Lectionary sermon for May 12, 2013 (Easter 7 C)on John 17:20-26

(Note for those looking instead for a Mothers’ Day sermon you might try Lectionary sermon for 13 May 2012 Easter 6 Year b (and Mothers day) on John 15:9-17)     For the Gospel reading laid down for the lectionary for today – read on.)

Has John got this right?  Jesus is reported here as praying a prayer which apparently remained unanswered.

The writer of John’s gospel has been criticised by many Bible scholars both for contradicting some key detail about Jesus in the other gospels (usually referred to as the synoptic gospels), and for his enthusiasm for oblique mysticism. *

Certainly a first reading of John gives an initial impression that he, or perhaps the apostle he used as his primary source, had been with Jesus for his mission – and he reinforces this impression by attributing the gospel detail to “the beloved disciple”, yet there are inescapable problems. For example he implies a two and possibly three year ministry for Jesus and records Jesus at three separate Passovers. The other gospels present a one year ministry and only mention one Passover. The Synoptic gospels highlight the baptism of Jesus, John has Jesus meeting John the Baptist but not being baptised by John. The others report Jesus’ parables and miracles as for helping people, John has no parables and sees only signs in the miracles.

John also gets some of the contemporary history quite wrong – or at least out of step with the work of other writers of the day. For example for the apostles and for the first few years of the Christian Church, Christianity was understood to be a sect of Judaism, yet for John, Jesus is portrayed as setting up a faith in opposition to traditional Judaism. Furthermore, the other great work officially attributed to John, namely the Book of Revelation, is written in a different style of Greek. And we could continue laying out why this gospel is widely accepted as a much later work, written we are told, by an unknown first century writer working from second hand sources.

Having said all of that, many scholars would insist that this gospel provides the most compelling theological presentation of all the gospels, and that includes those that did not make the final cut into the canon of the New Testament. John’s work, sometimes described as an extended essay on the centrality of love, is rightly praised in selecting phrases and metaphors which get to the heart of Jesus’ teaching. One of my friends calls John a portrait painter rather than a biographer and I can see what he means.

Today’s gospel lesson seizes on one of these critical ideas which have profound implications for current challenges to the current members of the divided Christian Church and a deeply divided world community. This is of course Jesus’ extended prayer for Unity amongst all who would follow his teaching.

As a prayer to produce a guaranteed result, thus far it appears at first hearing something of a failure. But when Jesus says he is praying that there shall be unity, it is a prayer of the sort where some very human responders, including Christians of our generation hold the key to the answer. Nor should we think of Jesus calling for something he was able to accomplish easily with his own disciples. In his own mission, Jesus encountered James and John competing to see who was worthy to sit beside Jesus in heaven – and another time, disciples who argued who among them was the greatest. Remember also Matthew the publican who had a collaborator record of working alongside the Romans as a tax collector, becoming a member of the same band of followers that included a zealot who was committed to getting rid of those like Matthew. Don’t forget too, according to the gospels, Judas was prepared to betray his master despite many months of being on the road with Jesus. Nor as it turned out, were things better after the events of that first Easter. Paul, as a new comer to the faith, was still to have his falling out with Peter and James.

However in Jesus’ prayer He was not simply focusing on his fractious and divided disciples. In verse 21, we find him praying for the disciples, He then prayed for all believers. And as self-claimed followers of Jesus we don’t need to look far before we encounter reason for embarrassment. Clearly, Jesus’ followers are still divided, just as they have been through the centuries, sometimes bitterly so. Can we not see and then begin to own this lack of unity?

Here I am not, as you might suppose, talking of joining the denominations into one unwieldy conglomerate. My concern is more for the lack of identification with others, an absence of identified unity offered to those who don’t share a common background. Jesus himself had modelled an acceptance of difference. He did not choose disciples for uniform background and nor did he accept traditional exclusions. Touching lepers, talking to the rejected of society, noticing the good in traditional enemies of Judaism; these things showed he was open to a unity of spirit and not a unity of re-jigged Church superstructure.

I remember some years ago putting some Teachers’ College students through an exercise whereby those not in the know were pressured by students in a set up situation, to agree with statements that were demonstrably untrue. For example I would draw two lines on the board and tell the class who were already present that they should pick the longest line as being the shortest when late comers came into the room. I would then wait for an unfortunate latecomer to arrive and ask the class to vote on the shortest line. Almost invariably, the latecomer on seeing the show of hands would uncomfortably agree with the nonsense option.

Imagine the nonsense of claiming to follow Jesus yet pretending not to see the governmental non-forgiving option when it comes to foreign policy. Imagine the nonsense of remembering a communion meal at which Judas was a guest, by celebrating the Eucharist in a form that could not be shared with some guests because they were not of exactly the local version of faith. Imagine celebrating a man who told the story of the Good Samaritan by pretending not to see the worth of the Red Crescent (the Muslim equivalent of the Red Cross). Or bringing it closer to home, imagine coming this Sunday to celebrate one who prayed for unity in his followers and following this with total lack of interest in serious attempts both to seek unity of spirit and also  a lack of interest in finding good in those who dress and worship differently.

It is a poor excuse to say in this we are no different to others. I suspect the meek acceptance of bad majority opinions continues to confine and shape thinking which a moment’s reflection might reveal as nonsense.

Ralph Milton tells an oft quoted story about how John Henry Fabre, a French naturalist did an experiment with some Processionary Caterpillars.

In Milton’s words:
These poor little beasties will follow the next caterpillar ahead of
them, no matter where that caterpillar happens to be going. Fabre
arranged a bunch of his fuzzy friends in a neat circle, each one
touching the one just ahead. Faithful to their DNA, each one
followed the next one. In the middle of the circle Fabre put some
of the caterpillars’ favourite food.

Would they stop following, even for a moment, just for a bite of
lunch?

Not on your life. The food was there within inches, but they just
kept on following each other in circles until they collapsed and
died from hunger.

In the traditional Church, there is evidence that even now, processionary caterpillar thinking can dominate.

Jesus’ teaching is clear enough. There we find Jesus’ prescription for living in his way, his call for unity for his followers, his wish for total and generous forgiveness of enemies, compassion offered to neighbours ( even those who differ in belief), not building up treasures on earth and so on – all clear directions to those who might listen. Yet because we are bound by group traditions, we lose sight of the real food on offer. Time after time, woolly group thinking trumps our independent judgement about how we are progressing towards these goals.

If we felt free to choose from first principles, I suspect we would know to choose more helpful paths. Surely a society built on principles of unity, compassion and love would not only be true to Jesus’ prayer as recounted by John, but it would make more sense than the divided realities we are taught by our institutions to preserve.

When John defined God as Love, I believe this was a moment of great insight. When he records Jesus as saying 26 I made your name known to them, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” He is also putting us in touch with a method to act on his call for unity.

