church but more generally with Christian faith and its reading of the significance of the person of Jesus. Her intention is to propose a better basis upon which to build human unity. Yet her dismissal of the church’s traditional christological understanding of the possibility of such unity in favour of an ethical basis for it – even an ethic purportedly from the lips of Jesus – misses the point of the kind of focus on Jesus the church has taken since the beginning.

This is indicated in her summation of the “greatest challenge” St Paul faces in his evangelical work as the death of the Messiah. This is not Paul’s greatest challenge, nor the New Testament’s as a whole. The theological problem – the surprise – of the New Testament is not that the Good dies, but that it dies at the hands of the good, the people of God. In this the elect act in a way expected of the Gentiles.

But this is no mere irony. The crucial Christological key here is that the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of piety on the part of the religious leadership, a gift to God which totally misread what Jesus represented. The fact of such an error is the reason even something like the Sermon on the Mount provides no basis for human unity. The hearing of the Sermon leads to the death of the preacher: precisely the kind of sectarian human division Lorraine seeks to avoid. This being the case for Jesus, how is it conceivable that a return to the Sermon will now work? Only wishful thinking, tinged with not a little critique of the ethical failures of others, could imagine it possible.

While Lorraine proposes discovering a general ethical basis for creating human unity, at the heart of the Christian story is a critique of such bases: the failure of ethical systems to give us certainty that we have acted righteously. The resurrection was a judgement on the ethical judgement of those who crucified Jesus. The problem of human dividedness – of which Jesus’ death is the epitome – is not religious sectarianism but the general human malaise: the presumption that we are able to judge ourselves as having acted righteously, the catastrophe of Eden’s apple.

Paul’s genius was not dreaming up the sacrificial theory for the death of Jesus but the realisation that our sense for what is right or wrong is unreliable: it is not possible to justify ourselves before God by keeping our understanding of religious or moral the law. We cannot know ourselves to be right before God, apart God declaring us so.

Thus Lorraine’s dismissal of the prayer for unity in John’s gospel as mere church theology much after the fact also misses the point. Whether or not Jesus actually spoke these words they are important because the church knew – and occasionally still remembers – that human unity is a gift of God, not an ethical achievement of Christians or people of any other faith or no-faith.

It is indeed true that the church continues to get its message and its unity wrong but we ought to take this failure with utter seriousness. Given that a community with a message of reconciliation at its very heart has failed to achieve human unity, what confidence can we possibly have that simply alighting upon some ethical system – even the lauded Sermon on the Mount (or, at least, bits of it) – will get us any further? A proponent for any such system is no better placed for success than Jesus, and in fact much less so.

For this reason the gospel is not an ethical program. It is a word of ethical realism. While we are constantly called to love mercy and live humbly before God – and must heed this call – even our obedient response does not finally create human unity, for things are too broken. Rather, in the face of the same kind of rejection Jesus himself met, such an ethic testifies to a unity which does not yet exist but which we wait for God to call into being – in spite of us, but for us.

In this way, the gospel wrapped up in the church’s traditional confession is beyond ethics. It is no mere call to be good, but the promise of a goodness made out of human ethical failure: This is my body broken by you, given now that you might be healed.

The “authentic role” of the Uniting Church, with all Christian communities, is not merely issuing the call to love, or even being loving. It is to point to a source of unity and reconciliation which has comprehended us, and yet still loves us. In this the church has something not simply to say to the world but to celebrate in spite of the fact that the world can be as deaf to the news as we are ourselves.

Mark the Evangelist Update – July 10 2015

Friends,

the latest MtE news update:

  1. This Sunday we will take a break from the series of reflections on the kingship in Israel to consider an opinion piece by Lorraine Parkinson which appeared in the most recent issue of Crosslight (July): “A response to ‘Why Unite’”. (This is a response to an earlier piece by Randall Prior). To my mind it is an unhelpful piece but it warrants conversation or a response. To facilitate this reflection, the following readings will be heard in worship on Sunday:Galatians 2.15-21, Psalm 30 and Matthew 5.13-20.It will help you to participate in the reflection if you are able to read the Crosslight piece before Sunday. The form of our engagement around this will be a more of a dialogue than the usual sermon. It might also help to engage in this if you were to consider the following questions about Lorraine’s article, which we’ll use as the basis for our discussion: what appeals to you about her argument, what troubles you about it, and how good is the good news she thinks she has in her alternative to the traditional Christian reading of Jesus?
  2.  In July and August there will be a study series focussing on Marcus Borg’s Meeting Jesus again for the first time. You can register your interest via our web site.
  3. The most recent Presbytery update (July 6) is here.
  4. The most recent Synod update (July 9) is here.

Craig

Yarra Yarra Presbytery Update July 6 2015

Yarra Yarra Presbytery Update July 6 2015

Events

  • Retired manse fellowship – the next gathering for retired ministers, deaconesses, missionaries, spouses and widows/widowers will be heldtomorrow Tuesday 7th July, from 10:00am-12:00pm at Wesley UC (148 Lonsdale St, Melbourne). Rev Alistair Macrae will talk about the proposed restoration and development plans at the Wesley site and Rev Robert Elkhuizen, Presbytery Minister Administration, will speak about his work including new programs Presbytery is tackling. For further information: Jim Cunnington, jimar6@bigpond.com or 9432 4200.
  • Presbytery recognition and induction – an induction and recognition service for the Rev. Young Lee will take place at the Loving Church of Melbourne (Manningham Uniting Church, Westfield Drive, Doncaster) on Sunday 19th July at 3:00 pm. These are significant occasions and all are invited and encouraged to attend.
  • Collaborative Consultations training evening – the Consultations Advisory Working Group is planning a training event to equip and enable more people to participate in consultations with congregations. It will be held on Tuesday 28th July from 7:00pm-8:30pm at the Yarra Yarra Presbytery Office, 415 Belmore Rd, Balwyn East. See attached for contact and other information.
  • LPA Lay Education day – the next Lay Preachers Education Day will be held on Saturday 1st August at the Centre for Theology and Ministry, Parkville from 8:45am-4:15pm. For further information and registration form contact Alastair Davison, ajdavison@netspace.net.au.
  • Wisdom’s Feast – registrations for Wisdoms Feast are now open, a two event of theological reflection, discussion, friendship, activities and learning resourced by the Centre for Theology and Ministry and to be held in Ballarat from 14-15 August. More information and registration here
  • August Presbytery meeting – an advanced notice that our next Presbytery meeting will be held on Saturday 22nd August at Kingwood College, Box Hill. A date for your diary!

 

Other information and resources

  • Applications for funding through the Share 2016 Lenten Offering are now open – see more here
  • Koonung Heights UC (Balwyn East) is seeking a an experienced, enthusiastic and committed Children and Families co-ordinator for a half-time position initially for 2 years and commencing in September 2015. Contact Rev David Carter on 9816 3218 or drcarter@adelaide.on.net for a copy of the position description. Applications close Friday 31st July.
  • Synod Moderator Dan Wootton has released a statement regarding a decision to withdraw from ACCESS Ministries – see it here
  • People might be interested to listen to UCA President Andrew Dutney’s message on this year’s anniversary of the Uniting Church, which can be foundhere; and also an interview with President-Elect Stuart McMillan who will be installed as President this weekend at the Assembly meeting in Perth.

 

Play
« Older Entries Recent Entries »