gregoryjenks

Author: Gregory C. Jenks

  • Study Leave—Week Eleven

    This has been the second last week of my period of study leave. It has been a time for drawing together some of the loose ends, and a time when the mind naturally begins to think about what lies just ahead when life returns to its ‘normal’ setting in a few weeks’ time.

    Sunday and Monday were spent at the coin department of Israel Antiquities Authority, as we worked through the last 50 or so coins concerning which there were unresolved questions. After carefully reviewing the annotations (in handwritten Hebrew) on the index cards during the previous few days, I was well prepared for the visit and we made great progress. There remains a lot of work to update the records, fill gaps, find missing information in the field records, etc. However, the critical elements—and those parts best done while in the country and with access to the physical coins—have been finished.

    Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday were spent on the dig at Bethsaida, as we opened up a new square in Area T. Work in this area had begin only in 2012. We are seeking to find evidence for the presence of non-elite population at the site. After going down just 40cm  across the 5m x 5m square, we have already found a packed earth floor from the Mamluk period (ca 1300–1500 CE) and some domestic walls. We have lots of pottery shards and the occasional items in glass and iron. By the time we finish the season at the end of June we may well have found material from the Early Roman period as well.

    Friday has been spent at the house, leaving Area T in the hands of my colleagues while I attended to some key writing tasks as well as the growing pile of unanswered emails. My paper for the Biblical Characters in the Three Traditions seminar at the International SBL meeting in St Andrew’s, Scotland next month is now finished, and so is the Keynote presentation that I will use on the day. The current big task is to finish the Bethsaida Coin Report for the years 2001 to 2012, and then find a way to turn it into a presentation for the Bethsaida Seminar at St Andrew’s as well as a vaguely interesting chapter for a colleague’s Festschrift.

    I have also begun to pile up (and weigh) the books and other papers that have accumulated during my study leave. They will need to be posted back to Australia in the next week or so, as that extra 10 kg just cannot be added to my checked luggage!

    It is now just one more week before the Australian volunteers will arrive to join us for the dig, and then stay for a special one-week course at St George’s College in Jerusalem. Once that happens I shall have moved from sabbatical mode back into teaching mode. It will be good to see so many familiar faces from home here in this place that has become so special to me. At the same time, it will be hard to begin the process of saying good-bye to people here who are now such a special part of my life. Happily, I am coming back in November to serve as a speaker at the Sabeel conference in Jerusalem.

  • Third Sunday after Pentecost (9 June 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • 1 Kings 17:8-16, (17-24) & Psalm 146
    • Galatians 1:11-24
    • Luke 7:11-17

    Introduction

    This week we return to the principal cycle of readings centered around Luke as we move into the Sundays after Pentecost. From now until the end of the cycle, Luke will be the principal reading with separate minor series of readings drawn from the Old Testament and the letters of Paul.

    First Reading: The prophet heals a dead child

    The OT reading for this week offers a parallel to the miracle in which Jesus raises to life a dead child.

    In addition to the set reading from 1Kings 17:8-24, there is another very similar story in 2 Kings 4. This account seems to share the same location as the miracle in Luke, and may have served as a stimulus for Jesus (understood as a prophet like Elijah and Elisha — and operating in the same traditional Israelite territory) being credited with a similar miracle at the site:

    One day Elisha was passing through Shunem, where a wealthy woman lived, who urged him to have a meal. So whenever he passed that way, he would stop there for a meal. She said to her husband, “Look, I am sure that this man who regularly passes our way is a holy man of God. Let us make a small roof chamber with walls, and put there for him a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp, so that he can stay there whenever he comes to us.”
    One day when he came there, he went up to the chamber and lay down there. He said to his servant Gehazi, “Call the Shunammite woman.” When he had called her, she stood before him. He said to him, “Say to her, Since you have taken all this trouble for us, what may be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?” She answered, “I live among my own people.” He said, “What then may be done for her?” Gehazi answered, “Well, she has no son, and her husband is old.” He said, “Call her.” When he had called her, she stood at the door. He said, “At this season, in due time, you shall embrace a son.” She replied, “No, my lord, O man of God; do not deceive your servant.”
    The woman conceived and bore a son at that season, in due time, as Elisha had declared to her.
    When the child was older, he went out one day to his father among the reapers. He complained to his father, “Oh, my head, my head!” The father said to his servant, “Carry him to his mother.” He carried him and brought him to his mother; the child sat on her lap until noon, and he died. She went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, closed the door on him, and left. Then she called to her husband, and said, “Send me one of the servants and one of the donkeys, so that I may quickly go to the man of God and come back again.” He said, “Why go to him today? It is neither new moon nor sabbath.” She said, “It will be all right.” Then she saddled the donkey and said to her servant, “Urge the animal on; do not hold back for me unless I tell you.” So she set out, and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel.
    When the man of God saw her coming, he said to Gehazi his servant, “Look, there is the Shunammite woman; run at once to meet her, and say to her, Are you all right? Is your husband all right? Is the child all right?” She answered, “It is all right.” When she came to the man of God at the mountain, she caught hold of his feet. Gehazi approached to push her away. But the man of God said, “Let her alone, for she is in bitter distress; the LORD has hidden it from me and has not told me.” Then she said, “Did I ask my lord for a son? Did I not say, Do not mislead me?” He said to Gehazi, “Gird up your loins, and take my staff in your hand, and go. If you meet anyone, give no greeting, and if anyone greets you, do not answer; and lay my staff on the face of the child.” Then the mother of the child said, “As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave without you.” So he rose up and followed her. Gehazi went on ahead and laid the staff on the face of the child, but there was no sound or sign of life. He came back to meet him and told him, “The child has not awakened.”
    When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. So he went in and closed the door on the two of them, and prayed to the LORD. Then he got up on the bed and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and while he lay bent over him, the flesh of the child became warm. He got down, walked once to and fro in the room, then got up again and bent over him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. Elisha summoned Gehazi and said, “Call the Shunammite woman.” So he called her. When she came to him, he said, “Take your son.” She came and fell at his feet, bowing to the ground; then she took her son and left.”
    (2Kings 4:8-37 NRSV)