Whoever first coined the expression “Human Beings” was perceptive. I have heard it suggested that there are really two types: be-ers and doers. The be-ers are simply content to let things the way they are and trust that everything will turn out alright in the end. “Beings” certainly conjures up this common way of thinking. The do-ers take an active part in working towards what they believe to be the best form of action. I wonder if it follows that if “human being” is a helpful expression, we should, as some have suggested, call the other a “human doing”? But whatever the case, I suspect that this two-form classification is at best an over-simplification. Many of us are capable of being a continually changing mixture of the two. However, if you asked me which form I saw dominating, I would have to admit the evidence is clear that the Human being dominates, and our lack of unity is the consequence.

The Dalai Lama once suggested: “the whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, and forgiveness”.

Although I find this persuasive as an ideal, I do not entirely agree that this is necessarily how religion turns out in practice. Like the consequent ideal of unity, achieving the Dalai Lama’s purpose of religion assumes that the human do-ers will overcome the inertia of the be-ers. The resulting outcome is as likely or unlikely as those with faults or frailties like us are prepared to make it become.

To focus on the expression of love would seem an extraordinarily persuasive way of bringing about unity. When an individual or a group is kind to us we automatically warm to them. Conversely when they ignore us or worse appear to be waving a big stick in our direction it is probably human nature to respond with antagonism and suspicion. Time after time, it is the socially isolated who become anti social in response, as many of the killing rampages in the US have demonstrated. Even internationally, nations like North Korea or Iran only threaten those who have threatened them in the past. That should suggest to us a way of encouraging trust in others.

Human beings we may well be. The question is: are we satisfied to leave it there?

*For an introductory overview of the criticisms see for example the Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of John.

Lectionary Sermon for Easter 6 C May 5 2013 on John 14: 23 – 29

The Second Coming – (R Open minded): Parental guidance required.
Like health warnings on food and tobacco, it could be that sometimes even sermons should require a warning to flag potential discomfort on the part of the consumer.

Because this sermon is bound to upset those who hold to inerrancy and infallibility of the scriptures, it may be more comfortable for readers or listeners who share that view simply to stop following the sermon at this point. On the other hand, if you like to think your way through key issues, might I suggest you first consider and evaluate the argument of this address, then if you think it appropriate, contribute to the debate by adding an honest reaction.

We start with the lectionary text.
John 14:23-29
23Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.24Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.
25”I have said these things to you while I am still with you.26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.
28You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.29And now I have told you this before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe.

When I read Jesus’ words encouraging his disciples for what lies ahead, I sometimes wonder if a good proportion of today’s believers really understood what Jesus was getting at with the recorded teaching on the second coming.

Having heard a number of street evangelists on the topic, and in particular, some of the more conservative evangelists, I do understand that a reasonable proportion of those who see themselves as Christian, take the imagery of the Book of Revelation together with selected words from Jesus as literal prediction. As a consequence many appear confident that soon, perhaps even any day now, Jesus will appear from the clouds to gather up the faithful and whisk them up to heaven to enjoy their rightful reward. Because what these followers are asserting is totally outside human experience, I acknowledge there is no certainty they are wrong, (or right for that matter!) and bluntly – no obvious way of testing what they claim. However in today’s reading at least, Jesus seems to be talking about a more accessible idea. There is still the underlying idea that “In my Father’s house there are many mansions” , but here, the dwelling places are strictly human.

Perhaps we should start by looking closely at the words from the start of today’s gospel.

23Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them…..
This seems to be saying that in effect Jesus and or God or the Holy Spirit will be taking up residence in the person – or at least “the heart” of the one who takes Jesus seriously enough to follow his teaching. Whatever this is, it is not a one time, and for the whole world event. There are disciples in every generation and given that we sometimes sense in such people the emergence of warmth of nature and signs of essence of compassion, it may not be a second coming miracle in the conventional expected sense of the word, yet in another sense it is consistent with Jesus’ fulfilled prophecy. If these people have taken on the characteristic central to Jesus teaching, is this not Jesus entering their heart?

Not everyone would see this as being the second coming. In fact although there is plenty of evidence that the gospel writers and then St Paul and some of the other New Testament writers talked and wrote as if Jesus was coming physically at the end time – and specifically within a very short time frame, today’s reading give us a totally different slant.

But there is something we need to face squarely. Even if Jesus and the New Testament writers had intended to say that his disciples were going to experience all that Jesus was interpreted as saying about the second coming in a literal sense and in their lifetime, events proved otherwise. Despite predictions of most dramatic happenings within the lifetime of the readers and hearers of the contemporary audience of the day, there is no indication that these second coming events ever happened for that audience.

For example, if we contrast today’s measured description with the Luke version of the Armageddon which SHOULD have occurred for the generation of first witnesses in Luke 21:25-33, we see predictions which failed to materialise.
“There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on earth nations will be in dismay, perplexed by the roaring of the sea and the waves. People will die of fright in anticipation of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these signs begin to happen, stand erect and raise your heads because your redemption is at hand.” ……..Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Luke 21:25-33 NAB)

Well if it happened that way, it wasn’t just the disciples who missed it. By all accounts, the stars have remained apparently twinkling in the heavens, the seas did not roar and nor as far as we know, did those of Jesus’ generation, die in fright at those signs.

Even if the New Testament writers themselves got the second coming wrong, should that really surprise us? Like some of our contemporaries, they too were on a faith journey and faith has blind paths, as well as moments of insight. So what if Paul insisted end times were upon his contemporaries? And he did. And why not? He had never heard Jesus speaking in the flesh and was only repeating what others had told him. So for example:
In Philippians 4:5 Paul thought that the end was near and that Jesus would return soon after he wrote those words.
In Hebrews 1:2 Paul ( and remember this is two thousand years ago) Paul says he believes he is living in the “last days.”
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 Paul stated: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: And the dead Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: And so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
Paul was in good company. James (James 5: 8) thought that Jesus would return soon.
Peter too believed that he was living in the “last times” and that “the end of all things is at hand.” 1 Peter 1:20 & 4:7

Yet if they did get it wrong on this score let us also admit they did us a huge service in other places. Thus the sublime writing of Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 helps us ground a concept like love in day to day practicalities. In his account of true religion, James had a practical focus to faith that is just as relevant today as it was then. If the same Peter who led the disciples wrote first Peter, his continued leadership is evident no matter how he may have misinterpreted the end times.

This is not to say that the second coming should therefore be ignored. If for example the picture language was chosen to get our attention and encourage us to deal with some realities, then it starts to make sense.

For example Revelation was written at a time when the Roman Empire had declared itself on collision course with the Christians who were insisting on acknowledging one God – thereby challenging the Roman Emperor’s right to title himself a God. We might note for example that the author of the letter of John thought he was living in end times because he could see so many anti-Christs about (1 John 2:18) John also says the anti-Christ was present at the very time he was writing (1 John 4:3). If we see the Anti-Christ as any major leader who acts against the principles of Christ this then becomes poetic rather than literal, yet it still teaches an important truth. As persecution increased the Christians needed encouragement and if this might be codified with signs helping those in the know to see the Beast of Revelation as the Roman Emperor – the leader of the current persecution, so much the better. That the Book of Revelation also talks of the eventual triumph of Christianity would have been extremely encouraging to those facing genuine danger.

