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?

 

 

March 4 NOTES FOR REFLECTION Second Sunday in Lent

March 4                      NOTES FOR REFLECTION             Second Sunday in Lent

Texts:  Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16; Romans 4:13-25; Mark 8:31-9:10  Note: The Lectionary gives 2 alternative readings for the gospel today – Mark 8:31-9:1 (Jesus predicts his death), or Mark 9:2-9 (The Transfiguration).  I'm combining the two in these notes.

Theme:  I'm going with "A Matter of Fact", for all sorts of reasons that will (I hope) become clear as you read on.  An alternative could be "A Matter of Faith", which, in the context of these reading, amounts to much the same thing.  In essence, we're about experiencing the mystery of the Divine Presence and believing in the truth of that experience.

Introduction.  The Feast of the Transfiguration is marked on 6 August, and it is often left for that date rather than using this story on this Second Sunday in Lent.  But there is good reason for having it here: it enables us to put it alongside last week's reading on the Lord's baptism and his temptation in the desert.  Thus we have the two experiences of "the voice from heaven", the first addressed to the Lord himself and affirming his divine and beloved state, and the second addressed to the disciples confirming for them the true identity of Jesus and calling upon them to listen to him.  Immediately before this passage about the Transfiguration two important things have happened as recorded in Mark's gospel.  First, Peter has made his famous confession of Jesus' identity ("You are the Christ"), and Jesus has started to speak of his forthcoming death and resurrection.  These two events and the Transfiguration together mark the turning-point of the whole gospel narrative, as the disclosure of Jesus' divinity becomes more and more into focus.

The other two readings also focus on an encounter with the Divine, and the response of faith required to it.  It is worth taking some time to read through the whole of the Abraham saga from chapter 12 through to chapter 18 and notice the series of encounters that Abram/Abraham has, all identified in the text with the recurring phrase "The Lord appeared to Abram".  On each such occasion the promises made to him are, in worldly terms, utter nonsense; yet on each occasion Abram was able to summon up enough faith to believe that with the Lord God all things are possible.  St Paul rather over-states Abram's unconditional faith – he had his questions from time to time – and his legitimate heir, Isaac, is given that name because it means "he laughs", reminding Abraham that Sarah was not the only one to laugh at the very thought that they could have a child between them at their stage of life!  Nevertheless, Abraham believed God enough to hang in there and see the first stage of God's astonishing promises come to pass.

Background:  Mark's gospel can be said to be the least embarrassing of the four to people of the scientific age.  There is no birth narrative to raise awkward questions about virgin births; there is no Ascension to challenge the laws of physics; and, at least in its original form, there was no resurrection narrative.  Mark does mention the Lord's baptism, but very briefly.  Were it not for this story of the Transfiguration all we would have to contend with in debate with our sceptical friends would be the miracle stories.  But the Transfiguration is there in all its glory.

That it can be troublesome to some was brought home to me some years ago in a Bible study group of priests who used to meet regularly in the Diocese of Wellington to discuss the readings set for the coming Sunday.  When we had this story coming up, one of our members expressed bewilderment as to why Mark put it in, when the gospel narrative was moving along so well until this point.  What purpose did Mark have in mind for suddenly inserting such a fanciful story?  This priest was genuinely amazed when the rest of us advanced the alternative theory that Mark had put this story in because it actually happened in much the way he describes.  Indeed, there is an argument for saying that Mark would have no other reason for inserting this story: why would he invent such a story if it wasn't true?

Interestingly, we don't seem to have the same concerns about stories in the Old Testament.  That may be because, in our hearts of hearts, we don't feel the same need to "believe" the Old Testament as we do the New Testament.  But can we really make sense of the New Testament without the background of the Old?  What is Paul talking about in today's lesson from Romans if we are not to believe the truth of the Abraham saga?  If Abraham is a mythic figure, what are we to make of the arguments between the Pharisees and Jesus about "our father Abraham", and who is and who is not a true descendant of his?  [See John 8:31-41.]