    Second Reading: Paul’s gospel

    This week continues the series of readings from Galatians, one the most universally accepted of the letters attributed to Paul.

    For links to online and print resources, see the Early Christian Writings page.

    In the first two chapters of Galatians, Paul refers to his own encounter with the risen Christ and also to some of his earliest encounters with the apostolic leaders within the emerging Christian community. When we compare Paul’s own description with the version of events founds in the Acts of the Apostles, there are a number of discrepancies. Note especially Paul’s insistence that there were no human intermediaries, and that his commissioning—like his message—came direcly from God.

    Paul’s insistence that his gospel was received by direct revelation from God is a most remarkable claim, and puts him in a small group of prophetic figures that have shaped humanity’s religious traditions. Such a claim is not susceptible to historical inquiry, any more than Isaiah’s claim to have seen YHWH or Muhammad’s claim to have received the Quran by direct revelation.

    It is a great loss that we do not have other first-person reports of the “Easter revelation.” How might Mary Magdalene or Peter the fisherman have described the moment when they came to “know”—directly and for themselves—that Jesus was not dead and gone, but rather alive and with God?

    Paul was to spend the rest of his life unpacking this moment of revelation, an epiphany that made Paul both a prophet of God and a devotee of Jesus. He did not convert from Judaism to Christianity, but he was certainly transformed by the experience.

    It is very interesting that Paul’s witness to the resurrection of Jesus does not rely on traditions about an empty tomb. For Paul, what mattered is that Jesus had appeared to various people, and especially to himself. Yet it was not their witness that persuaded him, and he insists that he owes them nothing as his gospel derives directly from God and without any human mediation. He would be a difficult person to have on the local parish council, although not the first to think that God was giving them direct instructions. As Paul describes it, God chose to reveal “his Son” to Paul in a vision of some sort. For Paul that was enough, and the rest is history.

    For Paul to comprehend that Jesus was “son of God” was not to embrace a philosophical position of the divinity of Jesus, or to begin a lifelong puzzle about the two natures of Christ. “Son of God” was a familiar political title in the Roman world, and indicated the person who enjoys the favour of the gods and exercised their authority to rule the nations. The great revelation for Paul was not so much that Jesus was alive as a result of God raising him from the dead, but rather than Jesus had been designated by God as the Messiah, the Lord, the “son of God.” This was the great revelation. This is the heart of Paul’s gospel. This came direct from God and not through any human intermediary. This was revolutionary. This changed everything. It still does for anyone who takes it seriously.

    Gospel: Jesus raises a dead boy at Nain

    This week’s Gospel is a story that occurs only in Luke, and it involves an otherwise unknown village somewhere in Galilee.

    So little is know about the village of Nain that the BiblePlaces web site offers no photographs – although it does have links to some other sites that seem more confident of their ability to describe the site.

    Those commentators who remark on the location also highlight the traditional association of Nain with the story of the Shunnamite woman whose dead son was said to have been raised to life by the prophet Elisah in 2 Kings 4.

    Within Luke’s narrative, this episode is one of a series of events that follow the “sermon on the plain” in Luke 6:

    • Jesus heals the centurion’s slave (7:1-10)
    • Jesus heals the widow’s dead son (7;11-17)
    • Questions about Jesus and John (7:18-35)
    • Jesus and the woman with the oil (7:36-50)

    It may well be that the most significant aspect of this week’s passage is not the healing miracles but the pairing of a story about a woman with another story about a man. Kraemer and D’Angelo, Women and Christian Origins (p.181f) have noted the way that Luke uses gender as he constructs his account of Christian origins:

    Unlike the other three canonical Gospels, Luke-Acts uses gender as a central category. This has sometimes caused Luke to be read as the gospel for women. But a number of feminist scholars have observed that Luke’s writings also restrict or denigrate the participation of women. Luke-Acts is less a compilation of good news for women than in the words of Turid Karlsen Seim, a “double message”.

    The centrality of gender in Luke-Acts emerges most notably in the pairing of stories about women with stories about men. There are two types of paired stories in Luke. The first is the unit of two brief stories with an identical point or similar function, one story about a male figure and one about a female figure. This technique does not originate with Luke; some pairs of this type of taken over from Q, while others are from Mark. But in many cases, the story about the man comes from Mark or Q, while the one about the woman is special to Luke; one example is the man who had a hundred sheep (Luke 15:1-7) supplemented in Luke by the woman who had 10 coins (Luke 14:8-10).

    The second type might be termed “architectural” pairs: two similar stories are told in different contexts to bind the narrative together and to manifest the coherence of “God’s plan and work”. As a list of the 12 male disciples precedes the sermon on the plain (Luke 6:12-19), so a list of named women disciples precedes the parables sermon (8:1-3).