We can see, if only from the four gospel accounts, in some cases, the same words of Jesus are given different contexts and in some include differences in detail. This establishes that editing was taking place and it is not unreasonable to suspect that in some cases the words being edited were not actually words of Jesus, but rather words written in the mouth of Jesus to support current truths that the gospel writers felt needed sharing.

I also happen to believe that if we were to find that the second coming literature was intended as poetry to draw our attention to key truth, I for one would still find this of value.

If, as mentioned previously, the second coming is at least partly a coming into ourselves as a human dwelling place, this is particularly helpful as we check where we are in our own walk of faith.

For example, notice that to qualify as a human dwelling place, popular labels like born again or Christian become less relevant. As far as Jesus appears to be concerned it follows that calling yourself Christian, a born-again – or even for that matter an atheist is not where it is at. He makes his precondition abundantly clear. “Those who love me will keep my word…..”

Can I suggest taking moment of reflection to consider if we have begun to attempt to follow the principles Jesus enunciates. I believe this would be time well spent. If we follow John’s text for today, it is only when we keep Jesus’ word that our love will be evident. In that sense Jesus may already have come for the lives of others. And perhaps his second coming was always meant to be interpreted that way. Our challenge is to consider if, for us, he has already come and is continuing to be found in our own life’s witness.

(Given the above may not represent consensus thinking, reactions would be most welcome)

Lectionary Sermon for 28 April 2013 (Easter 5 )on John 13: 31-35

Saying warm familiar words in the context of a Church service can indeed lift the soul. Unfortunately when those familiar words are a call to action in the outside world and when no action eventuates, those same well-loved words risk becoming trite and vacuous.

The scene here is the last supper. Judas has departed to do his work and the shadows are gathering. Jesus finds words of commission. “So you are to love one another, as I have loved you.” Perhaps Hollywood is partly to blame for us missing the hard edge to this most familiar text. Love, Hollywood style, is full of warm fuzzy happy ever after feelings. By contrast, love Jesus style is action born of compassion….and what is more action in the midst of life’s gritty realities.

Perhaps we need to get real and admit we should be uncomfortable both with the word “as” and with the tag Jesus has added. …. Does he really want us to do as he did when he added that bit about…. as I have loved you?

If we think of how Jesus showed love, it was anything but warm and fuzzy.
Where authority was showing lack of compassion, Jesus challenged that authority…and at every level. Whether or not we would be comfortable joining him in such a challenge is not so clear. Going in to bat on behalf of those who can’t cope is not a certain path to popularity. Where Scribes and Pharisees were using religion as a means of self advancement to parade their status and advance their social position, Jesus did not shrink from the confrontation. Challenging Church or government leadership may not get us crucified today but nor would it bring us public approval. Notice too, that where culture and tradition were used to exclude, Jesus stepped forward. The lepers were touched. He made time for the Samaritan woman, the tax collector and the prostitute. Today’s equivalent of helping those with social diseases like AIDS, or speaking up on behalf of those belonging to unpopular racial or religious groups carries its own stigma.

When Jesus dealt with those society rejected we may note his lack of condemnation. Remember the woman caught in adultery, the tax collector up the tree, the lepers…. Whether or not we can find the same lack of condemnation in our own words and actions today may not be so clear. Locally, I hear plenty of Church based condemnation of homosexual marriage and street prostitution. While I have often heard the catch cry, “we love the sinner but we hate the sin”, I can’t honestly say I have seen those identified by the Church as sinners congregating in Church in large numbers in response to the stated love. To refuse to get close enough to know the name or personal situation of the street prostitute, or to prefer to present a petition against homosexual marriage rather than become friends with a gay, these actions do not tell the prostitute or homosexual that anyone cares about their situation.

The contrast with quiet organ music or a civilised cup of tea with respectable friends at the end of a Church service could hardly be greater. This is not to say love does away with the need for the cup of tea and sharing time, but it strongly suggests we must never think that is all that is needed. When it came to his disciples, Jesus took those he loved well out of their comfort zone. When the disciples entreated him not to return to an area where the crowd had been angry, he disregarded the disciples’ desire for safety. When they counselled against continuing towards Jerusalem, Jesus simply kept walking.

Doing what is best for people, does not always mean leaving them comfortable and unchallenged. Nor is the vision to which we are called the equivalent of a series of neatly predetermined GPS locations.

At best the analogy would be that of an occasionally glimpsed compass needle. We set up our course according to a general direction but the voyage itself is largely into uncharted territory.

Jesus left those he loved with genuine challenges. He had modelled attitudes of valuing justice, forgiveness and compassion – and wanted his followers to do the same. When Peter’s nerve failed him –according to the gospel, Jesus simply set him further tasks. “Feed my sheep” he said….At this safe distance in time we can think of it in terms of offering warm support to newcomers in faith, but when John was writing his gospel, Israel was in crisis and the wolves were eying the sheep. The new Christians were going to need support in their acts of witness and those identified as leaders of the new movement would be attracting anger and genuine danger.

Love, for Jesus, was never just a feeling. It was proactive and highly visible. “By this all will know you are my disciples”. And we can understand this point. If someone is hungry and lonely, knowing that a group from a well fed and comfortable congregation have said a passing Amen to a worship leader’s prayer of intercession mentioning the hungry and the lonely would never convince the lonely and hungry anyone cares. But someone prepared to make friends –to offer food and give the hungry and lonely the time of day …. now that would start to mean something.

We are very likely to fall short when the going gets tough, and nor I suspect could it be otherwise.   Even the saints of history had their failings. Yet without the emphasis on acts of love the Church becomes an irrelevant social club. A moment’s thought reminds us that in some situations we are all atheists. By this I mean that with so many versions of God on offer, there will always be some we reject. The evangelists can preach all they like but unless what they are preaching is given integrity by lived lives why would we want to listen? As an Archbishop of Canterbury once put it : “We make our version of God believable to the extent we are the people we are”.

We can hardly relegate this instruction on how to love to an incidental requirement of the disciples because this verse appears 13 times in similar form in the New Testament. In today’s reading it was the also last wish of the farewell discourse to the Disciples at the last supper. It occurs several times in the Gospel of John, and the need to love one another is reiterated several times in John’s first and second Epistle with the theme of doing so in imitation of Christ, while Paul says in Romans 13:8 “He who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law”.

The primacy of love as an ideal is easy to find in the New Testament teachings. “… The greatest of these is love”, said Paul in chapter 13 of first Corinthians, and elsewhere in Colossians 3:14, “above all clothe your-selves with love”. A great ideal, but if believe we appear so clothed, perhaps we might give passing thought to why those known to be prostitutes, drug addicts or habitual drunks rarely seem to seek out traditional Church congregations for acceptance. I suspect that it is at least partly the suspicion that in a church they are more likely to encounter judgement than understanding. I have heard it suggested that sometimes Christians confuse their ability to desire the best for themselves and reject the worst – with their tendency to judge others on the basis of their behaviour.