Above all, we must keep in mind that we are in the Season of Lent, a time of spiritual preparation and cleansing.  There is one connection for us between last week's gospel passage and this week's passages.  Jesus is baptised, and faces the temptations that confront all of us through our human nature and basic instincts.  He overcomes those temptations so fully that he is completely purified, an inner state of wholeness that manifests itself through the pure light that pours out of him in the Transfiguration.  Lent also gives us the context for joining today's two passages together.  Peter has just identified Jesus as the Messiah: Jesus responds by looking forward to his death and resurrection.  Peter objects, because he has in mind human concerns rather than the things of God.  The Transfiguration shows us the divine as well as the human nature of Christ.

Here is a passage from Thomas Merton to help us think some more about transfiguration:

At the centre of our being is a point of nothingness that is untouched by sin or illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark that belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will.  This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God written in us, as our poverty, our indigence, as our sonship.  It is like a pure diamond blazing with the invisible light of heaven.  It is in everybody, and if we could see it, we would see these billions of points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sun that would make all the darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely.  I have no programme for this seeing.  It is only given.  But the gate of heaven is everywhere.

Genesis.  The saga of Abraham is told in chapters 12-25.  The narrative is given a chronological framework with a series of references to his age at various points in the story; for example, he is 75 when he is called to leave Haran, 86 when his illegitimate son Ishmael is born to the slave woman, Hagar, and 99 in today's story.  Each episode begins with the simple statement "The Lord appeared to Abraham".  Notice how simple that phrase is, until we think about it.  God "appears" to Abraham!  We are used to the books of the prophets where we are often told that "the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah" or whoever; but here we have the Lord God "appearing".  In most instances no attempt is made to amplify that, much less address our obvious question, what did he look like?  The important point is that over a period of 25 years or so God would "appear" to Abraham and make and confirm some astonishing promises to him.  Some of these promises came true in his lifetime, and these were amazing enough; but as we now look back through three to four millennia we can see the extraordinary way in which the story of those promises and their fulfilment has played out.  Today all Moslems, Jews and Christians honour Abraham as their ancestor in the faith; whole nations revere him: a man too old to sire a son has became indeed the source of many peoples.

Taking It Personally.

·        Circumcision was originally intended as a mark of identity as a Jew.  What marks you out as a Christian?

·        Do you want to be marked out as a Christian?

·        How do you recognise other people as Christians?

Romans.  Paul is tackling the issue of compliance with the Law as the way to God's favour.  He points out that Abraham pre-dates the giving of the Law, so that if righteousness comes from observance of the Law, Abraham could not have been righteousness.  Yet righteousness was "credited" to Abraham, a complicated legal term, which still turns up in our commercial and taxation law in the form of "Imputation".  It is not exactly a fiction – treating someone "as if" they had something they did not in fact have.  It is more like awarding someone fly-buys because they purchased something else.  In Abraham's case, he was "deemed" to be righteous because of his great faith.  Against all hope, reason and commonsense Abraham believed God would give him a son and heir, even though in the worldly sense it was pure fantasy.  And St Paul makes an interesting leap in verses 24 and 25.  We too are deemed righteous if we believe in Jesus' death and resurrection.

 

 

Taking It Personally.

·        Ponder the promises made to Abraham in chapters 12-18.  Remind yourself of the age and physical health of Abraham and Sarah.  Ponder the absurdity of the promises as they must have sounded at the time.  Now finish the sentence that begins, "And yet..."

·        Does the resurrection seem any more or less probable to you than the birth of a child to a couple in their dotage?

·        Can you recall an occasion in your own life when something happened against all the odds?  Did you detect the hand of God in that outcome at the time?  Do you now?

Mark.  Immediately after Peter has identified Jesus as the Christ he gets into an argument with him.  Jesus predicts his death and resurrection, but Peter does not seem to hear the second half of that.  He hears only that Jesus will be abused by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes and be executed.  Peter "rebukes" Jesus: this is the same term used to address an evil spirit during exorcism.  The presumption of Peter here is astounding!  In turn, Jesus "exorcises" Peter.  Peter's problem is that he is thinking in worldly terms: even though he claims to have recognised Jesus to be the Messiah, he still sees Jesus in purely human terms.  So Jesus spells out the consequences of following him: followers must die to self and rise to new life in him.  Then comes the Transfiguration.  Again, notice how matter-of-fact the account of this extraordinary mystical encounter is.  It's a nice touch that Peter still cannot keep his mouth shut, even though he has no idea what to say!  He feels he ought to do something useful, but again he is operating in the wrong "mode".

