I guess these days we might add a more few like: denominationalism, Church hierarchies, vestments, archaic superstitions, formalised ceremonies and heresy hunts.
Notice that none of these has to be particularly harmful by itself if kept in strict moderation and indeed we might even argue that the trappings help us gain a degree of perspective and focus on our faith. Where however there may be a problem is when these trappings take over and remove the need for an individual response to the essence of the gospel.
One of the key turning points of the gospels is Jesus’ attack on one aspect of these trappings, the event of the clearing of the Temple.

Because the Lectionary cycle tend to focus a little more on the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke it almost comes as a surprise that John places the clearing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry – whereas Matthew Mark and Luke see this as towards the end during Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem. There is good argument for both. In John’s record of the significant events in Jesus’ ministry, by placing it at the start of his mission, it underlines his uncompromising honesty and courage and sets the scene for his eventual collision course with the establishment. For Matthew Mark and Luke it is no less significant yet is presented as an important part of the climax of his ministry and as with John, explains perfectly why the temple leadership would have been unable to tolerate his challenge.
I know some claim that the way to explain the apparent contradiction in the record is to say that therefore it must have happened twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once at the end. I personally don’t find this plausible because I suspect it would extremely unlikely that Jesus might have got away with clearing the temple twice, in that the first time such a dramatic event happened would have identified Jesus as a trouble maker who should not be allowed anywhere near the Temple after such an act. From that point he would have been a marked man.
I can also well believe that as such a story is handed down over the years it is more than likely that details such as the date might easily become secondary to the story itself.
Of far more importance is why Jesus might have come into conflict with the temple authorities in the first place. I suggested at the start Jesus had taken offense at what had become an obsession with a particular aspect of the trappings of religion. In this case it was what had happened to the custom of sacrifice and specifically what was occurring in the Temple courtyard in the area reserved as the closest a gentile might enter the Temple grounds.

Remember the Temple was constructed to reflect the Jews cultural pecking order. In the centre was a small room – the Holies of Holies. God was in that space. Even the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies only once a year.
Next came the courtyard of the priests.
Outside that was the courtyard for male adult Jews….
Then outside that the courtyard for Jewish women….
then finally the courtyard for the gentiles. It was in this courtyard that the money changers and animal traders were to be found.
As with modern Islam, the custom of sacrifice had been laid down in the ancient scriptures and had gradually become formalised and ritualised until it was almost an obsession. That there were money changers in the Temple was hardly surprising. Because travellers and pilgrims would come from afar for the Passover festival, it would have been most impractical for all of them to carry their own animals for sacrifice. Accordingly the temple officials would supply a number of the animals for sacrifice but there was a catch. Because the animals had been chosen for sacrifice, the custom had developed that ordinary non Jewish money was considered too base for the purchase of the animals for religious purpose. Accordingly, the pilgrims were required to exchange their non Jewish money for the required coins to pay for the sacrifice. If they were paying at the standard rate of half a shekel per person as laid down by the Talmud, this was expensive enough since half a shekel was the equivalent of two days wage. There was even a bit of a problem even exchanging shekels for half shekels because the money changers were expected to take some profit. Where the real problem came was when non Jewish coins were brought to exchange for the Jewish shekels. The exorbitant exchange rate had grown over the years until it had become open profiteering.
The other way in which corruption had taken over was that only perfect animals could be sacrificed. For those choosing to bring their own animals for sacrifice, there were special inspectors called mumcheh, who for an appropriate amount would inspect your animal – but alas the custom had changed over the years so that virtually no animal from the outside would pass this inspection and the pilgrim would be required to buy a temple animal for sacrifice. Are you surprised this turned out to be expensive? A pair of doves sold at the Temple cost the equivalent of 24 days work.
That the Temple had become excessively wealthy through this sacrifice money and money exchange exchange was not in dispute. Even some years previously when Crassus captured Jerusalem in 54 BC the historians said that he took the equivalent of something like 5 million dollars in today’s money from the Temple without anywhere near exhausting the wealth.
Jesus’ fury at what was before him probably had several causes.
Exploiting the poor was of course an extreme and glaring injustice, and to do it in the name of God must have seemed particularly upsetting.
Jesus may too have shared the revulsion of a number of the prophets who had pointed out time after time that it wasn’t sacrifices but rather changed hearts which was required. To give two of many possible examples: Isaiah with his: To what purpose are your numerous sacrifices to me? Said the Lord …..bring no more your vain oblations. (Isaiah 1: 11-17) or They sacrifice flesh for offerings and eat it: but the Lord does not accept. Hosea 8: 13.
The version of this story in the gospel of Mark includes an intriguing phrase “My house shall be called of all nations, the house of prayer”. The all nations part suggests Jesus may have been referring to the gentiles’ position in the Temple. Gentiles were allowed and even expected to get as close as possible to the Temple to offer their prayer – but it was in the gentiles’ courtyard that the cacophony of sound, with the bleating of sheep – bellowing of frightened calves – the shouts of the bargainers and no doubt the raised voices of those disputing their treatment at the hands of the money lenders would all combine. This in effect made a mockery of any attempt of the gentiles to offer prayer. Given Jesus’ reported sympathies for gentiles, this may have given further reason for his indignation.
I am reminded of the old story about the man who died and went to the gates of heaven. There he met St Peter and asked to be shown around. St Peter showed him the many courtyards. “This one he said is for the good Buddhists, this one is for the Muslims, over there is the courtyard for the Hindus” – and so on.
“What about that very high walled courtyard over there where I can hear singing and organ music coming from?”, the man asked. “Well that’s where the Christians are,” said St Peter – “but I wonder if I might ask you to be very quiet outside their wall. You see they think they are the only ones here”.