Even if we are non judgemental ourselves, (which from personal experience I would admit is far easier said than lived), the frequent publicity generated by some of the more vocal Church moralists as they lead their crusades against parole for serious criminals, against those who offend traditional religious mores and against those whose sins are visible to the community is its own advertisement.

No wonder the pariahs of society don’t automatically seek out the church as their first choice for solace or care. In practice the drop-outs and the unloved turn to the gang houses, the pimps and the mates at the pub – where at least there may be a degree of understanding and sympathy. And where they do turn to the Church, is it surprising that they turn first to those who set up the night shelters and those who help by providing showers and a change of clothes? If we fail to first find the unsurpassable worth in those to whom we wish to minister, how can our intended love be expressed with integrity?

Because we are not alone in the Church, it is also interesting to wonder how we might come across collectively. Because we are groups with commonality of purpose claiming the same teaching for inspiration, it is interesting to reflect on what we do as a group. Are we set up for others or ourselves? At the 2012 annual Church Conference, the New Zealand Methodist Church set up a ten year commitment to a new programme entitled Let the Children Live. This programme is intended first to draw attention to the growing percentage of children in the country whose future is blighted by poverty and associated problems, then to commit to action to address the problems. There are already some hopeful signs, with individual congregations educating themselves and becoming involved with helping programmes at a local and national level. If I am honest, I would also have to say that thus far some congregations have continued exactly as before.

The call to love as Jesus first loved others, does not assume a positive response. When Jesus left the call to love with his disciples, each of them had to work out their own response in the days and years to come. Should we expect it to be different with ourselves. The call has to be a continuing challenge – and what’s more a challenge which promises genuine difficulties if we choose to accept. It is also a challenge of the sort that needs frequent revisiting, for yesterday’s journey is now behind us. Today and the weeks ahead have the potential to bring new possibilities. How we choose to respond, and whether or not we can find room for the actions of compassion, these cannot be done for us. It is, and always has to be, our response, because it is our journey.

Jesus said to his disciples – and I guess also says to us: “love one another …. as I have loved you” Now it is our move.

Lectionary sermon for April 21 2013 (Easter 4) on John Ch 10: 22 – 30

The gospel set down for today is a deceptively simple passage. “Are you the Messiah?” they asked him. Notice Jesus reply does not answer in terms of his teaching but rather refers to his works which he presents as providing their own justification. Then he uses the now somewhat arcane example of the shepherd calling his flock and only his sheep recognising the voice. What he appears to be saying is that amongst all the similar sounding voices there is only one authentic voice, and those tuned to that voice will identify their shepherd.

At first impression this seems out-dated for our hard-nosed modern technological society, but on closer inspection of today’s gospel reading, we find Jesus is in surprisingly good agreement with modern psychologists and sociologists. The brain researchers assure us there are competing voices influencing our life choices, but if as our faith teaches, tuning to the voice of Jesus can make all the difference in the world, then it follows we must recognise and be wary of these other voices.

In practice, because we know there are many counterfeit forms of Christianity, we may need to consider carefully our reasons for choosing which voice to which we are going to respond. Because religion is practised by those who are less than perfect, it is unrealistic to hope to hear the voice of Jesus via a leader who is absolutely perfect in their Christian witness. However the general nature of a sincere follower of Christ is still likely to come through in their deeds. Just as Jesus invited those who questioned him to look at his acts to know what he stood for, that probably still remains the most helpful test of the authentic voice of the shepherd.

Now some of the scientific evidence is in, it seems that aspects of what the religious have called original sin is hardwired into our nature by many centuries of selective breeding. This tendency makes us very susceptible to head in a wrong direction. I have recently re-read an article in the Science Magazine Focus (The human brain: Hardwired to sin. | Focus Magazine, Feb 5, 2010 (sciencefocus.com/feature/psychology/human-brain-hardwired-sin) which reviews evidence showing the automatic responses built into the brain as the standard temptations of lust, greed, gluttony, anger, sloth, envy and pride are separately stimulated. Different test subjects have the nerves in the same areas of the brain start to fire in response to the same stimuli, with different areas of the brain associated with each form of “sin”.

In fact from one point of view, when it comes to noting what the practice of religion is up against, the voices from biological and cultural evolution produce some serious obstacles. In many instances the appeal of the so called false shepherds may be nothing more than using an aspect of religion to give voice to one or more of the evolutionary drives that may once have been needed for survival, yet which are positively disastrous when trying to build a harmonious modern society and world.

For the human race to have survived so many years in such a variety of bleak and dangerous settings it is hardly surprising that nature might have selected for preference so many of what now look to be unsociable traits. Biological urges are an inescapable presence that needs to be carefully managed (as the Catholic Church has found to its cost with its required celibacy of priests). And if it comes to that, given that procreation was once essential to the threatened human species, the desire to mate at all costs presents a question. Is breeding with any encountered potential mate still the biological characteristic you would want to bring to a stable modern marriage? When a religious sect promotes polygamy or under-age sex with sect leaders we might be disgusted that sect members would be attracted to something that society considers immoral, but in-built biological temptation is at least partly understandable.

There is also plenty of evidence that the human is a naturally belligerent animal with an intelligence honed by evolution to increase the potential for nasty behaviour. At one time the belligerence was a survival mechanism. A small community struggling to survive in a hostile environment needed its warrior hunters and the more deadly the better. But now the world population has grown so communities overlap and we need to find ways of getting on with one another. The urge for belligerence is still there which presumably is why young men can still be persuaded to march into battle for dimly understood causes.

There is even one sense in which Jesus arrived at an opportune time to provide humankind with an offered alternative to mutual destruction. Unfortunately history reminds us that as a wider community we have been very slow to take up the offer and perhaps this is hardly surprising given the scientists tell us humankind has been developing current characteristics for two million years or more. It is also a voice that needs to be subdued. The inbuilt desire to ensure the safekeeping of one’s own family unit by destroying all who might threaten even in the most indirect manner does not make for natural peacemaking or good race relations.

Again Churches in the past have often been associated with teaching that directly opposes Jesus’ direct teaching on forgiveness of enemies but if we can acknowledge the biological drive we can at least understand why Church members will accept such opposing teaching even when they are familiar with Jesus’ take on the topic. It is almost certainly not Jesus’ voice to encourage crushing rivals or foes – or locking up prisoners and throwing away the key, but again it is subconsciously compatible with our biology tells us is desirable.

Greed seems yet another non Christian characteristic that once helped our species survive. At a time when resources were limited it made perfect sense to try to gain a disproportionate share. Accumulating food at a faster rate than potential rivals is great for a time when unexpected plenty provided the insurance for the season when food was short. Unfortunately the inbred acquisitive fortress mentality rewarded the selfish and we don’t have to look too far before we encounter a marked reluctance to share. Although I have the greatest admiration for Pope Francis’ insistence of the need for the Catholic Church to return to becoming poor church, the acquisition of the present levels of colossal material wealth by a Church with teaching motivated by baser instincts for centuries does create some practical problems in reverting to Jesus’ teaching.

In many cases there is a fine line between what Jesus advocated and what now happens in practice. Offering hospitality by sharing food is very much in line with gospel teaching. Where we might go wrong is to forget we also have the drive to engage in gluttony. Encouraged once as a survival tactic for those rare occasions where sufficient food presented itself, perhaps we should not be surprised gluttony is still alive in some Churches today. The sight of obese church members gorging themselves at Church feasts suggests that even here we may be distorting Jesus teaching.

The prophets and religious leaders before Jesus had already identified many examples of behaviour that needed to change as the Jewish society became larger and more stable. In terms of what Jesus was offering that was different for his day, I guess it was more a question of a change of emphasis than a change of direction. Many of his teachings are foreshadowed in the Jewish religious literature, yet there is another sense in which the Jewish religion had already been hijacked by false teachings.

Love your neighbour (the positive form of the so called golden rule which appears in so many approximately similar forms in all the great religions) was introduced in rudimentary form in China and Egypt and later in the book of in Leviticus (19:18), yet by the time Jesus appeared on the scene, the oft times embattled Jews had convinced themselves that neighbours could only be fellow Jews. Stronger was the older appeal of the code of reciprocity whereby you returned like with like. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was the preferred rule. The story of the Good Samaritan found its novel impact precisely because the Samaritans were the heretics of the day. Notice too that Jesus is actually calling us to pro-activity. One commentator Dr. Frank Crane put it this way, “The Golden Rule is of no use to you whatsoever unless you realize that it’s your move!”

Perhaps we should reflect on what we have seen in modern times to ask if the biological and cultural drive to favour one’s own has continued to distort the central teaching which was the focus of Jesus.

The record of the separated Catholic and Anglican communions has not always reflected the love of neighbour. Think Henry the eighth ordering the sacking of the Catholic monasteries or the flying bricks in Belfast, Ireland. Interfaith dialogue is clearly an ideal, yet Communion is not freely offered or freely received when the priest at the front does not recognise the faith of some in the congregation. Tribalism continues to trump brotherly and sisterly love in many places of the world and by way of example the Hutus and Tutsis, two Christian tribes in Rwanda have both at various times attempted genocide on the other. Nor is it love for neighbour when Christians attack Muslims in the Balkans. It is almost as if we learn nothing from history. Remember at least one of the earlier Popes told those Christians setting out on the bloodthirsty Crusades that taking up the sword in this cause guaranteed them an instant pathway to heaven. Does that remind you of what some of the suicide bombers of this century are taught?

Please don’t think I am implying that it is only the Christians who lapse from their ideals. The same desire to be selective in recognising neighbours might equally be directed at the extremist Sunni bombing the Shiite Mosques, the intolerance of extremist Hindus in India towards their Muslim neighbours or the minority Shia Alawite Government raining destruction on the Sunni majority in Syria. However we might also remember it is not Christian teaching to notice the sins of traditional enemies while turning a blind eye to our own shortcomings.

Jesus taught forgiveness of enemies and was himself called the Prince of Peace. We can therefore only speculate what he might have made of an US Army chaplain blessing the mission to drop an atomic bomb on Japanese city or for that matter whether he would have favoured the invasion of Iraq which, now the fiction of weapons of mass destruction has been put to rest, looks increasingly like a geographically misplaced attempt to hit back at those who had sponsored the Saudi terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers. The recent Gun debates in the US shows the right to shoot in self defence is held as a basic right by some who claim to be Christian. Whether or not this is compatible with forgiving one’s enemies is a question that may not go away.

So there are competing seductive voices still. The true shepherd also continues to call down through the ages. As Jesus put it, only my sheep will recognise my voice. The choice of which voice to follow may require careful thought but it is still a choice that each one of us is called upon to make.

Lectionary Sermon for 14 April 2013 (Easter 3) on John 21: 1-19

One unhelpful way to look at history is to find there a series of disconnected events, to be casually noted and recalled as a series of passing curiosities. One way to make history more alive is to place ourselves in the picture. For example, we can sometimes make more sense of what we encounter in history when we to use our own experiences to come closer to understanding why characters in the narration behaved as they did, perhaps even seeing our motives and even weaknesses reflected in the choices and actions of others.

For example why did a war break out?  Why did a religion start to go wrong? Because we are no strangers to greed, desire for power, fear of those who are different and so on – finding evidence which relates these  motives to what happens may help us get a feeling for why certain events took place. When it comes to Bible history it is not different.   Our weaknesses help us understand the weaknesses of the main characters.

We would also do well to remember that the history was being set down for the intended audience with the idea that there they might find meaning in the path travelled by those who had gone before – and what was set down was often chosen as encouragement for the challenges that lay on the uncertain path ahead. This process was never intended as non participatory observation.

John Dominic Crossan once suggested that we search for parable in gospel narrative, because as he explained it, regardless of the degree of literal truth or alternately symbolic intention in the record, the events have been at least partly chosen and recorded for the principles they illustrate. If we follow Dom’s suggestion, when we read about Jesus’ post resurrection appearances for their contained parable nature, we may find there some hints and challenges for our own future decision making.

There is much of potential symbolism here. Peter says “I am going fishing“. Despite the recent events of great significance – and if we follow the gospel narrative, despite Peter previously encountering the risen Christ, now he is apparently reluctant to allow it to make any difference to his life. (Imagine learning about Jesus and then living as if it makes no difference…..hmmm…..) So Peter wants to return to his everyday familiar world. The others join him. Peter’s attitude is obviously shared. But they catch nothing. I wonder if it is taking it too far to wonder if this is John reminding us that the way of the world can’t really deliver what we want it to deliver?

But as dawn breaks, the situation changes… Here we find an echo of the prologue of John’s gospel…. “the real light that enlightens men was even then coming into the world”.

Then Jesus is seen on the beach. He is not recognised. This should be unexpected in itself, because he has already appeared twice to the disciples, and yet it seems always he is hard to recognise. He talked with Mary Magdalene and she did not recognise him at first.(20:14) He appeared to his disciples – yet it was not his general appearance that helped them recognise him – it was the nature of his wounds. Thomas met and spoke with him – and again did not recognise Jesus at first. Those disciples on the road to Emmaus had an extended conversation with Jesus and yet did not recognise him until they were prepared to share food with this stranger. Are the gospel writers then reminding us that the risen Christ is not readily recognisable but may be discovered in chance encounters with those who seem ordinary?
Even the fishing setting in today’s gospel may draw us into the story to wonder if the catch Jesus directed the disciples to take that morning might symbolically remind them of disciple-making as a potentially great harvest. Remember in another context with a virtually identical miracle Jesus was said to have introduced the notion of disciples being fishers of men, and the parallel with the other earlier miracle of showing the disciples where to fish seems more than a little coincidental.

