March 11 NOTES FOR REFLECTION Third Sunday in Lent

March 11                                NOTES FOR REFLECTION                         Third Sunday in Lent

Texts: Exodus 20:1-17; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; John 2:13-22

Theme:  "The Cleansing of the Temple", is the obvious one, at least if we are focussed only on the gospel reading.  But I'm thinking of something to do with "The Shaking of the Foundations", which, apart from anything else, has the virtue of being the title of a famous collection of sermons by German-American theologian, Paul Tillich.  Or, more colloquially, "Upsets and Upheavals".

Introduction.  The common theme in our three readings may be a clash of mindsets.  We begin with the so-called Ten Commandments, long believed to be the foundations (yes, there's that word again) of decent living.  St Paul then talks of the foolishness and wisdom of God being, as it were, a mirror-image of the wisdom and foolishness of human beings.  And in the riotous scenes of the gospel passage the clash is between those who run the Temple as a business (they probably called it living in the real world or being practical), and Jesus the Invader trying to remind them that they have departed from their core business.  Once again, there is a disturbingly modern ring to these issues.

Background. Today is the first anniversary of the appalling earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan last year; surely, one of the most potent symbols of how everything can be almost literally turned upside-down in an instant, never to be the same again.  Meanwhile, the brave Bishop of Christchurch has triggered outrage among those who believe that the only response is to put humpty-dumpty back together again (whatever the expense) and carry on as if nothing has happened.  This week I have spent a lot of time pondering these horrific natural disasters, and their ongoing aftermaths, in the light of this extraordinary gospel story.  What light does this passage throw on the issue of whether or not to rebuild the former cathedral in Christchurch?  [Please note: it is not a cathedral now; it has been de-consecrated and is no longer the "Bishop's seat".]

The first thing I want to draw attention to is the placing of this story in St John's gospel compared with the other three gospels.  They all agree that the episode took place in Holy Week, following Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on what we now call Palm Sunday.  In narrative terms, this makes far more sense; it could then be seen as the final straw by the religious leaders who then decide that this dangerous rebel has to be executed before he can do any more damage to the seat of their power.

That St John has lifted this story out of that context and used it earlier in his gospel underlines the fact that he is not interested in the chronological narrative; he has something else in mind.  In effect, he has placed this story immediately after his account of the Wedding at Cana (missing from the other three gospels) to second the motion moved by that first story.  Just as turning the ritual water into gospel wine makes the point that Jesus is replacing 'the old ritual', so Jesus' action in the temple is seen as having far greater significance than a simple argument over where these business operations should be conducted and where they should not.  Jesus is seen as overturning, not just the money-lenders' tables, but the whole edifice of sacrificial procedures and rituals that were at the heart of Jewish religious practice.

Look at it from the point-of-view of the Temple authorities for a moment.  Faithful Jews were required to come to the Temple regularly, and make various sacrifices of produce and livestock.  To get there, many pilgrims would have had to travel many miles over many days on foot.  It would not have been practical for them to bring with them the animals or cereals they would offer in sacrifice at the Temple.  The obvious thing to do was to have such things available for purchase at the Temple.  Thus the Temple necessarily became a huge "farmers-market" for visiting pilgrims.  It would have had a huge turnover, providing employment for a huge work-force.  Of course, there would have been corruption, rip-offs, cartel price-fixing and all the other creative accounting techniques that Wall Street and other such markets  are known for today; and it is generally argued that it was these fragrant abuses that so incensed Jesus.  Perhaps, but that's not what the text says, is it?  Jesus says the Temple is the dwelling-place of God ("my father's house"), and they have turned it into "a market" – a place of commerce, whether honest or dishonest in its practice.  But the Temple could not carry on any other way; so Jesus must be understood as rejecting the whole Temple programme of sacrifice and worship.

Now think of the issue that blew up around the altar in the chapel at Teschemakers, and that which has blown up around Bishop Victoria's announcement that her former cathedral will be demolished.  Can we not see the same clash of mindsets at work in both those issues as we see in the gospel incident?  To Fr Mark Chamberlain and those who support him, the altar is for worship; it is no longer required for that purpose in its present position, and so it makes sense to move it to a new position where it can again be used for that purpose.  To his opponents (who love to use the word "sacrilege"!) the altar is a work of art, its purpose now being to look beautiful.  Similarly, we now have heritage buffs talking about the former cathedral being "the aesthetic and spiritual heart of Christchurch".  Never mind that Roman Catholics and other denominations might find focus on the former Anglican cathedral distressing; and never mind all the other churches (including the Anglican ones for which Bishop Victoria and her team have the same responsibility as they have for their former cathedral).  And hang the cost, apparently!