    Lukan pairs of one or the other type can be detected in almost every chapter of the gospel:

    • two annunciations: to Zachariah and to Mary (1:5-23; 1:26-38)
    • two songs: of Mary and of Zachariah (1:46-56; 1:67-79)
    • two prophets: Simeon and Anna (2:25-35; 2:36-38)
    • two miracles: for Gentile widow and male leper (4:25-27)
    • two first miracles: for possessed man and Peter’s mother in law (4:31-39)
    • two lists of named disciples: men Apostles (6:12-19; 8:1-3)
    • two rescues from the death: the Centurion’s servant and the widow’s son (7:1-10; 7:11-17)
    • two penitents: the paralytic and a penitent woman (5:19-26; 7:35-50)
    • three miracles: the Gerasene demoniac, the daughter of Jarius, the haemorrhaging woman (8:26-56)
    • three questions about discipleship: the scribe, Martha and the disciples (10:25-37; 10:38-42; 11:1-13)
    • two Gentile accusers of Israel: the Nivevites and the Queen of the South (11:29-36)
    • two “releases”; the bent over woman and the dropsical man (13:10-17; 14:1-6)
    • two hider parables: man (?) planting mustard and a woman hiding leven (13:18-19; 13:20-21)
    • two finder parables: man with sheep and woman with a coin (15:1-7; 15:8-10)
    • two taken: men (?) sleeping, women grinding (17:32-35)
    • two examples of prayer: widow, Pharisee and publican(8:9-17)
    • two attitudes to worship: scribes and widow (20:45-21:4; 23:26-32)
    • two sets of followers: Simon and women (23:26-32)
    • two groups of watchers: women and all his acquaintances (23:49)
    • two groups of resurrection witnesses (24)

    It should be noted that, while the stories about women usually have been added by the author, not every story about a man is doubled with a story about a woman; men still outnumber women in the gospel. And in some cases men are introduced to the narrative: men are added to the group of women watching at the cross (23:49).

    Although the appearances of women are significantly fewer in Acts than in Luke, Acts also includes a number of references to women paired with men. But the pairs in the two works differ significantly. In Luke, the pairs consist of a variety of paired stories that form a single unit or a sequence and architectural pairs of stories, while in Acts (though not all) of the references to women consist not of paired stories, but of either the names of couples or the merismus “both men and women”.

    • two groups were waiting (1:13-14)
    • menservants and maidservants, sons and daughters (2:17-18)
    • Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11)
    • a crowd of both men and women added (5:14)
    • Paul as persecutor of both men and women (8:3)
    • both men and women added (8:12)
    • Paul as persecutor of both men and women (9:2)
    • Peter cures lame man and Tabitha (9:32-43)
    • worshipping women and first men of the city (13:50)
    • Paul driven from Lystra by cure of Lame man (14:5-18)
    • Paul driven from Philippi by cure of mantic girl (16:16-40)
    • Lydia baptised with all her household (16:15)
    • Jailer baptised with all his household (16:32-34)
    • a great crowd of worshiping Greeks and not a few of the first women were persuaded (17:4)
    • not a few respectable Greek women and men (17:12)
    • Dionysus and Damaris converted at Athens (17:34)
    • Paul received by Priscilla and Aquila (18:1-4)
    • Four prophesying daughters of Philip and Agabus, the prophet from the Judea (21:8-14)
    • Paul as persecutor of both men and women (22:4)
    • Felix arrives with Drusilla (24:24)
    • Agrippa and Bernice (25:13, 23, 20 6:30)

    Jesus Database

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    • A mighty stronghold is our God – AHB 8
    • For your holy book – AHB 338
    • Stand up and bless the Lord – AHB 383
    • Be thou my vision – AHB 455

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Study Leave—Week Ten

    After two weeks of annual leave—during which time I was travelling in Ireland, France and Germany—I have now been back in Israel for a week, and have resumed my study leave program.

    The weather has now turned much warmer, with some days reaching 40 degrees Celsius. The greens of early Spring have vanished from the landscape where brown and gold now dominate. The only patches of green are from crops in various fields.

    This first week back in Israel has been a mix of activities.

    On Friday last week I was able to visit the Golan Heights which were occupied by Israel in 1967 and annexed in 1981. There was no sign of military activity on either side of the border despite the current tensions, and people seem to be going about their daly lives as best they can in the circumstances.

    On Sunday I spent the day in Haifa, where I assisted with the liturgy at the local Anglican Church and then enjoyed an afternoon visiting with Hatem and Liza Shehadeh. It was a special delight to offer the Great Thanksgiving prayer, using the second form of the thanksgiving from A Prayer Book for Australia.

    For much of the week I have been juggling the need to complete some writing tasks with my desire to be on the dig at Bethsaida. I was able to spend Wednesday and Thursday on site, working in an area where we seem to be moving from Level Two (Hellenistic & Roman materials) to Level Five (Iron Age IIB). In the first two weeks of the 2013 season we have so far found just a single coin, and no more are expected if we work mostly in Iron Age materials as coins had not yet been invented at that stage.

    On the other days this past week I have been able to complete one of the papers I will be presenting at the international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in St Andrews, Scotland, before returning home in July. That paper explores the complexities of the Herodian succession using the coins issued by Archelaus, Antipas and Philip as data. It will be presented to the Biblical Characters in the Three Traditions seminar.