To know with certainty about heaven is beyond my pay grade yet I suspect that story fairly describes many people’s attitude not only towards Christianity, but even towards their particular version of Christian faith. At the last high school where I taught I once had some exclusive Brethren pupils whose parents would not allow them to eat lunch with the other children. I might have been able to feel superior towards them for their prejudice except that at primary school I can remember chanting a rhyme aimed at the Catholic children required to go to a separate Catholic school.
If we keep the story of Jesus driving the money lenders from the Gentiles’ courtyard at a comfortable distance by forgetting what our modern equivalents might be we might miss part of the significance of this incident. It is true that in most versions of Christianity sacrifice at the temple has no place. However if we are honest with ourselves we can allow other trappings of religion to grow in significance until they make a mockery of our faith.
Take the trapping of religious art. Placing the occasional icon – or even stained glass window in a place of worship as a focus for thoughtful religious response is another way of reminding ourselves that events remembered in the history of the faith matter significantly. To continue to collect such items until the place of worship is groaning with opulence is bordering on the obscene particularly when the Church acts as if it is blind to poverty in the community and in the world. I remember being shown a small section of the Vatican museum in Rome by a guide and being told that if a visitor was to spend ten seconds in front of each priceless work of art it would take something like ten years to see all the works of art owned by the Vatican. Perhaps by some mental gymnastics this can be reconciled with Jesus injunction to take no thought for the morrow – and the bit about not storing up treasures on Earth … but we might ask ourselves if Jesus would really have been pleased at such a display of opulence.
Religious clothing for Church leaders is another area which might cause us to stumble. I certainly can follow that there is significance in the stole, a simple strip of material intended as the mark of ordination and intended as the symbolic version of the yoke of servant hood. Somehow however this has morphed through the centuries. The stole has become more elegantly embroidered and the simple gown into gowns of jewelled and brocaded splendour to the point where the notion of the humble servant somehow becomes lost in the visual trappings of power and significance.
It is odd isn’t it that it is hard to imagine Jesus arrayed like an archbishop in a Cathedral.
Dare I suggest that even Church ceremonies like communion need a time of re-evaluation. This simple shared meal by which Jesus disciples were ask to remember him so often can become formalised so that the leaders become the star turn, so that only the initiated may partake and so that the simple act of remembrance becomes a highly formalised and stylised marathon of liturgy where the notion of a shared meal is submerged by high sounding religious jargon. More to the point, if we think of communion as a stand-alone ceremony yet never get round to offering hospitality to strangers, have we really grasped what Jesus was on about? Remember that Jesus was often accused of eating with the undesirables. If we truly want to be reminded of what he stood for must we only do so in the safety of Church?
I don’t think for one moment that there was a particular instant when the Jews in their efforts to please God would have been aware that their customs had gone too far. The Temple ceremonies became corrupt gradually over a period of some hundreds of years. In the same way that, oh so gradually, an obsession with buildings and with the minutiae of Church administration can take over our meetings until the day perhaps we finally realise that mission and issues of justice and Christian responsibility have become tacked on the end of our agenda merely as a token, it is then that there comes a need to clear our own temple.
Lent is the traditional time for self-examination. Today on this third Sunday of Lent we might do well to pause to wonder if we too are in danger of losing our sense of focus. Perhaps, even here, there is a need to check the practices of what for us passes as today’s Temple.

So what might those listeners have been thinking? Crucifixion was of course a barbarous punishment that the Romans had designed for trouble makers. What we tend to forget in thinking about Jesus’ death is that his was only one of very many. In 4 B.C. for example, (around the suggested time for the birth of Christ), a good number of nationalistic Jews used the death of Herod the Great as an excuse to rise in revolt against the Romans with the idea of driving them out for once and for all. The Romans predictably struck back with venom. When the thousands rebels fled into the country, the Roman general Varus hunted them down. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus tells it this way:

“Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. (Antiquities 17.10.10)”
Two thousand of your fellow countrymen crucified at one time! Now that would provide a vivid set of memories. Remember too that the Romans used crucifixion as a means of quelling rebellion in advance and made a great show of the public humiliation and pre-crucifixion torture – it is only in religious art that those on the Cross were allowed the dignity of clothing. The crosses of potential or actual rebels would be placed alongside public roads where the naked bodies would continue to hang for some time as a visual warning.

Sometimes the number crucified was considerably more. Remember Mark was writing shortly after the total disaster of another failed rebellion. Something like 70 years after the first post-Herod rebellion, in Jerusalem and nearby Judea, thousands upon thousands rose in revolt against the occupying Romans. Initially with numbers on their side it looked as if the rebels would prevail. Rome sent an army, beat them back and then besieged Jerusalem. Hundreds attempted to escape and were shown no mercy. The historian Josephus claimed that 500 a day were first whipped then tortured in the most public fashion and finally crucified outside the walls of the city. The Roman general Titus, perhaps sickened by the systematic cruelty continuing day after day, at least expressed pity, yet clearly believing that only an extreme example would totally extinguish the rebellion, he allowed it to continue to its inevitable conclusion. (Jewish War 5.11.1)

Put yourself in the position of those to whom this was still a vivid memory and ask yourself what they might then have been thinking when asked to take your cross and follow. We should not pretend the metaphor would awaken the same feeling for us today. At times the Church has even taught a theology that says that since Jesus has suffered on our behalf all we have to do is to accept what he offers. Because potential suffering is not part of the easy deal we can almost hear the echoes of what Peter was saying in today’s evangelism. Yet Jesus would not let Peter get away with the easy option.