To insist on the former cathedral being rebuilt and restored, against the wishes of the Bishop and her team, is to forget that a building can only be a cathedral if the Church uses it as a cathedral.  Once it ceases to be "the Father's house", once it ceases to be a house of prayer and worship, it ceases to be a cathedral and becomes, at most, a building that looks like a cathedral.  When told she must be accountable for her decisions, Bishop Victoria responded magnificently:  "I am accountable to my God."  If we weren't in the Season of Lent, I would add, "Alleluia!  Alleluia!"  But I must content myself with, "Amen, Bishop.  Amen."

The idea of the Ten Commandments being the foundations of a decent society, and the erosion since the war of that idea, might be something else that could be explored this week.  If I were taking this approach, I think I might want to look at the way in which the "social" commandments seem to have fared rather better that the "godly" ones.  Again we have turned them on their head; in our tradition the godly ones come first because, only when we are in right relationship with God may we hope to be in right relationship with others.  Today, if anyone were to argue that the first four were as important, even more important, than the succeeding six, he or she would surely be laughed to scorn.

Exodus.  We are often told that people who have been "institutionalised for decades (say, in prison or in psychiatric care) find "freedom" very difficult because they are simply not used to making their own decisions.  The Israelites, freed from slavery, found themselves in that very position.  How do we live in freedom with our God?  The Ten Commandments were intended as a gift to the people to guide them in living a life of freedom.  The irony is, of course, that many today see such "rules" as inhibiting freedom, not creating it.

Taking It Personally.

·        Generally, do you see the Ten Commandments as "old hat" or just as relevant today as they ever have been?  Are some more relevant than others?  Which ones, and why?

·        Ponder the Fourth, relating to the Sabbath.  Is this out-of-place in a modern multicultural society, or is it a fine piece of social legislation providing for some sort of work-leisure balance?  In essence is it restrictive or empowering?

·         Which of the commandments are you most likely to break, and which of them are you least likely to break?

·        Recall the gloss that Jesus often put on these Commandments (looking at a woman lustfully equates to adultery, and losing your temper with someone amounts to murder).  Now res-it the previous question!

Corinthians. One of the earliest criticisms levelled against the new Christian faith was that it seemed to make recruits among the lower classes, women and the uneducated generally, whereas it made little progress among the intellectual elite.  Today's passage shows the gist of St Paul's brilliant response.  He does not deny the truth of the allegation; instead he contrasts the wisdom and foolishness of God with human understanding.  In effect, his brilliant intuition is that we grasp spiritual truth otherwise than through intellectual rigour.  Those of us who have spent (fruitless) years trying to figure it all out for ourselves know exactly what he is talking about here.  Of course, the idea of the incarnation makes no sense in human terms; of course, the idea of the resurrection offends our logical, scientifically-trained minds.  Yet, once we "get it" (and how that happens we can't always explain) we wonder what our intellectual objections were about!

Taking It Personally.

·        This is a good passage to ponder slowly, phrase by phrase, letting each word and thought sink in and take hold.

·        Are you the sort that wants miracles, or wants an intellectual explanation of something, before you believe?

·        Spend time with a crucifix, or a picture of Christ suffering on the cross.  As you look at it, repeat slowly, over and over again, "we preach Christ crucified"; or "the message of the cross is the power of God".

John.  It's not clear (at least to me) what purpose verse 12 is supposed to serve.  St John doesn't usually concern himself with such connecting verses, but perhaps on this occasion he wanted a pause to separate these two stories of power and drama.  So, after the wedding at Cana, Jesus had quality time with his family before launching his assault on the Temple.  John gives much of the same detail as the other gospel writers, but then uses the incident as the basis for yet another dialogue where the other party misunderstands Jesus and so talks past him.  This time the talk seems to be about the destruction and raising of the Temple, whereas (we are told rather intrusively) it was really about Jesus' death and resurrection.

Taking It Personally.

·       Another classic passage for praying imaginatively.  Put yourself in the Temple that day and watch the action.  Note your feelings as the drama unfolds.

·       Is this another side to Jesus' character – a less attractive side than usual?

·       What do you think he would feel about gift shops, cafes and other tourist services often found in our cathedrals today?

·       Imagine that you were called to give evidence at a trial of Jesus for wilful damage, or disorderly conduct or something.  Would you be more comfortable as a witness for the prosecution or the defence?  What would you say?

·       Is "righteous anger" okay – or is it anger dressed up to look nice?