    Work has also continued on the coin project, and I have a fairly complete draft of my report for presentation to the Bethsaida seminar in the St Andrews SBL meeting. I am slowly working my way through the handwritten Hebrew annotations on the index cards from the Israel Antiquities Authority, and will be back in the coin department for a couple of days next week to complete the analysis of the remaining coins.

    Part way through this week I became aware of a blog posted by a conservative colleague from Brisbane that attacks progressive Christianity as little more than a pagan/Gnostic hybrid that is deeply incompatible with Anglicanism. At the expense of two very late nights (on days when I needed to be up at before 5.00am to get out to the dig) I prepared a public response to this blog as a contribution—hopefully constructive—to an emerging debate in Brisbane Diocese in the lead up to Synod in mid-June.

    Last night (Thursday) I visited the Sabeel office in Nazareth to offer an orientation to the Bethsaida excavations. This was in preparation for a visit to the dig by the Sabeel young adults group during the time that the Australian volunteers are at Bethsaida. It was good to meet up with friends from last year and also to meet some new people.

  • Progressive Anglicans

    It is surely ironic that the same weekend as I published a set of lectionary notes in which I call for religious leaders to disband the theological thought-police, one of my colleagues in ministry issued a call for people who hold progressive theological ideas to be expelled from the church.

    In my notes for the Second Sunday after Pentecost I reflected as follows on Paul’s words in Galatians 1 where he demands that anyone with a different gospel than his own be accursed:

    These are harsh words, and they are spoken from a position of privilege and power. Paul will have better moments in his career as a religious essayist, but he has many admirers in today’s church. The theological thought police are quick to confront deviations from approved forms of liturgy or theology. What the world needs now is more religious communities with some capacity to live with ambiguity. We need fewer fatwas and no more church edicts that divide, exclude and control the faithful. What might the world be like if the followers of Jesus were famous for our gentleness towards others, and especially those with whom we disagreed?

    Quite independently (and indeed a day or so before my post was published), my colleague and friend—Ralph Bowles—completed his three-part review of a book written by two other friends and colleagues: Living the Questions. The wisdom of progressive Christianity, edited by David M. Felton and Jeff Proctor-Murphy.

    While some of my friends who identify as progressive Christians find such a critique a cause for celebration, I remain concerned at the bleak assessment of the place of progressive thinking within the Anglican Church of Australia. If all of the concerns voiced by Ralph were authentic and valid, I would share at least some of his evident anxiety in response to this particular set of ‘fresh expressions’ within the life of our church.

    However, I think Ralph is unnecessarily concerned about the negative impact of progressive Christianity within Anglicanism and in some cases quite mistaken.

    In drafting this preliminary response to Ralph’s recent blog, I do want to stress my respect for Ralph and my appreciation for his friendship. Our offices at St Francis Theological College are just a few meters apart, and we have much in common—including a passion for churches that become places of transformation and hope. We come from different theological perspectives within the life of our national church, and this is not the first time we have corresponded with each other about these matters. Until now those conversations have not been in the public domain.

    In particular, during 2012 we collaborated with others (from a range of theological viewpoints) in the development of a diocesan program to deepen the engagement of Brisbane Anglicans with the Bible. The BIBLE360 program is precisely the kind of project that brings together conservative and progressive members of our church, and it is characterized by teamwork and training.

    Before responding to Ralph’s specific criticisms, a comment on the context in the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane may be in order. A group of conservative Evangelicals, for whom such a description is a badge of honor rather than a polemical label, have organized themselves as the New Cranmer Lobby. They tend to promote traditional and conservative forms of Anglicanism, more typical of the Diocese of Sydney than the Diocese of Brisbane. They have given notice of a motion for the June 2013 session of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane that expresses concern at a recent book that I have edited, and to which several senior clergy of the Diocese of Brisbane have contributed essays. Indeed, the Archbishop of Brisbane and Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, contributed a Foreword to that volume and welcomed its publication as a contribution to the necessary debate within the church about the Bible. The complete motion reads as follows:

    That this Synod:

     a)    Acknowledges the request, in the book The Once and Future Scriptures, for dialogue concerning the approach to interpreting the Bible.

    b)    Encourages further reflection on the theological content of the book, in light of the statements of faith contained in the Book of Common Prayer (and AAPB and APBA), Fundamental Declarations and Ruling Principles of the Anglican Church of Australia.

    c)     Welcomes open and thoughtful dialogue, however, expresses concern that aspects of the book appear to contradict the teachings found in the Book of Common Prayer (and AAPB and APBA), Fundamental Declarations and Ruling Principles of the Anglican Church of Australia.

    d)    Reaffirms its commitment to the authority of Holy Scriptures as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles, Fundamental Declarations and Ruling Principles of the Anglican Church of Australia.

    It seems unlikely that the blog published by Ralph Bowles is entirely unrelated to this notice of motion for Synod next month, even if he has no formal association with the New Cranmer Lobby and has played no part in the drafting of the motion. Ralph is welcome to participate in such a lobby group if he chooses, and as a member of Synod he can certainly contribute to debate in a variety of ways. This may include the publication of material that can be used to inform members of Synod prior to the debate, as well as assisting speakers in the debate to prepare their ideas and their speaking points.

    Indeed, my response to Ralph also has one eye on the members of Synod, and is intended as much to assist speakers wishing to debate the motion as it is to dissuade Ralph of any ideas that I consider mistaken. Given my absence from Brisbane on Study Leave during the period when Synod meets, this response may be one way I can contribute to the debate that so many people are seeking.