Taking It Personally.

·        Jesus confronts his own mortality; spells out the cost to us of following him; and then three disciples have an out-of-this-world experience of the mystery we call God.  Which of these three episodes do you find the most scary?

·        Take time to contemplate your own death.  What is your predominant feeling about it?  What part does your faith play in this contemplation?

·        Have you had an encounter with the mysterious that has been beyond words – that you could not explain, describe or record in words?

·        The story of the Transfiguration is a classic one for praying with the imagination.  Spend some time putting yourself in the story, perhaps alongside the three apostles.  Go slowly through the story from the inside, noting your feelings as you go.

·        When you've finished spend time in prayers of praise and thanksgiving.

 

 

Parish Meeting with Bishop Kelvin – 7pm at St John’s Waikouaiti next Tuesday 6th March. – All Welcome

Parish Meeting with Bishop Kelvin – 7pm at St John's Waikouaiti next Tuesday 6^th March. – All Welcome

February 26 NOTES FOR REFLECTION First Sunday in Lent

February 26                            NOTES FOR REFLECTION             First Sunday in Lent

Texts:  Genesis 9:8-17; 1 Peter 3:18-22; Mark 1:9-15

Theme:  I'm going with "The Temptations of Humanity" (rather than the more usual "Temptations of Christ"), to emphasise that there is nothing unique to Christ in these temptations.  All of us face them in some form or other: they may best be described as primal archetypes of temptation.

Introduction.  A slightly odd collection of readings this week.  Perhaps to reassure us as we enter the Season of Lent that God will not destroy us for our evil ways, we open the Season somewhat later in the Noah saga than we might have expected.  The focus is not on the punishment of evil throughout the world, but on the offer of a new beginning and the promise that never again will God contemplate destroying his creation.  Perhaps this gives us a slim clue as to the reason for choosing as our epistle reading one of the most obscure passages to be found in the New Testament.  Whatever else it means (and there have been many suggestions over the centuries!), it at least means that no one (not even the worst of sinners long dead) is beyond the saving reach of Christ.  Our gospel reading is in part a repeat, covering again Jesus' baptism, this time because of its immediate link with the temptations in the desert.  It also serves as a timely reminder to us on this First Sunday in Lent of the link between our baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and our salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ.

Background.  The most useful guidance I can offer this week comes in the form of the following extensive quotations from Fr Thomas Keating's marvellous book, The Mystery of Christ: The Liturgy as Spiritual Experience.

(From p. 36)  According to the evidence of developmental psychology, each human being recapitulates the pre-rational stages of development toward full reflective self-consciousness that the human family as a whole has undergone in its evolutionary ascent.  In the first six months of life, the infant is immersed in nature and has no awareness of a separate identity.  As the infant begins to differentiate a body-self, its emotional life clusters around its instinctual drives for survival/security, affection/esteem, and power/control.  Image patterns, emotional reactions and behaviour gravitate around these instinctual needs and create elaborate and well-defended programmes for happiness (or programmes to avoid unhappiness) that might be called "energy centres"...

...When these programmes for happiness are frustrated, upsetting emotions such as grief, apathy, greed, lust, pride or anger instantly arise.  If these emotions are painful enough, one is prepared to trample on the rights and needs of others, as well as our own true good, in order to escape the pain.  This leads to the behaviour that we call personal sin.  Personal sin is the symptom of a disease.  The disease is the false-self system: the gradual building up of the programs for happiness initiated in early childhood and expanded into energy centres around which one's thoughts, feelings, reactions, mindsets, motivations and behaviour gravitate.  As each new stage of developing human consciousness unfolds, an increasing sense of separation emerges, along with the corresponding feelings of fear and guilt.  We come to full reflective consciousness with the pervasive sense of alienation from ourselves, other people and God.

 

(From pages 41-2)  In the desert Jesus is tempted by the primitive instincts of human nature.  Satan first addresses Jesus' security/survival needs, which constitute the first energy centre.  "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread."...