Certainly this was different in that it was an encounter with the risen Christ. But notice it was not an “other-worldly” encounter. Jesus typically appeared reluctant to communicate via a so-called religious setting and instead found meaning in the ordinary. The farmer sowing seed, the gathering for a wedding feast, the act of baking bread, the shared meal, the fishermen at their tasks, breakfast on the beach, these were Jesus’ vehicles for the divine.

Our religious thinking is traditionally very different. For many, religious thinking is reserved for the artificial setting of a Church service. There we set up our religious formulae. We may for example think that because Jesus died on the Cross for our sins and somehow put everything right this was presumably why he got resurrected? So does this mean all we have to do is believe that this wonder of resurrection happened and humankind is somehow saved? Surely it does not take a degree in theology to notice that in the intervening years all is not well with the world. Peace has not mysteriously broken out and if anything some of the wars are worse than they were in Jesus’ day. Disease is not a thing of the past particularly with the current fear of pandemics, environmental degradation is already contributing to localised famine and as a consequence we can now witness the relatively new phenomenon of large scale displacement of environmental refugees. If we are honest we should also admit that sin, even amongst Christians, is still a serious concern.

Well as it happens, we do not find the risen Jesus saying to Peter everything is now OK.

Remember the background. Even when Peter first recognised Jesus as the Messiah Jesus had warned him that he was going to fail at the critical time. (John 13: 36 -38) Peter, presumably and quite understandably is reported as trying to avoid being associated with Jesus after he had been taken for trial. Three times he had denied Jesus in accordance with Jesus’ claim that despite his protestations this was what he would be going to do. (18: 25 -27) And who could blame him. With the authorities out to silence Jesus and his supporters, it takes a particular type of courage to speak up when danger threatens.

So what does Jesus do? He provides a charcoal fire-this time for fish. Last time Peter was at a charcoal fire it was in the courtyard, the evening of Jesus’ trial, when Peter had been asked if he was a friend and supporter of Jesus. Please notice Jesus doesn’t now say everything is now OK. His three times repeated question “Do you love me?” is presumably intended to remind Peter of this three-fold denial – and we might at least understand Peter becoming very uncomfortable at the way the conversation was going. But notice Jesus is not so much forgiving Peter as giving him the challenge of a three-fold commission.

Nearly every time Jesus is recorded as appearing to his followers after the resurrection event there is a commission of some sort involved. So if Peter is genuine about his claim to love Jesus, we can understand Jesus saying by implication….. in that case you need to feed my lambs, tend my sheep and feed my sheep. Clearly Jesus is charging Peter with the commission to show caring leadership in the turbulent times ahead.

But notice too that to receive the call is not the same as to arrive at “mission accomplished”. Peter’s career as leader of the early Church was not all smooth sailing. I suspect the reason why his nature resonates with so many today is that Peter had a very human set of genuine strengths and serious weaknesses. Thus we find that Peter and Paul did not work smoothly together, so we find Paul identifying some of Peter’s areas of failure and weakness. The other significant leader of the early Church, James, eventually found Peter so frustrating that he moved him sideways in leadership.

Tradition finds Peter eventually sorting himself out and a number of the early Church writings have Peter dying for his faith in Rome.
Because we too sometimes find ourselves challenged into new areas, it is helpful to remind ourselves that in practice commissions are not always accepted, and even when they are accepted they are by no means all carried through. The Roman Church has always made a great deal of the Papal succession which they see as traced back to Peter. Yet history shows that, like with Peter himself, there is a mixture of success and failure in this succession. Some of the Popes were terrible, with age old weaknesses for power seeking, greed and even lust. The Borgias with their penchant for murder and corruption were hardly leading in the same sense of sense of Jesus’ commission to Peter. Yet at its best we can also see the potential of wise, humble and compassionate leadership.

In the coming months it will be interesting to note how the newly appointed Pope works to focus on his very Christian sounding goals. He has made a good start in his efforts to refocus the Church on the teaching of Jesus. It will also be interesting to observe how many in his Church will be inspired to join him in his mission and how many will refuse to be moved from a position of defiant immobility. Just because a leader gets it right it does not followers that his or her followers will do the same.

Notice too Peter’s commission was encountered in Peter’s every day world of fishing. Although our respective challenges will not necessarily be the same as that given to Peter, as with Peter our personal challenge is likely to start in our own setting.

We don’t have to restrict ourselves to theologians and Church leaders to gain insight into what it might mean to respond. But notice for Peter the tasks are not proscribed in detail. The commission may indeed be based on an older form of life and there is nothing wrong with that. New shoots can come off an old root. But the direction of growth will depend on where the source of light is to be found. … or as John put it, “the real light that enlightens”.

The other day I was introduced to the writing of Professor John Schaar from the University of California who identified one important human principle in the following:

“The future is not a result of choices among alternative paths offered by the present, but a place that is created–created first in the mind and will, created next in activity. The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them, changes both the maker and the destination”.

The one with the commission for our journey into that future may be the one standing there on the beach in dawn’s early light. Perhaps he is yet to be recognised.

Lectionary sermon for 7 April 2013 (Easter 2) on John 20 : 19-31

Those who use the expression “a Doubting Thomas” to heap scorn on those who question some aspect of faith would do well to check out the story of Thomas a little more carefully. Even in the fragmentary glimpses of Thomas in the gospels, we get a hint that Thomas is a man to be reckoned with.

Thomas gets hardly a mention in the four New Testament gospels, but before we get to his famous doubts, we might also remember that earlier when the disciples are trying to talk Jesus out of visiting Lazarus who was understood to have just died, and what’s more a dead Lazarus in the very area where villagers had previously attempted to stone Jesus, it was Thomas who reportedly said: “Let us also go, that we may die with him”. He may later have expressed doubts about Jesus coming back to life, but in the Lazarus episode he was showing clear signs of courage. Tradition makes the further claim that Thomas subsequently made his way as a missionary, first to Persia and then onto to South India where he was eventually martyred. This was hardly the mark of someone perpetually paralyzed by doubt.

As John the gospel writer tells the story, we tend to forget that Thomas was entitled to his doubts in that unlike the other disciples he had not already seen the risen Christ.

Certainly sometimes doubts can be corrosive, but Thomas used his doubts in a constructive manner. His challenge to meet with the risen Christ is portrayed by John as a test, and since Thomas presumably went on to use whatever he had discovered to inspire him to become a missionary, if anything his doubts appeared to lead to a firmer faith. If we put ourselves in Thomas’s place, doubting even seems more rational than credulity. The equivalent for us today might be watching a good friend die – then later going to the funeral home to pay our respects, only to be met by a stranger telling us “Sorry, he’s gone. He came back to life and he is out there somewhere.” Be honest. Would you accept that without question? And even more to the point, would Thomas have been wise to accept such an outrageous claim without question.

Remember too that in one sense the claims are still outrageous. Since the Bible is a curious amalgam of patchy history, poetry, culture, inspiration, parable, myth and praise, it is always hard to be certain which narrative parts are being recorded as history and which parts are closer to parable to encourage us in faith. Even if we are of a mind to see faith in terms of a catechism in which the thinking is left to Church leaders who instruct us as to the acceptable answers to all the tricky questions, it seems to me that all the best answers have always come from squarely facing one’s own honest doubts.

Certainly it is true that Thomas’ doubts do not seem to have been remembered with affection by Christians through the centuries, yet we might wonder if this had its root in the gospel writers’ respective theological differences. Thomas, whose gospel was claimed to predate the other New Testament gospels, had Gnostic traditions interwoven with teachings of Jesus used by the other gospel writers. This may help explain why his gospel got voted out of the final collection of books chosen for the New Testament. We might also note in passing that for the most part the gospel attributed to Thomas was mainly of sayings of Jesus and was clearly less mystical and more down to earth than a good part of the Gospel of John. Some scholars have even suggested John’s version of Thomas as a doubter , was added later to undermine Thomas’s credentials as a rival gospel author.

For those who find it hard to countenance a Bible where editorial policy has helped shape the narrative just remember that the four gospels already differ in detail when they report the same events.(See for example my article “Shaping God”). We now know for example some verses were added some years later by an unknown author to flesh out Mark’s version of the death of Jesus at the end of Mark’s gospel. We know from earlier versions these verses were missing and they did not appear till well after the original author had died. Other changes have also been noted in other of the New Testament books, so it is reasonable to at least acknowledge later editing as a possibility.

One set of traditions claim Thomas was not only sometimes known as Didymus = the twin ( ie the Aramaic for Thomas gives us Tau’ma or T’oma also meaning twin) but within the traditions some have gone further and claimed he was no less than the twin of Jesus. If this was actually the case it goes without saying that this would have serious consequences for anyone insisting on the reality of the story of the Virgin Birth. However the notion of Thomas being the Twin of Jesus is also thought to lend a little credence to the implication in one of the Nag Hammadi texts (the Book of Thomas the Contender), in which Jesus himself is quoted as saying: “Now since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion…….” If there was this family connection, this may even have been why another book “The Infancy Gospel of Jesus” purporting to tell the story of Jesus early childhood is also attributed to Thomas.

At the same time these traditions are still important. There is absolutely no doubt that a Thomas who by all accounts appears to be the apostle Thomas was a major figure in starting the Church of South India. The Catholic church also highly values the Thomas traditions and one of their major teachings, the assumption of Mary to heaven, lists Thomas as the only witness to this event.

It is hard to be certain of how much the record of readings attributed to Thomas or for that matter miracles later attributed to Thomas in India, are based on fanciful recollections by his later admirers.

My personal favourite Thomas story is one which has Thomas as architect and builder in South India getting the commission to build King Gundaphorus (sp?) a lavish palace. Thomas allegedly decided to teach the King a lesson by giving the large sum of money for the project away to the poor. According to the story, when the outraged King got wind of this trick, Thomas’s defence was that he was building the king a Palace in heaven with this act of charity. My own cynicism has me wondering if in fact Thomas would have been able to avoid death if he had actually tried that on any autocratic ruler of the age in that part of the world, but I still like the story.

In an even more improbable example in the Infancy Gospel of Jesus, there is the story of a five year old Jesus carving some sparrows out of wood on the Sabbath, only have them then come to life and fly away. This would be miracle indeed, but clearly quite different in type to the miracles in New Testament gospels.

Please don’t hear me saying that my doubts about the literal truth of some of the events and stories attributed to Thomas therefore mean the stories have no value. All significant figures in history have a degree of accompanying mythology and, like Jesus’ parables, the values that emerge from the stories are where their real worth may lie.

I guess I am also implying that some dimensions of faith require a healthy scepticism, but in the same way that Thomas could express his doubts in an open and honest way without abandoning his faith altogether I suspect that ultimately we must be free to ask our questions and do our own thinking before we settle on the main directions for our lives.

There are some forms of doubts which lead to progress. I would like to suggest that the natural scepticism towards current scientific understanding shown by most of the now famous scientists was actually the key to their progress. Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science used to say that it is only when you try to disprove an accepted theory that science moves forward. I suspect that has been the same for the prophets and theologians through the centuries. The first believers in primitive Judaism were satisfied that their limited tribal notions of a localized and partisan God were quite sufficient and it took first the prophets and finally Jesus himself to show why this notion of faith deserved to be doubted. And historically this process did not stop with Jesus. Christian ethics have been continually doubted, questioned and reshaped to deal with the needs of a changing society. Slavery and blind nationalism, at one time cornerstones of tribal society, have gradually given way to understanding that neighbors do not have to share one’s own religion or status level in the community. The assumption that all disease and disaster had religious cause has been modified as science has informed us about the causes of disease. In the same way our growing understanding about the universe and the laws of nature has caused us to question previous superstitions about the night skies.

Since conditions for the World’s communities have continued to change we now have a whole raft of new problems to face. Now we can produce more food by mass food production techniques a whole series of issues relating to the fair distribution of this food are currently being debated.

We need those who can express their doubts about traditional trade practice and resource management regardless of what may have worked in the past. Love your neighbor needs new expression in changed circumstances.

In an age where physical strength was valued, it made sense to have a male dominated society. In a modern society where education rather than physical strength is the basis of leadership, it makes sense to re-evaluate the respective roles of males and females. To doubt the aspects of faith designed to retain the old values of male domination is not automatically anti-Christian. Since biblical statements about role were designed for a now out-dated culture the ethics that came from that culture also need rewriting.

Advances in medicine mean we now have the problem of euthanasia to consider for those being kept artificially alive long past the expected life span. Advances in weapons research mean we now have to reassess when war is morally acceptable.

There are those who object to all advances of thinking on the grounds that today’s understandings confront us with ideas incompatible with what the forefathers in religion used to believe. And a flat earth society still exists! Remember it was the orthodox Church who took Galileo to task for questioning that the Earth was the centre of the universe, just as their predecessors had done earlier when “heretics” had first suggested that the Earth was not flat nor supported on pillars as the Psalmist had asserted. It was the Bible literalists who objected to the science of geology casting doubts on a six thousand year old Earth, and no doubt there will always be those who dare not question lest they find that their comfortable certainties are threatened.

Because we are blessed with those who continue to use their doubts to help sort out their thinking and those who insist that apparently unreasonable assumptions are tested, we can be certain that transforming knowledge will continue to grow. Whether or not we are brave enough to do our own testing, and allow it to extend the horizons of our own faith is a question for our own individual life story.

Lectionary Sermon for Easter Sunday 31 March 2013 on Luke 24: 1-12

“Christ is risen!”
And they all replied….. “Christ is risen indeed”.

Although a good part of the world’s Christian population would probably be comfortable making such a response, if there should be a supplementary question, “What do you mean by that?” do you think this might leave more than a few struggling to find the words to explain exactly what they meant?

Clearly different people use the word “resurrection” in different ways.. For example the leader of the Rise Up Australia Party claims to have performed the miracle of resurrection on a small girl who had recently died and for whom he had prayed. Others would say Jesus was bodily resurrected, then later taken up to heaven and that this resurrection could only have happened to Jesus. Still others claim that the mortal remains of Jesus almost certainly will be decaying somewhere in Israel and that although Jesus lives on, he does so through those who are inspired to live out his principles. Just for the record, in recent years, archaeologists have made at least two separate claims to have found the ossuary containing the bones of Jesus which, if their claims should ever turn out to be true, would seem to suggest bodily resurrection may not have been an option.

Even when we turn to the experts, we find it is not exactly settled. Many books on the topic have been written by many very wise scholars. On one side we have those like the wonderful but conservative scholar Bishop N T Wright (perhaps known by many as Tom Wright from his more popular writing) arguing persuasively for the Biblical support for Jesus dying and being brought back to life and on the other, those like Lloyd Geering and Tom Wright’s friend Marcus Borg who are equally persuasive arguing for a more rational and scientific interpretation. Unfortunately as well as these warm hearted and sincere scholars there are those whose beliefs on both sides of this debate lead them to be derisory and dismissive of anyone whose belief differs from their own, and in this I would have to admit liberals are no better than the Bible literalists.

There is no shortage of scholarly breakthroughs and yet, if anything the mystery of the resurrection has deepened and the debate has become steadily more schizophrenic with the passing of the years. Collective wisdom is sometimes worse than individual wisdom and the church in its history has also had times when those obsessed with glimpses of truth have allowed their true selves to become distorted in the extreme. Henry the eighth having the monasteries burned and having key supporters of the Roman Church executed was not exactly acting in the Spirit of Christ – and nor were the witch burners of Salem or the torturers acting on behalf of the inquisition.

About three years ago Todd Freeman with a picturesque turn of phrase suggested some of the Church proponents in the debate have been somewhat akin to Gollum, that wretched obsessed creature in the Lord of the Rings, who in one scene in the Second film of the Trilogy is caught up in a debate with his own alter ego. Gollum recognises in the ring with its magical writing of truth there is something precious – “my precious” he calls it…. yet in his desire to possess the ring he has lost sight of the gentle hobbit-like creature he knows he once has been and instead has become a creature possessed. And it isn’t a pretty sight.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the scholarly and careful academic bible lecturer David Frederick Strauss. David Strauss was the young 19th century German theologian who in writing his book entitled (in translation), the life of Jesus, patiently and painstakingly examined the gospels, showing how the various story threads had been constructed from previous fragments, how the gospel stories had woven in myth with truth, how they had borrowed from one another, how they contradicted in detail and yet how they were true to their main themes.

In its day it was truly a great work of scholarship – and since he first published his work other theologians have built on his work, and many, if not most serious Bible scholars now acknowledge his part in helping them through to what we have learned since. However what is rather sad is that he was far from appreciated at the time. When he published his work it outraged some of the more conservative thinkers who demanded that he be dismissed. The Earl of Shaftesbury assessed the 1846 translation of David Strauss’ book into English as being: “the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell.” And many in Europe would have echoed his words.

I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to argue David Strauss was correct in all his claims. For one thing, thanks to the scholars we have now have much clearer ideas about Jesus’ life and setting and understand far more about how the gospels came to be assembled, yet the one thing Strauss had got absolutely right was that his journey was to find out for himself what it meant.

Certainly each of the Gospels, as Frederick Buechner points out, tells a different story. The Gospels don’t agree on all the facts, but instead give us, in Beuchner’s words, a “narrative (that) is as fragmented, shadowy, and incomplete as life itself.” And just as David Strauss tried to clarify his thinking on what it meant to him, each of us, in our turn, have to do the same. Many have walked this same path and are still on this journey – their lives enriching the lives of others.

In that our own individual grasp of the truth will always be fragmentary, I am not altogether sure that it matters that others may suggest that our current understanding is wrong or incomplete. Yet given that some have also responded to this challenge in the past by being thoroughly unpleasant about others’ interpretations, one way of self checking on the value of the resurrection to us as individuals is to reflect on the changes it has wrought in our own lives. For example, has the gospel for us given us a form of liberation of the Spirit which causes us to see our fellows in a more compassionate light? Or have we seized selfishly on the message in such a way it is encouraging us to be mean spirited?

Recently I attended the funeral of one I believe to have been the oldest Methodist minister in New Zealand, the Rev Ted Baker, a man I had come to know as a man of simple faith with a highly developed sense of compassion. He was widely respected and indeed although I was his minister only for the last few years of his life, I can’t say I ever heard anyone criticise Ted. One of Ted’s favourite sayings is one that I am coming more and more to respect. “The messenger is the message”.

Although Ted was well read he was not himself a published scholar. He was however inspired and committed to the gospel and even when I thought him to be poorly informed about whatever topic we happened to be discussing at the time, it was clear to me he was a very good ambassador for Christ. He encouraged others to follow on the same journey he was walking and several ministers told me that it was Ted who had first challenged them into ministry. He was an excellent visitor in his various parishes and very good at counselling the bereaved. I am sure that like all travellers on that particular journey he was making the best he could from the narrative, despite the fact it was “fragmented, shadowy and incomplete as life itself”

How do we know Easter is true then? Not from the historical or scientific analysis of the shadowed – and dare I say partly contradictory fragments. Nor, I would stress, do we know the truth of Easter even from the gospels – for there the record is clearly incomplete. We do however learn more from the long lives of those like Ted who have taken the gospel message seriously and give it integrity by the way they live as gospel messengers. We also learn much from the much longer story of the Church where the history of the best (and worst) followers is on show for all to see. The messenger is always more than a disinterested reporter, and indeed unless each messenger has come to be telling a story which is a part of their own life, why need we listen?

Those first witnesses of the empty tomb and those who followed were ordinary people encountering Easter, not in a carefully contrived service of worship where the presentation of truth is organised for religious effect, but rather in the midst of their own personal settings among all their realities and worries. Some were clearly puzzled and disturbed by what confronted them, some were frightened and some wanted to know more. Yet the truth that they perceived only took shape as they took their experiences and challenges and shared them with others.

So is the resurrection a truth the world needs? Although there may be wildly different interpretations of the actual resurrection event –I want to suggest that from all corners of the Christian Church there would be agreement that the main consequence of resurrection is to believe that Christ is still truly relevant to life. The problems of life don’t sound particularly religious in that they have to do with such matters as human squabbles, with inequalities in the distribution of food and other vital resources, with economic problems, with the environment, disparities in trade, refugees and all the threats and consequences of war. Yet the solutions to all these problems are very much to do with issues of justice, tolerance, freedom, compassion and care for generations yet to come. In short to do with the message introduced and lived by Jesus and now the continuing gospel message. To show by our thoughts, words and actions that we too value these issues, which happens to be the very same message Jesus put on the line when he faced the cross – surely this is to become a part of the resurrection message.

The statement “Christ is risen” is affirmed most clearly by those who live the message.
“Christ is Risen”.

And we reply……
“He is risen indeed”.