    Ralph indicates that he will provide “five reasons why Progressive Christianity is problematic for our Church,” although he actually has six numbered arguments as well as several other arguments that are not numbered. I will address each of the five (six) reasons. For the sake of brevity, I will not address directly each of the additional points that are not recognized by Ralph as separate reasons.

    In very broad terms, my response to the arguments offered by Ralph is to suggest that only the first is really a serious issue. It is both the presenting issues and the substantive issue, with the others being very minor concerns if not entirely irrelevant.

    I will paraphrase each of the reasons briefly, and then address them in turn.

    1. Such theological views are contrary to the ‘definitional boundaries’ of the Anglican Church of Australia, as expressed in the Constitution of our Church and its formularies such as The Book of Common Prayer and The Articles of Religion.
    2. It is not possible to hold together views that are as divergent as progressive Christianity and the traditional orthodoxy of the Anglican Church as expressed in its Constitution and formularies.
    3. Progressive theological views are incompatible with the mission of the church and undermine any prospect for church growth.
    4. Progressive Christianity has at its heart a ‘spirituality’ that is not compatible with either ‘historic Christianity’ or with the New Testament.
    5. The theological differences between progressives and traditionalists are so profound that this undermines any realistic prospect of them working together or sharing in training for mission/ministry.
    6. Proponents of progressive theology are set on a path that can only result in schism.

    I hope these simplified paraphrases do justice to the argument proposed by Ralph, as I have no desire to misrepresent his views and I sincerely wish to understand his concerns. For now, I shall assume that I have been reasonably successful in describing his key arguments.

    In responding to these concerns I propose to address them in reverse order, as I consider them to have a descending order of relevance and significance. I will conclude by addressing the first of the reasons offered by Ralph, as I consider it to be the core issue and also one of substantial significance.

    Schismatic tendencies

    The suggestion that progressive Christians are prone to schism is unfounded. Schism has been a dimension of Christian experience since New Testament times, and is certainly attested in the Johannine literature. Many groups of Christians have found that schism (separation) has been the most viable pathway for them in light of theological and other differences. In recent years we have seen schismatic Anglo-Catholic traditionalists, while the Evangelical enthusiasm for church planting in other ecclesiastical jurisdictions is a well-known contemporary expression of schismatic actions. Indeed factions and schisms are especially associated with Protestant and Pentecostal expressions of Christianity because of the relatively low value given to unity and the high value given to doctrinal purity. To accuse progressive Christians of schismatic tendencies when they have chosen to remain within the fellowship of church communities whose core concepts, liturgical practices, and missional priorities offer so little to encourage us to feel ‘at home’ is unrealistic and unfair. This ‘reason’ can be set aside as not worthy of further attention.

    No basis for common mission or formation for ministry

    This reason (#5) also has little substantial basis as responsibility for such lack of collaboration as may occur perhaps rests as much with the traditionalists (of various ilks) as with the progressives. The Anglican Church of Australia has a long tradition of tribalism, with many dioceses largely expressing (and promoting) one form or another of the competing schools of thought. With increased communication between the members of the church in various dioceses, this legacy of isolation has been addressed in some constructive ways. However, it remains the case that our church has very weak national institutions precisely because of the reluctance of certain ‘parties’ and their distinctive dioceses to collaborate. This is seen in fields as diverse as liturgical revision, theological education, missionary agencies, media relations, and welfare service delivery. Despite the longstanding practice of Evangelical members of our diocese sending theological students to colleges interstate or to local colleges operated by non-Anglican (but Evangelical) bodies, we have some recent examples of significant cooperation between progressives and traditionalists. The Natural Church Development project in which Ralph works is itself one example of such collaboration, while the BIBLE360 program is an impressive example of exactly the kind of teamwork and shared discipleship training that Ralph declares to be impossible. Rather than despair of the possibility of working together, perhaps our differences could motivate us to work harder to find, create and support such shared projects?

    A spirituality that is incompatible with ‘historic Christianity’ and the New Testament.

    The fourth reason from Ralph’s original list seems to be a grab-bag of concerns, few of which can stand up to examination. For starters, it is very unclear just what ‘historic Christianity’ means and what beliefs or practices it includes. Most likely Ralph means Western European and especially Protestant expressions of Christianity, and excludes the remarkable diversity found in Christian churches beyond our Western cultural sphere. Even within that sphere, Western Christians have fought one another in lengthy wars, tortured their opponents to extract confessions, and even killed one another over minor liturgical and theological differences. The term ‘historic Christianity’ seems to be an Evangelical neologism created to hide the lack of agreement between conservative expressions of Christianity: Roman, Protestant, Pentecostal, etc. In any case, such historic expressions of Christian faith and practice include beliefs and customs many Evangelicals find abhorrent precisely because of their perceived lack of fit with the teachings of the New Testament. It certainly cannot be assumed that ‘historic [Western] Christianity’ is consistent with the New Testament, and the Reformation was in part about that very point. The Councils and Creeds of the ancient churches have an ambiguous status in the churches of the twenty-first century, where no ruler can impose theological conformity on their subjects. We may simply have to face the fact that ancient rules have to be renegotiated in the new situation where we find ourselves as people of faith. One problem, of course, is that none of us anticipate easy agreement on these matters. All parties pretend to embrace the ancient creeds and confessions, ignoring those parts we find unattractive and promoting the bits we like. Uniformity was a value of the Medieval and Reformation churches, but is not a value much appreciated by people in our time and place. For the sake of the mission of God in the world, perhaps we need to stop hankering after a lost world of black and white tones, and embrace the diversity of our rainbow lives.