...The devil then took Jesus to the holy city, set him on the parapet of the temple and suggested, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down...In other words, "If you are the Son of God, manifest your power as a wonder-worker.  Jump off this skyscraper.  When you stand up and walk, everybody will regard you as a bigshot and bow down before you."  This is the temptation to love fame and esteem....

...The third energy centre is the desire to control events and to have power over others.  Satan took Jesus to a lofty mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world, promising "All these I will bestow on you if you will prostrate yourself in homage to me."  The temptation to worship Satan in exchange for the symbols of unlimited power is the last-ditch effort of the false-self to achieve its own invulnerability and immortality.

 

My own comment on all this is this: it seems to me that what Fr Keating is talking about here is very similar to Jesus' teaching on 'clean' and 'unclean', with his insistence that we are made unclean, not by what enters through our mouths, but by what comes out of our hearts.  Substitute 'subconscious' for 'heart' in Mark 7:20-23 and see what I mean.

 

Genesis.  The muddled and repetitive structure of the text is usually taken to mean that it is an ancient text, and probably put together from two or more sources – the skills of a redactor (editor) not being of a high level at the time.  For all that, it's an important text, speaking of a new beginning after the widespread devastation of a natural disaster (obvious connections with Canterbury Earthquake, Japanese tsunami, etc).  It also provides a sound theological basis for modern ecological and environmental concerns: God's covenant is not just with humanity but with all living creatures.

The passage obviously acts as an aetiological myth, 'explaining' the existence of rainbows.  Simple observation tells us that they are most visible when there is high water content in the air and sunlight, most often after rain and at the start of clearing skies.  Hence its obvious connection with the end of the Flood and the start of better weather to come.  The science of the time would not have known anything about diffraction of light, of course, but the rainbow is a useful symbol of difference and unity, and the fecundity and complexity of light.  We talk of simplicity and clarity as a matter of black-and-white, without realising how different these are.  White is a composite of seven (the perfect number) beautiful colours: Black is simply the absence of light.

Taking It Personally.

·        Reflect on the whole Noah story.  What does it tell you about the nature of God?

·        Reflect on the whole issue of natural disasters, most of which cannot be blamed on human wrongdoing.  The Bible holds God responsible for the Flood (albeit as the divine response to widespread human sin).  How would you respond today to any suggestion that an earthquake or tsunami was "sent" by God to punish sinful people?

·        What does this story tells us about the worth and dignity of all other living creatures?

·        How might your attitude towards rainbows change as you reflect on this story?

Peter.  This passage is generally accepted by New Testament scholars as among the most difficult to comprehend.  From this has come the whole idea of the harrowing of hell on Holy Saturday. The basic idea seems to be concerned with those who have died before the coming of Christ.  If salvation is only available through faith in Christ, how can it apply "retrospectively"?   The somewhat obscure answer given here is that Jesus took the gospel even into the depths of Hades for the benefit of even the worst of sinners, symbolised by those of Noah's time.  The Flood waters are seen as a symbol of baptism, and the ark becomes a forerunner of the Church - hence the word "nave" (from the Latin for "boat") still used for the main area of a church building.

Taking It Personally.  I must confess that this passage has defied all my attempts to take it personally!  I can only suggest you take it as an opportunity to reflect on the eternal reach of God – past, present and future are all as one to God; and/or to reflect on your own baptism and its significance in your life.

Mark.  The first thing to notice about this passage is its brevity: cf. Matthew 3:13-4:11; and Luke 3:21-22, 4:1-13.  [John has no direct reference to Jesus' baptism, nor to his temptation in the desert.]  Mark's account of the temptation is particularly brief, and we need to go to Matthew or Luke for the details.  The reference to being "with the wild animals", is an interesting one.  At one level it may simply mean that Jesus was constantly in danger – the desert was a dangerous place, being the haunt of wild animals.  On the other hand, Mark uses the word "with" which can mean "accompanied by"; in which case we may have a hint of Jesus being in harmony with all creatures.  [This might be the link with the first lesson, the covenant with all living creatures.]  But at another level "wild animals" can be symbolic of our natural instincts and emotions (Jesus was undergoing an inner struggle); or of demonic beings (which would seem to be superfluous given that Jesus has been confronted by Satan himself!) However, given the immediately following reference to the angels attending to Jesus, the picture of a contest of the good spiritual beings and the evil spiritual beings could have been intended.  One thing that is certain is that the reference to the angels symbolises the Father's providential care of the Son during the time of trial. (cf. Matthew 26:53; and recall Christ's terrible cry of abandonment on the cross – Matthew 27:46).

Taking It Personally.

·       This is the classic passage with which to begin Lent.  It calls for a spiritual stock-take.  What most tempts you to turn away from God? 

·       Following Fr Keating's analysis above, which of the "three energy centres" is most problematic for you, safety/security, affection/esteem, or power/control?  Do you find his comments helpful in understanding yourself and others?

·       Notice that Satan's suggestions do not seem evil in themselves.  Jesus was desperately hungry: why not turn a stone into bread?  Jesus needed to draw the attention of the masses; why not put on a death-defying show?  Jesus came into a corrupt, warring world: why not take all political power?  But can the ways of the world be defeated by following the ways of the world?

·       Do the ends ever justify the means?

·       How might Jesus' alternative way – of love, service, surrender, acceptance, etc – shape your prayers for God's intervention in a particular situation?

·       When we refer to God as "almighty" what is the nature of the "might" we are ascribing to God?

 

ANGLICAN PARISH OF EAST OTAGO Lenten Studies 2012

ANGLICAN PARISH OF EAST OTAGO

Lenten Studies 2012

To be held in St Barnabas Church Lounge, Warrington

Leader: Roger Barker

PASSAGES OF FAITH

Session 1         Monday, 27^th February            The Gifts of God

Passage for Reflection:  A poem by Rabindranath Tagore [Bengali philosopher, poet & mystic: 1861-1941]

Session 2         Monday, 5 March                    The Work of God

Passage for Reflection:  The Deathbed Homily of Fr Gilbert Shaw [English priest & spiritual director: 1879-1968]

Session 3         Monday, 12 March                  The Body of God

Passage for Reflection:  Hymns of Divine Love No.15 by St Symeon the New Theologian [Greek abbot, mystic & saint: 949-1022]

Session 4         Monday, 19 March                  The Victory of God

Passage for Reflection:  A Prayer Found Beside a Dead Child in Ravensbruck Death Camp [Anonymous, Jewish, 1945]

Session 5         Monday, 26 March                  The Healing of God

Passage for Reflection:  The Psalm of an Abused Canadian woman [Anonymous, Canadian, from the 1990's]

Notes.

1.      Each passage is an extraordinary expression of the author's faith.  I have chosen them because of their impact on my own faith journey.

2.      Each session will begin at 7.30pm and conclude by 8.30pm.

3.      Ideally, copies of the passage under consideration will be available to participants a week in advance.

4.      We will begin each session with a short discussion about the meaning of the text as it is; and relate it to Scripture.  Then we will have a period of silent reflection on the passage, followed by prayer and feedback.

5.      It is suggested that participants bring notebook and biro, and a bible. 

 

February 19 NOTES FOR REFLECTION

February 19                            NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Isaiah 43 18-25; 2 Corinthians 1:18-22; Mark 2:1-12

Theme: "God Does New Things", is an obvious choice today.  I'm biased, of course, because Isaiah 43:18-19 are my favourite verses in the whole of Scripture.  But just think for a moment about the whole "Christ event". How many times did people misunderstand Jesus because they hadn't grasped the New Way God was opening up in Christ.  "We have never seen anything like this!" exclaim today's crowd; and that response echoes through the gospel narrative like the chanting of a Greek chorus.

Introduction.  Taken into captivity the Jewish people spent 70 years in exile.  During that time they meditated on their faith stories.  Understandably the story of the Exodus was prominently in their minds.  Their God had rescued them from captivity in Egypt: surely he should now rescue them from captivity in Babylon.  So where was the new Moses when they needed him?  But that was how God worked in the past: this time he had something completely different in mind.  Yes, he was still the Saviour God committed to his chosen people and to their liberation/salvation.  But God was no slave to precedent: this time his agent of redemption was to be the Persian King, Cyrus.  Who but God could have thought of that?  The initiative in any situation is always God's: our role is simply to consent, to say "Yes" to what God is doing, as St Paul makes clear in our epistle reading.  That is the problem confronting the teachers of the law in our gospel reading.  They know that God alone can forgive sin: their mistake lies in thinking that God can only do this in accordance with the rites and procedures set out in the Law.  The idea that God may take human flesh, come among his people, and forgive them in person was beyond their wildest imaginings.

Background.  There is something easier and very often more sensible about doing things the way we have always done them, rather than constantly starting from scratch.  To learn from the past – both our successes and our mistakes – is part of growing up, maturing, becoming more competent people.  It's also an important element of getting to know other people: we build up a picture of them from our previous experiences of them.  We trust people whom we have found to be trustworthy in the past: we are more cautious with someone whom we found unreliable in the past.  And, of course, remembrance is an important part of honouring people who have died, or to whom we have reason to be especially grateful.  In the Scriptures God often identifies himself in terms of the past: "I am the God of your ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"; "I am the one who led you out of Egypt."  To remember the past in all those sorts of way is positive and healthy.  That cannot be what God is talking about through Isaiah today.

But there is a dark side to our relationship with the past.  We all know people who are stuck in the past, embittered by some wrong (real or imagined) committed against them.  We all know of towns, regions, and countries mired in disputes, disagreements and even wars, technically long-since over, but still seemingly unable or unwilling to let those things go and move on to new arrangements for the future.  And we all know that in the Church we are particularly deaf to what God is saying through the prophet Isaiah today!

Part of the problem (I would say it's a very small part!) is a blindness arising from a lack of imagination.  We simply cannot imagine a different way to the way we have always done things in the past.  But we only have to think of the reception prophets of all ages have received from their own people to know that seeing new possibilities is not the largest difficulty: trying them, letting go of past certainties and risking some new alternative is too scary to contemplate.  There's another bigger part of the problem.

And the largest part is the awful challenge of forgiveness.  I have lost count of the number of times I have listened to someone pouring out the anguish of their past..."My Father was a brute...my mother never really loved me...I was unjustly dismissed..." and tried to explore with him or her what would happen if he or she forgave the wrongdoer.  Yes, forgiveness is unjust; yes, it can be agonisingly difficult, but is there any real alternative within his or her power?  How else may they have a future better than their past?  How else may Palestinians and Israelis have a peaceful and fruitful future than by forgiving each other (and themselves) for past horrors?

God is a God who makes all things new.  When we intercede for someone, or seek God's help for ourselves, are we not asking God to change something or someone?  Are we not asking God to effect change in the present circumstances?  If we pray for an increase in church membership, do we leave the "how" to God, or do we expect him to follow our present practices, even though they have not succeeded in the past?  When Jesus says, "Follow me" he gives no further detail.  The journey of faith is a journey into the ever-new.

Isaiah.  God has just reminded the people that he is the one who brought them out of Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian pursuers. Now he tells them "[But] forget the former things, don not dwell on the past!"  There we see both the positive and the negative side of the past: we are reminded of God's power, love and commitment to his people, but we must not expect God to act in exactly the same way again.  Now notice the use of the present tense in what follows: we are not told that God is planning something new, that sometime in the future he will do a new thing, but he is already at it, if only they had eyes to see.  God acts in the eternal now: we live our lives in that eternal now, even though mentally we are forever brooding on the past or planning for (fantasizing about) the future. And what is this new thing he is doing at that moment?  Well, he seems to be granting them absolution of their sins even though they had failed to observe all the requirements of the law relating to sacrifices and other offerings.  He is offering them grace, a free pardon, but the gift goes unnoticed for another few centuries, until Jesus brings the same offering in person.  And gets much the same blind response.

 

Taking It Personally.

·        Is there some area of your life in which you are stuck, some grievance which comes back into your mind from time to time?  Is there some part of the past that you have never let go – that is still adversely affecting your present?

·        In general, what is your attitude to change?  Are you open to it or suspicious of it?  Are you inclined to draw a line in the sand or go with the flow and see what turns up?

·        Has there been an occasion in your life when you experienced God nudging you in a new direction?  What was that like?  How did you respond?

·        Ponder verse 25.  How do you feel about it?  Does it really touch you – move you to thanksgiving and praise – or does it strike you as superfluous to your needs?

Corinthians.  This short passage does not rank among the clearest in St Paul's writings.  He seems to be dealing with our propensity for "double-mindedness", the difficulty we find in being whole-hearted in our commitments.  We run hot and cold (or mostly tepid!): we say "yes" to Christ but act in a way that is unworthy of him.  So Paul is calling us to give the same unqualified "Yes" to Christ as Christ gave to God, not by our own strength of character but by the power of the Holy Spirit given to us.

Taking It Personally.

·       With the beginning of Lent just a few days away, this is a good passage to use in conducting an audit of your spiritual health.  How unequivocal is your commitment to Christ?  Is your response "Yes", or "Maybe", or "To some extent" or "Sometimes".

·       What might you need to give up (not just for Lent but for ever) if your commitment to Christ is to grow stronger?

·       Spend some time pondering verse 22 – perhaps even commit it to memory.  Let the truth of it sink in.  Do you believe it?  Ask God for the grace to accept it fully.

Mark.  What a wonderful story this is!  Marvel over the detail.  Jesus has come "home" (back where he was in verses 29-32 where he healed Peter's mother-in-law and spent all day healing crowds of people).  Now he's back and the surgery is resumed.  But this time the focus is on one patient, a man with paralysis.  Notice the structure of this part of the story.  Four bearers carry their prostrate friend.  They dig a hole and lower him down.  Remind you of something?  Of course, it's a funeral scene!  At the bottom of the "grave" the "deceased" meets Jesus, who raises him up.  Yes, it's a resurrection story!  But wait! There's more!  We have the first signs of opposition in the form of a chorus of teachers of the law.  What are they doing there?  Checking out the rumours about Jesus, I guess.  They think dark thoughts, and the wonderful irony is that they are on the right track.  God alone can forgive sin.  The problem is that they do not put two and two together and recognise God incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, but then again it was something of a stretch, wasn't it?

 

 What triggered such dark thoughts?  Jesus said to the paralysed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."  Pay careful attention to this.  He did not immediately tell the guy to get up and walk: he forgave him and then healed him.  We have a sacrament in reverse here.  Remember what the Catechism says a sacrament is: the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.  Jesus forgives the man (inward and invisible grace) and then heals him physically (outward and visible sign).  The healing works as a sign because of the widespread belief at the time that illness (such as paralysis) is caused by sin.  The sin having been forgiven, the man can now be set free from paralysis.

Notice, too, that even though Jesus read their thoughts, the teachers of the law did not seem to change their initial assessment of Jesus: compare Nathaniel's response in John 1:47-49.  They were so stuck in the past they were not open to the new thing God was doing in the present (and in their very presence).  Again ironically, what the teachers of the law could not see, the crown at least glimpsed: they praised God; and recognised that something entirely new to their experience had just happened before their very eyes.

Taking It Personally.

·        Do you agree or disagree that we tend to focus more on physical health than on spiritual well-being?  Are you more impressed that the paralysed man could walk again or that his sins were forgiven?

·        Reflect on the words of the Absolution on page 408 of the Prayer Book.  Do you "know" that you are forgiven?  Are you "at peace"?  Cast your eye down the page.  Let "the peace of Christ rule in your heart".  Notice that word "rule": not "reside" or "dwell" in your heart (alongside or with everything else), but "rule" or "govern" everything else.

·        Pray that "the word of Christ may dwell in you richly".

·        Praise God for all that you have seen through these Scriptures today.

Lenten Study Series

Lenten Study Series  ---"Passages of Faith" led by Roger.  5 sessions, 45-60 minutes, Mondays at 7.30pm, at St Barnabas. Each week we take a short passage from a spiritual writer and use it for reflection, prayer and discussion.  Dates are February 27, March 5, 12, 17, and 24.  Could people please register an interest in advance with Roger or Helen for further details: Roger plans to get copies of the weekly passage to participants in advance of the sessions.