I suspect many would have great empathy with Peter on his response to Jesus. I even wonder if many of us would have made exactly the same mistake. Jesus’ earlier question to Peter had been very direct. Who do you say I am? With the wisdom of all our Church teaching I wonder how many of us in reply to that question would like Peter have said something like: –“ Well Lord you are the Messiah…. we can see that”. And instead of being scornful of Peter’s next answer, how then might we have answered Jesus if he had followed up with the equivalent of “Now I have to suffer – even die for what I teach”? I wonder how many of us would have been tempted to try to talk him out of that bit. Even today asking those who support him being prepared to pick up their cross is at variance with what is all too often offered in the name of the Church – namely the realisation of the dream of a better life. Indeed at first glance it almost appears that the Church has watered down the part of the gospel to avoid credible challenges on issues of justice and morality and so downplayed the sacrifice attitude that what now passes for Sunday observance would scarcely raise an eyebrow from the authorities, still less raise fully fledged religious persecution.

Jesus insistence on taking up of the cross is probably the opposite of good marketing but it still represents a truth which has played out many times in the history of his followers.
What Jesus was calling for showed deep understanding of the human psyche. Surely what traditionally motivates all of us in a biological sense is regardless of our public exterior, we have a clear intention to put ourselves first along with the social group we relate most closely along with the interests of those on whose support we depend. Jesus was in effect by his example, insisting that to follow him meant widening this circle, putting those seen as traditional rivals and even enemies as legitimate priority for our concern. Think about it. No wonder so many get angry when someone tries to change what you believe to be your right.

We have the perfect example right now in Greece. That country has clearly been living beyond its means. Clearly borrowing more and more to pay those on early retirement on full pension, and running a visibly bloated civil service was not sustainable. Greece had borrowed 160% of its entire budget. Everyone knew that….. but when it is your pension which is about to disappear – or your job about to fold, logic is no longer the issue.

This is a personal threat to well-being – a threat to biological instinct….and the result? riots and widespread protests. Why else would they be burning buildings in Athens?

This is also why questioning authority has traditionally been so dangerous. Following conscience issues which interfere with entrenched views also undermines existing authority and status. We are pre-programmed to seek and hold onto position and status. And despite its many worthwhile features, the Church is not exempt. Should this surprise us? A modern day Galileo suggesting you have been teaching the wrong stuff – or a Martin Luther saying the Church is no longer following Christ in its actions – or a Bible scholar showing why current theological teaching is based on a lack of understanding of what careful scholarship reveals, these may no longer result in public torture and burning – but that is only because there are now more civilised ways of achieving the gagging of the trail blazer.

Think for instance of David Fredriech Strauss who in 1835 published a ground breaking book The Life of Jesus Critically Reviewed. His discoveries about the Bible would seem commonplace today but because in his day he threatened tradition, he was simply removed from his university position and blocked from ever teaching again. Closer to our time this was very similiar to the fate that awaited the Bishop of Woolwich, John A T Robinson who explored some doubts in 1963 with a small book Honest to God. He clearly offended the established Church and was in effect publicly pilloried, blocked from promotion and given a very minor teaching post until his death in 1983 without even the status of University lecturer at his previous University of Cambridge.
Clearly there are few scholars whose work is significant enough to enrage the church but we all live in a world where privilege and discrimination are enshrined in policy – and where nations construct policy with personal advantage very much in mind. Speaking up or focussing on the needs of the disadvantaged is not a formula for personal advancement but it is hard to see how we can pretend that such a course of action has nothing to do with following Christ.
As long as we take what Bonhoeffer used to call the cheap grace option where we leave it at a few token prayers for our enemies and the patronising prayers for the less well off we would inflame no passions. But start insisting on genuine action – altering immigration policies to let more of those of other cultures and races in to share our advantages, raising overseas aid quotas to match UN recommendations, raising minimum wage packets, putting environmental concerns ahead of the wealth of multinatinal shareholders and we see the anger levels rise. In the Church the cheap grace option is to put peace for our local congregation ahead of the need to get down and dirty where the real problems of the community confront our preferences.
Paul Tillich understood the heart of the problem when he said that when the Divine appears in its depth it cannot be endured…. It must be pushed away by the political powers, the religious authorities, and the bearers of cultural tradition. In the picture of the Crucified, we look at the rejection of the Divine by humanity.
In his book, The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonheoffer also reminds us that there is such a thing as cheap grace.
Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”(p 47)
And then real or costly grace
“Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field, for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price for which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.”(P. 47)
The original meaning of the word Lent was that time between winter and spring when the thaw began. Its religious meaning suggests also a time of self examination … the 40 days of wilderness reflection when we prepare ourselves for Easter. It is true that we can avoid the pain of self examination but to do so is evading Christ’s challenge to shoulder our cross. It may just be that the analogy of melting that which is frozen has something to teach us for this time of Lent.

The once uncertain trickle of knowledge about the causes of human behaviour is turning into a flood tide, yet at the same time also we also note a reluctance to see how this input from scholars and scientists should feed into theology. Using the example of today’s reading, I would like to suggest there may even be a case for insisting that theologians should get some exposure to the modern ideas of biology and anthropology before they continue to tell us what notions of sin and temptation might mean.

The author of the Gospel of Mark has been sometimes criticised that, like some other authors of other parts of the Bible, he was inclined to provide an observer’s detail for events where he could not conceivably have been present as a witness. Describing Jesus in his 40 days solitude in the wilderness dealing with the temptations of Satan is a case in point. Yet I would argue in Mark’s defence that, here and elsewhere, he draws attention to some absolutely critical ideas, without which our theology would be much the poorer.

The first is the unexpected idea is that even Jesus should face genuine temptation. This is an idea well ahead of New Testament times and fits very nicely the modern finding in psychology that all humans are “hard-wired” for “temptation”. Even for those reluctant to accept the avalanche of evidence for evolution, there is probably at least grudging acceptance for the notion that at one time the human population was small, scattered and faced with all sorts of dangers. Survival then required a strong urge for reproduction, a willingness to resort to action including violence when threats emerged and a willingness to act to ensure superiority over potential rivals. Enemy recognition in a primitive setting included recognising who looked and behaved differently.

Science now tells us which parts of the brain fire electrically and chemically with such responses. We now know that much of this activity is deep down in the primitive parts of the brain (sometimes called colloquially the “lizard brain” because it is shared with more primitive creatures). Biologically then, for whatever complicated reason, the brain is effectively “hard-wired” for these activities. Without such wiring, humans would presumably have been history long ago.
There is however a catch. Genetics being what it is, the chemical and biological tendencies to switch into these forms of behaviour are now ingrained, but are rarely helpful in a changed world. At their worst we see them unleashed in football and race riots, domestic violence and squalid wars. For a small and genuinely threatened population, the aggressive responses may still have a place – but as the population increases to the point where the only rational choice is to hope to coexist in national and even international communities, such responses are deservedly seen as anti social and must be retrained. As investment into warfare has continued virtually unabated, the dangers in following one’s biological instincts become more and more marked. “Nature red in tooth and claw” is great for the survival of a tiny threatened sub-group (particularly where the weapons of choice were tooth and claw) but is distinctly inappropriate for a modern city – particularly one in which there are a variety of cultures and a real need to lessen the dangers which cannot be avoided because of the number of potential rivals in the same area.
Some temptations we all face can’t be easily disregarded because of these inbuilt biological triggers. Mark leaves us to speculate as to the exact nature of which of the likely temptations were faced by Jesus, but others had no hesitation in filling in the detail. For example Luke and Matthew in their versions of the same event, portrayed Jesus tempted by Satan to use power and display to impress. This power option continues to have its followers in the modern world. When it comes to naked violence, a good number of self-claimed inheritors of Christ’s tradition through history, including the crusaders and their modern equivalents, act as if they interpret their claim to follow the Christ as deliberately choosing to go with the very option rejected by Christ, and instead, acting as if their hard wiring of the brain leads them to embrace the very temptations offered by “Satan”. When trying to convey the gospel as appropriate for life lived this sends a very mixed message. Attempting to beat and frighten terrorists into submission may be a natural biological reaction but as an effective method of conveying a message of peace and instilling love it is an absolute disaster from every angle. As D A Rosenberg pointed out in 1971, “levelling large cities has a tendency to alienate the affections of the inhabitants”. Curiously, we are so horrified by the callous disregard for suffering inflicted by suicide bombers and terrorists, we call upon our side to respond to ensure that such enemies are punished with government sanctioned violence…which is of course righteous!!

Temptations are not really temptations unless they are genuinely likely to persuade, so it is as well to remind ourselves that displays of power of the sort we note in others have an insidious similarity to what we ourselves might excuse to be acceptable behaviour. As a consequence we need to be ruthlessly objective with ourselves to be confident such actions and attitudes are not already part of our standard response pattern.
Another temptation is of course to notice the faults of others with a steadfast deliberate blindness to one’s own faults and sins. One of the intriguing asides of Mark about Jesus time in the wilderness is that he was comforted by wild animals. We are left to speculate exactly which wild animals these might be – but one mentioned by the Bible elsewhere (and suggested by the poet and writer Robert Graves) is the scapegoat.
In the times of the temple we read of a ceremony which happened each year on the day of Atonement in which a goat was led into the Temple where the High Priest would read out the sins of the people over the last year, ceremonially load them onto to the goat – then drive the goat out into the desert taking the sins with him….the origin of our word scapegoat. There is something curiously appropriate about Robert Graves’ suggestion that a goat whose only crime was to be thought of as a scapegoat be among those keeping company with Jesus in the wilderness.
Perhaps our modern equivalent of the scapegoat would be the political leader who is caught falling for that Oh so basic hard-wired temptation of responding to sexual urges outside the formal limits of marriage. The huge response in the media as a consequence of a public fall from grace, suggests the scapegoat mentality is alive and well.
Remember way back to the famous dynamic Televangelist duo, Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Bakker. Did you ever read the mischievous response in doggerel by the irrepressible Allen Johnson Jr? This is a lightly edited version. (You will find the author’s original version in his book, a Box of Trinkets published by Premium Press)
Two TV great preachers called Jim
Claimed special connection with Him
But when push came to shove
The light from above
Turned out to be frightfully dim

The biological need to display is of particular interest to those of us in the Church because its lure brings us in direct confrontation with some of the most basic teachings of Christ. To return for a moment to the sometimes acerbic pen of Allen Johnson Jr……
“There are some astounding contradictions between Christ’s teachings and Christian religious services. In Matthew 6:1-6, we are admonished not to give or pray publicly. If you consider the taking up the collection as public giving (which it surely is) and hymns as musical prayer (which most of them are), then – taking into account all the long-winded prayers from the pulpit – two thirds of your average church service is directly contrary to Christ’s admonitions”

There is also great irony that the one we follow had deliberately turned his back on the temptation to display to achieve recognition and in the process rejected the normal trappings of prestige with possessions and finery - and yet somehow we behave as if he should best be honoured by ostentatious display. The peacock finery of many of those who lead worship, the magnificence of great Churches and cathedrals is indeed awe inspiring, but when Jesus has clearly shown that this is not in line with his message we may need to think again on how our obsession with such trappings impacts on the way we share his message with others.

This is not to imply we are going to find simple answers. We all have to work within the constraints of our own setting which includes the deeply embedded historical traditions over which we may well find we have little control. We also have to work with others who themselves are hardwired and have their own range of preferred responses to problems and situations as they arise.   Knowing that others are similarly hardwired and that we all have very different imprinting should also make us less judgemental.

Maybe the real problem is that we are most comfortable with faith when someone moderates it for us on our behalf. We can look back and see how Jesus faced and overcame his personal temptations. This is not the same as assuming the same problems must be our problems in the twenty-first century particularly in a different cultural setting. If we were a little more keenly aware of the hard-wiring of temptation and what it means for the sort of world we currently face, perhaps following Jesus lead we might see a need to think how we too should best face our personal temptations – and then choose for ourselves a style of witness which reflects what we believe to be important.

(I would be particularly interested in feedback on the above because I am exploring the notion that what we call sin is in effect acting on preferred instinct when this course of action is considered harmful in its wider social context.   This would mean that the notion of sin changes as the needs of society change???  There is also the more recent discovery that some people we call psychotic appear to have a different brain structure, which then raises the question as to whether they can always help what they do.  Your thoughts please.)

Am I missing something. Comments please.

It may also help to remember that as when Matthew and Luke describe the same event there were plenty of scriptural allusions. For example Exodus 34 tells us that when he returned from his second ascent Moses’ face shone. Matthew also claims Jesus’ face shone. The fact that Elijah was present may remind us that according to Malachai, Elijah was supposed to come again at the climax of history (Malachai 4:5-6), and from Deuteronomy, in the last days a prophet like Moses would appear (Deuteronomy 18: 15 – 18). We should also be cautious. Our bad experiences over the last few decades with those who claim to have found scriptural allusions to the last days and made faulty predictions as a consequence should cause us to question if it is all as straightforward as it might first appear. Small wonder too that the sceptics remind us that Mark who was recording the event was not present and that the whole experience was too unlikely to have happened.

Tradition claims that the Transfiguration happened on Mt Tabor, to the extent that the Eastern Church even calls the feast of the Transfiguration Taborion , but if so it was a very small mountain no more than 1000 feet high with a fortress on the top. What is more this Mt Tabor is in the South of Galilee and Mark seems to be suggesting the Transfiguration was nearer Caesarea Philippi which is in the North where at least there is a more likely mountain Mt Hermon which at 9,200 feet provides a much more appropriate isolated place. So yes, there may be genuine problems in the account as a factual and accurate report.

Yet I would like to suggest a different approach.

In this day and age we are normally careful to distinguish objective reporting from story-telling, yet this particular account comes from a different age. At the time of Jesus, it was common practice to use mountain top encounters as a way of introducing encounters with the divine. Stories of Mt Olympus, and of the mysterious high hill setting of Delphi, would have been familiar and not just to the Greeks. Then for the Jews it would have been Mt Ararat, the Mount of Olives and so on. It was also common to slip mysterious touches or scriptural allusion into stories to draw attention to key teaching. Precision in reporting was secondary to the message, which is presumably why the gospel writers often blithely contradicted one another when they reported on the same events. Nor, perhaps I should add – is a myth the same as a lie.

So what was the transfiguration and its message?

In terms of Jesus’ journey, the transfiguration is presented as the point at which he became convinced that he had divine confirmation that he was on the right track to go to Jerusalem and face his fate. The significance of the voice from the cloud was of course this was the same way that Jewish tradition says Moses met God, and that it was in a cloud that God came to the Tabernacle. There is also a reference to the cloud that filled Solomon’s temple when the building was complete. That Moses who was considered the archetypal guide to the people of Israel and was by tradition the supreme law giver, and Elijah, the supreme prophet in the eyes of the Jews should also be present might well have been another way of stressing that Jesus was correct in understanding he had divine support. But assuming it was an event and not a theological explanation, the real test of the transfiguration was not so much the question of whether or not the transfigured appearance of Jesus was literal – it was more whether or not Jesus and the disciples were affected by the experience.

Putting it directly, whatever happened, from that point, Jesus now appeared clearer in his subsequent actions but the disciples who had been with him were only partially affected. The disciples were still only partly convinced that Jesus should go to Jerusalem. Peter, remember, is recorded as inappropriately treating the transfiguration as one that needs a religious response – wanting to put up symbolic tabernacles or tents opting for a kind of artificial piety… in the same way I guess, as many today treat the task of honouring Jesus and the saints as more to do with magnificent buildings and adulation for Jesus and the saints rather than with altered lives.
When I search for a more contemporary example of that mountain top experience I think of Edmund Hillary making it to the top of Mt Everest with the Sherpa Norgay Tenzing in 1953. Certainly it was a life changing experience for Sir Edmund, but for him his personal transformation was partly in the way the experience taught him to see the Sherpa people in a different way. From that point he became dedicated to building schools and hospitals in Nepal and ensuring the trust he set up made a difference for those mountain people. Just remember too that life changing experiences are only life changing if we allow them to be. Many others too have since climbed Mt Everest and no doubt saw the same awe inspiring magnificent view, but not all saw the same vision for the Sherpa people.

Historically many of us have our own equivalent of mountain top experiences – those life changing events – both good and disturbing, that have the potential to alter our view and transform our lives. Soldiers have gone to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq, missionaries have gone out to live with head-hunters, tourists have visited the slums of Calcutta and stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon. Sometimes too the experience is mysterious, even troubling and almost impossible to put into words. Yet having the potential life changing experience is not enough by itself. Jesus came down from the mountain and set out for Jerusalem. Peter came down from that same mountain then denied his lord three times. Some tourists return from their trip to exotic places and sign up for child sponsorship programmes. Others see it merely as a chance to put five hundred photos together for a relentless data-show. Some soldiers return enthused to join international relief organisations and service clubs – others to take to the bottle or drugs – or at worst even commit suicide

We can be certain Mark was not present at the transfiguration according to his own record so his witness in recording the event must be second hand at best. Assuming that tradition was correct and that Mark, for a good part of his gospel, was indeed transcribing what Peter had been telling him in Rome some years after the event, he would have had every excuse to leave this particular story out – particularly as it sounds surreal – but rather than condemning Mark for including the story we might do well to remember that Mark was showing courage in committing to the message of these written words in an environment hostile to the message. Scholars tell us that both Paul and Peter died for their faith in Rome and the signs for those supporting Christianity would have been very clear indeed.

But surreal or not, there is no indication that Mark would have us stay with the mysterious, on the mountain top where the experience and the view was different..
Perhaps Mark is reminding us that the memory of the mountain-top experience may encourage us to see things differently but according to Mark’s account, Jesus led them from the place of high mystery to return to the bottom in the valley where they were straight away back with reality. There they would meet the epileptic child whose epilepsy was sufficient to have him burn himself in the fire, and face the upcoming confrontation with the scribes and Pharisees – in short underlining for us that there can be turmoil and real life challenge in the world that is at ground level, rather than the world as it might be above the clouds.

We may well derive our inspiration from those special experiences, but ultimately no matter how much we might like to keep the realities of the world at bay ultimately we have to decide between real and artificial religion. In a world where there are haves and have-nots putting the main effort into building tabernacles to honour Jesus and the saints won’t quite do it. In a world where obscene amounts are spent on arms, praying for peace while buying shares in the armament factories is not taking Jesus’ teaching seriously. Praising God for creation on Sundays and allowing the multinationals to lay waste to tropical forests for the rest of the week in order to satisfy energy needs with vast plantings of palm oil is a curious way of showing responsibility for the natural world. In a world where the survival and well-being of the poor and elderly is dependent on health assistance, for the wealthy to be arguing for tax reduction may well be meeting the needs of self interest but it is hardly consistent with the injunction to love our neighbour, especially in a nation that prides itself on its wealth and prestige.

The mountain top is a wonderful place to gain a sense of perspective but it is rather inappropriate as a place to live. Jesus appeared to need periods of meditation and even the mountain-top experience, but we should be under no illusion that his life was all about these mystical experiences because he showed his work was where the people who needed him could be found. We should perhaps acknowledge that prior to the mountain top Jesus was recorded as being busy with the realities of life beneath the mountain. To be a voice for the voiceless, a soother and healer of the hurting, a challenge to the hypocrites, those who put prestige first in the name of their religion – these must surely be the tasks of the valley. They were certainly the tasks to which he returned. It is of course tempting, to try repeatedly for the mountain top experiences and forget how they are related to relationships and living. Mountain climbing, balloon flying, even high church worship can all be immensely satisfying as a means to enhance a sense of wonder. Yet the high purpose of Church cannot be used as an excuse to keep ourselves above the world of the valley and the plain. Nor does an incident of transfiguration witnessed mean that we no longer have a personal need to be transformed. That, even those close to Jesus might have simply got it wrong and misinterpreted what they were experiencing when they at least were supposed to be present should be a salutary lesson to us. We were not present and as a consequence may need to pause in thought before rushing to announce what it all means.

I wonder if you have come across a different mountain top experience in the well-known and often repeated story of Sadhu Sundar Singh. This particular version is one retold by Dr Keith Wagner.

Sadhu Sundar Singh and a companion were travelling through a pass high in the Himalayan Mountains when they came across a body lying in the snow. They checked for vital signs and discovered the man was still alive. Sundar Singh prepared to stop and help the unfortunate traveller, but his companion objected, saying, “We shall lose our lives if we burden ourselves with him.” Sundar Singh, however, could not think of leaving a man to die in the snow without an attempt to rescue him. His companion quickly bade him farewell and walked on.

Sundar Singh lifted the poor traveller on his back. With great exertion on his part, which was even more difficult because of the high altitude, he carried the man and continued on his journey. As he walked, the heat cast off by his body began to warm the partially frozen man. He revived, and soon they were both walking side by side. Before long they came upon yet another traveller’s body, lying in the snow. Upon closer inspection, they discovered him to be dead, frozen by the cold. The man was Sundar Singh’s original travelling companion.

Sundar Singh may not have mastered the finer complex implications of Mark’s account of the transfiguration, but his actions suggest he was living the essence of the message.

On Clicking the “I agree” Box

We also know that many claimed miracles today turn out to be based on false claims, and that it is extremely difficult to establish evidence that laws of nature can in effect be suspended. Honesty also demands that we admit in Jesus day accurate diagnosis was virtually impossible. Leprosy was associated with many skin conditions other than Hansen’s disease, and temporary conditions like an epileptic fit would be expected to get better at least in the short term as would many natural diseases. Even death was hard to establish without stethoscopes and a host of modern techniques. When someone is reported as recovering, if you don’t know whether they had a condition not able to be dealt with by natural processes of the body’s immune system, and if you have no way of checking whether the cure was effective for the following days, certainty about miracles is misplaced.
We already know that different versions of the same event in the gospels can and do differ in some details so we know that there is unreliability in the record. If we remove all stories where a degree of exaggeration might have crept into the retelling, there may be few, if any, stories that show Jesus was operating outside the standard constraints of nature. Clearly miracles were part of the thinking in those days when demons and strange happenings were rationalised with a different mind-set to what we might consider today and there is a sense that we can only appreciate what is written if we try to see it with the ancient mind rather than with a modern analysis. We might also note in passing that while miracles are frequently mentioned by the gospel writers, the most prolific New Testament writer Paul does not consider it important enough to even mention one miracle of Jesus outside the resurrection.
Well no doubt this may irritate extreme conservatives, but as far as I am concerned, to find that Jesus was not some all powerful magician who could click his fingers and heal with a touch would not cause me to abandon my faith. If Jesus were indeed superhuman and could deal to every situation, this is so far from the realities I face and the weaknesses I experience, I would be forever consigned to casually ticking the I agree box and leaving it to others to attempt the actual Christian walk.
There is for example a caricature of Christian witness you too may have encountered, that has large groups of people gathering in worship to chant repetitious flattering phrases pointing out to God or alternately to Jesus how great he is – and enjoining him to fix all the current problems. There is no harm in this when those present are actually doing their best in becoming involved in dealing with day to day problems for which they are praying. There are always situations of injustice, the need for visiting the sick and the prisoners, feeding the poor, making peace, righting injustice or perhaps ministering to the deranged. If we use our prayer to focus on such situations as a prerequisite for involvement, this can only be positive. There is no shame in genuinely praying for the strength to do that which is beyond us and using the prayer to sort out our thinking. But prayer removed from a willingness to do anymore than offer support in the prayer chorus line approaches hypocrisy. Simply using prayer as a substitute for action and landing all problems on a faulty memory of how Jesus actually went about his tasks seems a parody of what Jesus showed mission to be. I suspect that there may even be a degree of escapism in worship that extols Jesus and presents great lists of problems to lay at his feet in prayer rather than following his lead and struggling with actual problems within the constraints of reality.
I guess what I am really calling for is a careful examination of this particular software agreement before anything gets signed.

My reading of this particular subsection in the Gospel of Mark is that Jesus had to cope with some very realistic problems and that even he did not bring all the answers by way of complete solutions. If we are indeed signing up to follow in his footsteps – and what is more following into a world which has probably changed almost beyond recognition, there is every probability that the problems have become even more complex and intractable. In this case, the “I agree” box does not mean that our tick will mean everything is done and dusted.
I believe it was Mark Twain who observed that: In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
We do need to examine the questions for ourselves – and not be afraid of the answers. Perhaps it should be before we can say “ I agree to” the basis of our faith, we need to acknowledge that we are signing up for a journey (not an achieved destination), and one for which each step needs thought and planning to deal with actual not ethereal realities.
We may also need to reflect that Jesus was subject to the limitations of his world and recognised reality – only helping where he could help. That is a positive message for us today, for although our context is different, the gospel does not make other worldly demands. To follow in his way, we too must help where we can. We should not be surprised that we cannot walk on water, or summon a genie to banish an incurable cancer. What we are called to do is to offer support and friendship to the afflicted – and like Jesus be prepared to grasp the near edge of the problems that come our way.
And yes, we are called to faith, which is very different to a cheap acknowledgement of belief. In belief someone else has done the thinking for us. Faith is what we are genuinely prepared to trust because we have worked it out for ourselves – and sometimes with fear and trembling.
There is just one last thing. Before you are permitted to use the software agreement you must sign. Hopefully,you have read – you have thought – and finally a genuine decision is called for.
David acknowledged that the time we have is not infinite when he said to Jonathan,” there is but one step between me and death”.
You may recall the famous story of the rabbi who was asked by his disciple, “when should I make a decision to follow God?” The rabbi thought for a moment. “Exactly one moment before you die.”
“Hold on Master” – protested his disciple. “ How could I possibly know when I am going to die”.
“Exactly”, said the rabbi. “ Do it now while you still have time”.

We have probably all witnessed instances of bizarre and even psychotic behaviour where a person exhibits symptoms of strange and anti social behaviour. Although these days where such conditions are rather better understood, describing such people as possessed still conveys a form of truth we observe. A clinical psychologist or psychiatrist may have rather better understanding of what causes the apparent possession, whether it be a drug or alcohol induced state, a chemical imbalance in the brain, a birth defect or even specific environmental factors that trigger such events. Nevertheless that such a person is described in terms that leaves no doubt that something has caused them to react as if being possessed by forces outside their immediate control is still fair enough, and I for one still find the term “demon possessed” helpful as a descriptive term for what we see. In fact we can go further. Those who teach behavioural psychology are fond of reminding their students that all we really have to go on is exhibited behaviour because even now we don’t yet know enough to understand exactly what goes on in the the brain or in what is popularly called “mind”.
In Mark’s story he talks of the man who appeared to see something threatening in Jesus and suddenly starts to rant about the threat to his demons. Jesus takes control of the situation and apparently finds an appropriate way to calm the man down with his authority. While it is traditional to ascribe this to a miracle I wonder if we rush too quickly to such judgement. Much of the talk about Jesus as a miracle worker is by way of editorial comment, much of it written long after the event. The catch is of course, that the more we emphasise the superhuman or God-like characteristics of Jesus, the less he has to do with us and our realities. Nevertheless, what is true for this particular reported incident, is that Jesus behaving with authority in the face of the man’s outburst is certainly not typical of what we might expect from those facing such a situation today.
Time after time in our daily newspapers there is editorial outrage about an all too common situation in which typically someone gets out of control and that despite often large numbers of observers, most people stand around and do nothing. Last week in our daily newspaper the New Zealand Herald, there was an account of an outraged and out of control young woman beating up and kicking a pregnant young woman on the ground outside a shop while watched by 20 or so onlookers who reportedly stood by watching without interfering. The beating was evidently over a boyfriend the pregnant woman was accused of sleeping with. Over the next few days there were the usual indignant letters to the paper expressing outrage that none of the onlookers had moved to help. Yet I wonder if the letter writers should have been surprised. There is a paralysing and almost hypnotic focus of attraction associated with bizarre events and instances of uncontrolled behaviour.
I know from past experience from being at the scene at a number of accidents, that by far the most common attitude is where most people appear to be able to do nothing more than gawp. What is encouraging is that from time to time, there are a small number of clear and logical thinkers who can, using little more than common sense and a positive attitude, take control of such accident scenes in a calming and rational manner. If there is a common factor for most of these, it is that they are quite simply willing to become involved. When we read for example of incidents where an armed person is either threatening to harm others – or in a worst case scenario attacking others (as for example in an armed hold-up or mass shooting) while many might panic or flee, there are sometimes those prepared to help calm the situation and even risk their own safety in order to help others survive. I have both seen, and in other instances read of people exhibiting dangerous and even psychotic behaviour counselled to a more peaceful way of acting so I don’t believe miracle must always be invoked in such instances.
While the attention is usually given to Jesus as the miracle worker – I wonder if rather more attention should be given to his willingness to get involved, time after time, with situations where he appeared to be thinking more of others than himself. In those days for example, diseases like leprosy were much less understood than they are today and the lepers were genuinely feared. That Jesus was not a passive spectator in such cases and was prepared to meet and touch such people, tells us far more about his character than for example it tells us about the ultimate long term health outcome for the lepers he had met and which, in the absence of recorded detail,  we can never know. That he was prepared to get involved with the demon possessed, the blind beggars, those who might be seen as dangerous enemies, prostitutes, tax collectors, and those having socially unacceptable beliefs can almost be summed up not so much as some form of ethereal magic – but more as one whose authority was the confidence to put his own welfare and safety to one side – and to become totally involved.
I must say that for me, demon possession can be trivialised by focussing on the form of getting rid of the demons with ceremony or ritual. Becoming deeply involved with someone possessed by agents outside their control is costly rather than trivial. Those for example who have struggled with someone in the grip of drug addiction or alcoholism will know that such demons are rarely exorcised with a few words of religious mumbo-jumbo or a quick passing prayer. While I confess to a healthy scepticism for what goes on at mass faith healing services and even feel unease that the just retired Papal exorcist in Rome publically estimated that he had performed some 50,000 exorcisms in his career, it seems to me that the question is not about how others treat the afflicted, because that has nothing to do with my individual walk of faith. The question I must face is: whether or not I personally can bring myself to follow Jesus’ lead in directly dealing with those I meet in the course of my path through life?
In an age where mega-churches are all the rage and where Tele-evangelists can sometimes reach untold thousands with their message, there must seem something of a conundrum in Jesus ordering the man freed from his demons to be silent. Why not tell it from the roof tops? Surely if this sorry derelict in Capernaum has acknowledged Jesus as Lord, he is doing nothing more than making an historic proclamation. After all doesn’t James put it as: “even the devils believe and tremble” (James 2:19)
Yet Jesus insists “Be silent” which John Pridmore wryly points out is not exactly the favourite text in typical Church mission plans. In some ways this particular “be silent!”saying deserves more attention thn it gets in practice. Those front door religious visitors who switch on a practised torrent of artificial religious spiel to go with their simplistic tracts, often seem unaware that true religion is lived not professed. Somehow a wodge of words, no matter how accurately quoted seems curiously unattractive if the messenger does not even take the trouble to first get to know the recipient – and even less show any genuine concern for the realities of their life.
As those attempting to follow Christianity, we are unlikely to ever achieve universal agreement as to whether the unfortunate man in Mark’s story was indeed demon possessed or whether his condition was rather more mundane and explicable in modern terms. Yet whether or not he was possessed, or merely behaved as if he was is hardly the point. A rather more important focus of the story was that Jesus was reported as being prepared to address the one afflicted, rather than being a passive spectator and in so doing restored the unfortunate man’s human potential. Jesus’ injunction to keep silent afterwards is a timely reminder that some events don’t need a facile and shallow acknowledgement. In this case it may be that we too need to keep silence as we contemplate the mystery of what is reported here before we too might look for creative and positive ways of making room for similar actions in our tentative steps in faith.

Your views please.