    Incompatibility with the mission of the church.

    The final lines of the previous section already indicate my view on the missional imperative of engaging constructively with the actual (diverse and multi-faith) world in which we live, which God has created, and in which her mission is coming to birth. A shorthand form of this criticism has been around for a long time: “It does not preach!” This was the charge leveled at liberals in earlier decades, and it is often thrown at progressives in our own time. In fact—as my own experience tells me repeatedly—it does preach, and it preaches so well that many traditional Christians find it discomforting and wish to stop their ears. They have ears but cannot hear, and eyes but cannot see, as the Bible suggests. A progressive theology that calls people to respond to God’s compassion and justice in their everyday lives in this world, rather than offering personal piety programs that mature only in the next life, is both prophetic and biblical. Empowering people to read their everyday lives in light of the Scriptures, and to explore together how best to act on what they discern the Spirit saying to the churches, is surely at the heart of the mission of the church. People of power and influence may not like such an expression of Christianity, but those kinds of people had no time for Jesus either. The current evidence suggests that such progressive theology does grow churches, and not just numerically. Unlike the old liberals, progressives are passionate about our faith and ways in which we might exercise it in everyday life. As the R&D department of the Anglican Church of Australia we may make lots of mistakes, but at least we are seeking to generate new expressions of Church that are faithful to Jesus and responsive to God in the world. This third reason proposed by Ralph simply will not fly.

    The diversity is too great for genuine unity to be sustained.

    This is a counsel of despair, and really just a re-statement of item five. The experience of the Anglican Church, in particular, is that we do hold together in creative tension diverse perspectives on faith and mission. In the past people who held these different views have persecuted and killed one another. We do not need to import the culture wars of our secular city into the life of the church. The disciples chosen by Jesus included collaborators and rebels. God calls us to unity, not to uniformity. I think the doctrine of the Trinity has something to say to us about that.

    Conflict with the ‘definitional boundaries’ of the Anglican Church of Australia.

    As indicated previously, I consider this to be the only substantive argument proposed by Ralph. It is one that I think requires more careful consideration than is possible in a Synod debate or an exchange of blog posts. Still, this online dialogue may be one useful contribution to the dialogue that is already long overdue. If gay and straight Anglicans can be invited into a listening process, perhaps the same is true of progressive and traditional Anglicans?

    The essence of this argument proposed by Ralph seems to be that the Anglican Church of Australia is a voluntary religious association and as such it has the legal right to define the terms of its membership. If particular beliefs and behaviors are required under the Constitution and Canons of this church then any failure to adhere to those beliefs or follow those practices could place the membership of such ‘offenders’ in jeopardy. Such an argument has a certain logic and may one day be tested in ecclesiastical or secular courts, or in both.

    I am not qualified to advise on the validity of such an argument, but I can recognize its theological implications. Should such a view of the church be upheld then its character will have been determined as a legal framework for enforcing uniformity and distributing certain benefits. Its character as a sacred mystery and a community of transformation will have been lost.

    While some groups and dioceses within the national church may see things in this way, I am not sure it is a valid interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia. That will be for others to determine, but a church that seeks to discipline its progressive constituency in such a heavy-handed manner will surely face the judgment of history, not to mention God.

    It also strikes me as significant that those who appeal to such legal and constitutional frameworks are not seeking to engage with different theological views. Rather than enter a dialogue in a quest for new and deeper truth, they appeal to the rules to exclude the other point view from the life of the church. I hope we can avoid that cul de sac, and explore the broad via media together.

    In previous private communications I have suggested to Ralph that to define the church and its doctrines in such a way as he is proposing would be to domesticate the Bible and reduce the capacity of the Scriptures to serve as a vehicle for fresh and continuing revelation. If the meaning of the Bible can never result in a change to the beliefs and practices of the church as determined in Late Antiquity, during the Middle Ages or at the Reformation, then the letter will indeed have triumphed over the Spirit. That would be a radical betrayal of the Reformation legacy indeed.

    It is a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of the Living God, and she will not be constrained by either the Scriptures of the ecumenical church nor the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia. The canon lawyers and the Senior Counsels may yet determine that the corporate entity we have created to facilitate our common life as Anglicans in Australia is a legal straitjacket rather than an instrument of grace. I hope that will not prove to be the case, but I shall not be surprised if it does.

    In the meantime, I choose to live with hope and with a considerable dose of ambiguity. I do not have the answers to life’s questions, but I am blessed to be part of a religious community that seeks to shape lives that are holy and true. For me that is sufficient.

    © 2013 Gregory C. Jenks

    29 May 2013

  • Pentecost 2C (2 June 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • 1 Kings 18:20-21, (22-29), 30-39 & Psalm 96
    • Galatians 1:1-12
    • Luke 7:1-10

    Introduction

    This Sunday we return to the cycle of ordinary time, now described as “Sundays after Pentecost.” The Gospel readings from now until the end of the liturgical year will be from Luke, as that as the primary Gospel for this year, while the other readings will initially be selections from 1 & 2 Kings (for the First Reading) and Galatians (for the NT Reading). The readings for this week are well-known although not so often read in church these days. It has been some years since this set of readings has been used in the Sunday lectionary.

    First Reading: Elijah and the prophets of Baal

    The dramatic story of the confrontation between Eljiah and the prophets of Baal is a classic of the biblical tradition. It is also a ghastly tale of religious violence and exclusive religious prejudice. Its legacy can be observed in the tragic legacy of violence driven by religious extremism, and is graphically expressed in the statues of Elijah slaying the pagan prophets sometimes found at the entrance to Christian villages in northern Israel as well as at the Muhraqa, the holy site on Mt Carmel that marks the traditional location of the massacre.

    Elijah Muhraqa.jpg
    Elijah slaying a prophet of Baal, Muhraqa

    Given the contribution of religion to the historical and current violence it is hard to see how a Christian faith community could embrace such a text of terror.

    Graphic violence is a common element in biblical texts, as well as in the sacred texts of other religious communities and many non-religious texts. This story stands out for its gratuitous violence when—according to the text—the prophets of Baal had already been exposed as frauds, and humiliated by the success of Elijah. For Elijah then to take them captive, transport them to another location, and kill them in cold blood is a crime against humanity and a dark blot upon the biblical tradition.

    Interestingly, the RCL steps around the worst of the sacred violence, with its omission of the most offensive verses from the material recommended for reading in church. However, the church (like the synagogue) finds it all but impossible to name such religious violence for what it is, and to repudiate it. Small wonder then, that religious violence continues to be a hallmark of our human experience. While the churches no longer have the power to enforce conformity on the pain of death, our history offers many examples of exclusion, degradation, torture and killing. And that is not even to mention the Crusades.

    There is a propensity for violence within monotheistic religion that is rarely named, and should never be celebrated. Perhaps those with ears to hear might discern what the Spirit is saying to the churches about religious violence this coming Sunday?

    Second Reading: Galatians 1:1-12

    Galatians is a polemical document, seemingly composed in the heat of the moment.

    This is arguably the earliest of Paul’s letters to have survived, and it is a mix of raw anger and deep insight into the human possibilities derived from the Easter experience.

    In the opening section of the letter, Paul abandons any pretence of conventional civility. He asserts his authority as an apostle in the opening lines, and reiterates his claims to privileged knowledge and to apostolic authority in the lines that follow. Anyone who teaches a different form of Christianity than the one he promotes is to be accursed. In case that was too subtle, Paul repeats himself and pronounces the anathema a second time:

    I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! (Galatians 1:6–9 NRSV)

    These are harsh words, and they are spoken from a position of privilege and power. Paul will have better moments in his career as a religious essayist, but he has many admirers in today’s church. The theological thought police are quick to confront deviations from approved forms of liturgy or theology. What the world needs now is more religious communities with some capacity to live with ambiguity. We need fewer fatwas and no more church edicts that divide, exclude and control the faithful. What might the world be like if the followers of Jesus were famous for our gentleness towards others, and especially those with whom we disagreed?

    Gospel: The healing of the centurion’s slave

    Once again among the readings for this week, we have a story that centres around the theme of authority. In this case, there is the explicit authority of the centurion and the ascribed authority of Jesus, who heals the centurion’s slave on request and at a distance.

    Perhaps one of the themes that might be addressed in preaching this week is the question of authority: how do we recognise it, and (more urgently) how is it exercised? Is it exercised to save life, or to destroy opponents? Is our authority used to close the circle and exclude those with different views, or to push the boundaries and affirm the presence of faith in unexpected places and in diverse forms? To announce a crusade, or to proclaim a year of jubilee?

    The story has a close parallel in Matthew as well as a probable parallel version in John. The form in Luke seems more stylised, with the absent centurion communicating with Jesus via intermediaries who, among other things, suggest that his contribution to the construction of their synagogue had demonstrated his love of the Jewish people. This righteous Gentile centurion sounds suspiciously like the prayerful centurion of Acts 10, and both stories celebrate the discovering of faith outside the Jewish community. In keeping with Luke’s agenda, here we find a Roman official represented as a person of authority, compassion, dignity and piety. Theophilus will have appreciated the implied compliment, I a sure.

    In Matthew the centurion makes no use of intermediaries and there is no mention of him erecting the Capernaum synagogue. Instead, we have the familiar words now used in Catholic liturgies prior to receiving the Sacrament: “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed.” (Matt 8:8).

    In the parallel version that survives in John, the centurion is simply a “royal official” and the location changes from Capernaum to Cana. In addition, the slave has become a son. Despite these differences, many scholars consider this to be a variant of the story in Matthew and Luke, and even attribute it to the Q Gospel (making it a rare narrative in what is otherwise a sayings gospel, rather than a story about the deeds of Jesus).

    Jesus Database

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Trinity Sunday (26 May 2013)

    The Feast of the Most Holy Trinity has been observed in the Western (Latin) Church only since the edict of Pope John XXII early in the 14C. The Eastern Churches have no equivalent festival, although the propers adopted for Trinity Sunday are derived from prayers celebrating the Trinity and originating in the Arian controversies of the 4C.

    The absence of ancient and universal observance has not prevented this festival from acquiring special significance for many Christians, and especially those living in places where a majority Muslim presence makes this doctrine one of the key markers of Christian identity.

    Since the edict of John XXII, Western Christians have observed the Sunday after Pentecost as a time to pause and reflect on the Christian understanding of God. It can be helpful to imagine Advent through Pentecost as a mathematical problem, with Trinity Sunday as the solution. If we affirm all these things about Jesus, how is our idea of God changed?

    It is well-known that the doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the Scriptures, and that it has been contested from time to time by various Christian thinkers. The definitive formulations of the Trinity are found in the creeds agreed upon at the First Council of Nicea (in 325 CE) and the Council of Constantinople (in 381 CE). Those statements were composed to combat specific opposing opinions and naturally drew upon the linguistic and philosophical resources available to Greek-speaking Christian communities at the time.

    The intention of the creeds was to affirm the following core beliefs:

    • the essential unity of God
    • the complete humanity and essential divinity of Jesus
    • the essential divinity of the Spirit

    The immediate political need for the church to resolve conflict between opposing views, and to contribute to the social cohesion of the late Roman Empire, was also a powerful influence on the process and its outcomes.

    While the doctrine of the Trinity is not presented in the Bible, the Scriptures played an important role in the debates over how best to express Christian belief in God. Those fashioning the creeds were especially seeking a way to affirm the significance of Jesus without jettisoning traditional monotheism, and they drew on the biblical texts for insights into the puzzle.

    For selections of the principal biblical texts see:

    For each year’s feast of the Holy Trinity, the lectionaries draw on a variety of texts that use trinitarian language. As such, these passages provide summaries of the raw material behind the formal doctrine. If—as these texts do—we speak of God as Father, of Jesus/Christ as the Son, and of the Spirit as the “go-between God” (to use John Taylor’s term) what kind of God concept are we affirming?

    Crossan on Trinitarian Structures in Religion

    In the epilogue to Who Killed Jesus? (1995:215), John Dominic Crossan reflects on the trinitarian “structures” he perceives in all religions:

    All religions that I have ever known or can ever imagine are trinitarian in structure. And I use this term very deliberately for this is how I understand the Christian Trinity. There is, first of all, that ultimate referent known in supreme metaphors as power, person, state, or order, as nature, goddess or god, nirvana, or way. There is, next, some material manifestation, some person, place, or thing, some individual or collectivity, some cave or shrine, or temple, some clearing in the forest or tree in the desert where that ultimate referent is met and experienced. There is, finally, at least one faithful believer to begin with and eventually more to end with. But since there are always non-believers as well, some prior affinity must exist, as it were, between believer, referent, and manifestation. The spirit of referent and manifestation must already be present to the believer else why does one accept belief and another refuse it. There is always, in other words, a trintarian loop involved. For me, therefore, all faith and all religion, not just my own Christianity, is trinitarian in nature.

    Praying and Living the Trinity

    While definitions of the Trinity have often been used to exclude suspected heretics and other kinds of church dissidents, there is also a rich tradition of exploiting the inherent symbolism of the Trinity for prayer and meditation. This has been a particular feature of Celtic Christianity, which seems to have celebrated the creation themes of God the Father in combination with a high Christology and a strong sense of the pervasive presence of the Spirit in the affairs of everyday life.

    The following caim (or ‘encircling’) prayer is a fine example of this development:

    The compassing of God be upon you,
    the compassing of God, of the God of life.
    The compassing of Christ be upon you,
    the compassing of the Christ of love.
    The compassing of the Spirit be upon you,
    the compassing of the Spirit of grace.
    The compassing of the Sacred Three be upon you,
    the compassing of the Sacred Three protect you,
    the compassing of the Sacred Three preserve you. Amen.
    [SOURCE Celtic Daily Prayer from the Northumbria Community, ©2002 Northumbria Community.]

    For further examples of the living tradition of Celtic Christianity, you might wish to check the following web sites:

    One of the best examples of Trinitarian faith in the Celtic tradition is the hymn, St Patrick’s Breastplate:

    I bind unto myself today
    the strong Name of the Trinity,
    by invocation of the same,
    the Three in One, and One in Three.

    I bind this day to me for ever,
    by power of faith, Christ’s Incarnation;
    his baptism in Jordan river;
    his death on cross for my salvation;
    his bursting from the spiced tomb;
    his riding up the heavenly way;
    his coming at the day of doom
    I bind unto myself today.

    I bind unto myself the power
    of the great love of cherubim;
    the sweet “Well done” in judgment hour;
    the service of the seraphim;
    confessors’ faith, apostles’ word,
    the patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls;
    all good deeds done unto the Lord,
    and purity of virgin souls.

    I bind unto myself today
    the virtues of the starlit heaven
    the glorious sun’s life-giving ray,
    the whiteness of the moon at even,
    the flashing of the lightning free,
    the whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
    the stable earth, the deep salt sea,
    around the old eternal rocks.

    I bind unto myself today
    the power of God to hold and lead,
    his eye to watch, his might to stay,
    his ear to hearken, to my need;
    the wisdom of my God to teach,
    his hand to guide, his shield to ward;
    the word of God to give me speech,
    his heavenly host to be my guard.

    Christ be with me,
    Christ within me,
    Christ behind me,
    Christ before me,
    Christ beside me,
    Christ to win me,
    Christ to comfort
    and restore me.
    Christ beneath me,
    Christ above me,
    Christ in quiet,
    Christ in danger,
    Christ in hearts of
    all that love me,
    Christ in mouth of
    friend and stranger.

    I bind unto myself today
    the strong Name of the Trinity,
    by invocation of the same,
    the Three in One, and One in Three.
    Of whom all nature hath creation,
    eternal Father, Spirit, Word
    praise to the Lord of my salvation,
    salvation is of Christ the Lord.

    Jesus Database

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre: