DOROTHY L SAYERS on Jesus the Man

"For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is - limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death - he had the honesty and courage to take his own medicine. Whatever game he is playing with his creation, he has kept his own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that he has not exacted from himself. He has himself gone through the whole human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. When he was a man, he played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile."

From 'The Man Born to be King' by Dorothy L. Sayers

Cell Poem

This is a poem we made in our cell - each person putting together a few lines based around a word taken from an alphabetical list of names for God. This is the (alphabetised!) result.

I really enjoyed the result and was impressed by how creative a group we are :)


Forgiver of debts;
Everything we owe
You paid yourself.

Glorious God, do we see you in your full glory?
If we saw your glory could we stand?
How overwhelming, Lord, that we can, like Moses, see you in your glory
and live.

Your awesome Holiness is so beautiful,
Revealing your pureness; showing your love
In the greatest way possible.
You are Holy; you are like no other.

Immanuel
God with us.
God: huge, universe-creating, nation-toppling, miracle-causing God
with us
In our weakness
In our pain, our brokenness
In our joys & in our sorrows
In our humanity.
Now alive within us,
Bringing life to dead bodies,
Light to dark recesses.
Immanuel.

Teacher: patiently explaining,
Gently upbraiding;
Sharing understanding,
Righteously demanding.

Unchanging One
You are still the mighty God
That spoke the world into being.
Forever you will be powerful.
You are still the merciful God
that sent his Son to die for us .
Forever we are yours.

Lord, you are the
Unchanging one.
From everlasting to
everlasting you are God. Unshakable,
dependable, always faithful.
Circumstances change, but you
remain the same.

Questions from Feminist Theology

I went along to Theology 101 at church today and, apart from being perhaps the first Soup and Theology I've been to without Chris, and missing his particular brand of "Jubious theology" :) , I quite enjoyed learning about feminist theology...

Mark was doing 'What's Right About Feminism?'

Lots to critique in the texts, but I was left with some interesting questions and counter-questions:

• Given that the Bible was written by male authors, did it have to be this way?
• Would the Bible have been essentially different if it had been written by women? Assuming that it would have been, at least to some degree, different, what does this say about the nature of truth? Could it still have been the Word of God? (perhaps a meaningless question.. Scripture is as it is.)
  
• Did the Bible have to have been written by men? Was this a reflection of the (male-dominated) culture, or was it supposed to be this way - determining cultural norms? As in a hegemony, which comes first - the reality or the interpretation of that reality as normative? In other words, perhaps controversially, is the patriachal hermeneutic divinely ordained or the product of a fallen society obsessed with holding power over others? Or is it somewhere between the two?
  

These are complicated questions and raise questions about the authority and authorship of the Bible. Part of the answer may rest on how we see the divine / human authorship of the Bible. But asking 'could it have been otherwise?' is much the same as 'could it have been other?' and leads us onto difficult and possibly dangerous ground. Scripture defines itself.

I'm not normally a fan of feminism, but I have to admit these are interesting questions. Ultimately of course, we know Scripture - as it stands - as God's word and I'm not about to dispute that. But I do think it's a sensible idea to treat texts with a 'hermeneutic of suspicion' at times - as long as you remember to question this hermeneutic as well! As a good friend used to say, 'I'm learning to question my doubts'.

I also think it's important to learn from the way feminist theologians are explicit about their hermeneutical agenda, not claiming to be unbiased or objective. I have some serious issues with some of their conclusions, but I do think they raise some important issues about the importance of questionning our own hermeneutics and use of language.

However, at the end of the day I want to remember that we're involved in a searching for the Truth - above liberation, freedom, 'correctness', or anything else. Because we believe that ultimately Truth is a person (John 14.6), and he alone gives true freedom.

...Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. ...if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." John 8.31-36

God IN the story

I've been struck recently on the amazingness of 'God IN the story'. That it makes no sense at all to talk about God being 'unchanging' - partly because of the compassion issue - but primarily because of the incarnation. God is not so 'outside' time to the extent that it makes nonsense of the fact that at a particular time in history he changed in his very being... humanity has been 'added' to God (thus says the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity!). Yes, God's character has not changed, but fundamentally something has been added to his very being and importantly this has happened IN history. Wow!

'Party on!'

The first miracle (or sign) in John's Gospel is the Wedding in Cana where Jesus turns the water into wine. I heard Steve Chalke point out that in a world of poverty and brokenness, the miracle he chooses to do first is to provide more wine for some people who were probably already less than sober! As Steve puts it, it's Jesus' first miracle, and it's "Drinks on me!" A reminder that the kingdom of God is something of a party and Jesus says to us, 'Come on in, let's party!'*


*See also Mt 8.11, Mt 22.1-14, Lk 14.15-24, Rev 3.20 ... :-)

The Gate of the Year

I said to the man
Who stood at the gate of the year,
“Give me a light that I may tread safely
into the unknown.”

And he replied,
“Go out into the darkness
and put your hand into the hand of God
That shall be to you
Better than the light
And safer than a known way!”

So I went forth
And finding the hand of God
Trod gladly into the light.

Minnie Louise Haskins, 1908

God as Engineer or Programmer?

I enjoyed this excerpt from the 'Christianity and Science' chapter of Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll And David Shiflett.

Some clerics, such as the Dominican friar Giovanni de San Gimignano (d. 1323), actually encouraged sermonizing on technical topics. He included in his encyclopedia for preachers a description of everything from windmills to fortifications, to glass making. For that matter, observes Gimpel, "the greatest homage the Middle Ages offered the architect-engineer was to represent the Almighty, in thirteenth and fourteenth century miniatures, as an architect-engineer Himself, measuring the universe with a large compass. It is as if today, in film on the Almighty, God were to be represented programming a computer."

G K CHESTERTON on the eternal appetite

A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.

G. K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy

Touch and see

Continuing my reflections on the Incarnation...

I was struck on Sunday to recall the story of Thomas at the end of John's Gospel and the nature of his declaration of faith, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas' statement of belief, the first of its kind in the Gospels, reads as an almost immediate response to Jesus' appearance amongst the disciples and his invitation to Thomas to touch and see that his wounds are real. Thomas is the first person to declare that Jesus is God, and although this is partly a response to Jesus' resurrection and new life, it is significant to find it following a demonstration not of Godly power, but of human life.

Jesus invites Thomas to touch him and affirm his reality, his bodily life, his humanity - still showing the marks of pain and death. In this short interaction we find an illustration of some of the magic and the paradox of the incarnation. Thomas recognises Jesus divinity, not in spite of his humanity but through it. Jesus wants Thomas to know that he is real, that he has bodily life, and is not just a spirit. But in this very human demonstration, Thomas suddenly sees the fullness of who Jesus is, Lord and God.

CS Lewis on Time

We are so little reconciled to time that we are even astonished at it. "How he's grown!" we exclaim, "How time flies!" as though the universal form of our experience were again and again a novelty. It is as strange as if a fish were repeatedly surprised at the wetness of water. And that would be strange indeed; unless of course the fish were destined to become, one day, a land animal.

CS Lewis in Reflections on the Psalms

Feel it?

'Worship is like love: the more you do it the more you feel it.'

Jesus said, "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Luke 12:34) I've heard this amusingly referred to as "where your investment is, there your interest will be also." There's so much truth in this - in the same way we closely follow the fortunes of our material investments, our hearts are also interested in our investments of time and energy. Jesus is talking about storing up treasure in heaven, making the point that if we invest more deeply in God's kingdom, then our eyes and hearts will inevitably follow.

When we worship, as when we love, we make an 'investment' in something other than ourselves. It's a mysterious truth that when we invest time and energy in a relationship, when we give our focus and attention to someone else, we find ourselves caring about them more than when we begun. That seems backwards to most people - why would you want to invest in someone you didn't care about? Why would you show love to someone that you didn't feel love towards?

I've been reflecting on the way we often seem to have that same sense when we come to worship God. But it would be a poor show if we only worshipped when we felt like it. Yes, our worship should be true and more than mere words, but my sense is that - like love - it ultimately springs from a decision, rather than an emotion. We ultimately worship, not because we feel like it, or even because God feels particularly real to us today or He's answered our prayers (although these are all good reasons!), but because He is overwhelmingly worthy of praise.

We sung Tim Hughes' song Almighty God last night, which reminds us that "If we did not praise, the rocks would cry out". There's obviously a lot more that could be said on the majesty and awesomeness of God, but I hope you'll be able to fill in the gaps...

My current reflection, however, is based on my initial statement. It is my experience, and I imagine I am not alone, that worshipping God, whether it started as a 'natural' response, or a conscious decision, tends to make us more worshipful. I apologise if this seems completely obvious to you; it is the first time I have articulated it this way. I notice in myself, particularly in singing songs of worship, but also in reading worship in scripture, that my feelings of wonder and thankfulness and, well, worship, tend to increase with use. In general, the more I worship, the more I feel like worshipping.

My cynical self wonders if this is in some way related to the way we often worship in groups, encouraging each other, or the way in which music tends to improve our mood generally. But since both of these aspects feature heavily in worship throughout Scripture, I can't help but conclude that any positive effect they have is altogether intended. In fact, both seem almost designed for worship. The Church is foremost a worshipping community, and if any creative expression has supernatural dimensions, it is surely music.

God in her arms

Mary, did you know that your baby boy
is Lord of all creation?
Mary, did you know that your baby boy
will one day rule the nations?

Did you know that your baby boy
is Heaven's perfect Lamb?
The sleeping child you're holding
is the great I Am!

From the song 'Mary, Did You Know?', by Mark Lowry and Buddy Greene.

I came across this song today on an old CD, remembering how much I like it, despite the cheesiness. For me, it captures perfectly some of the thrilling impossibilities of the Incarnation. Reminds me of a joking comment made half-seriously by a (believing) friend earlier in the week: "How can an infinite God be contained in a finite body? It doesn't make sense!"

The question is brought into even starker relief in this song. In the Gospels our account of Jesus is of an adult, mature and in control, but here we're reminded that Mary held the Creator of the universe asleep in her arms. As an earlier line in the song puts it: "When you kiss your little baby, you kiss the face of God!"

Wow! What an incredible mystery, a miracle beyond miracles. The Lord of creation, "through whom all things were created" (1 John 3) was himself created as a little baby, who fed and cried like any other. As Philippians 2:7 states, this is a God who "emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness."

And I thought quantum physics was crazy!

PAUL on avoiding captivity

Colossians 2:2-4, 8

"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no-one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments...

See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
(NIV)

"I want you woven into a tapestry of love, in touch with everything there is to know of God. Then you will have minds confident and at rest, focused on Christ, God's great mystery. All the richest treasures of wisdom and knowledge are embedded in that mystery and nowhere else. And we've been shown the mystery! I'm telling you this because I don't want anyone leading you off on some wild-goose chase, after other so-called mysteries, or 'the Secret.'"
(The Message)

Colossians 2: 20-23

"Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!'? These are all designed to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."
(NIV)

"So, then, if with Christ you've put all that pretentious and infantile religion behind you, why do you let yourselves be bullied by it? 'Don't touch this! Don't taste that! Don't go near this!' Do you think things that are here today and gone tomorrow are worth that kind of attention? Such things sound impressive if said in a deep enough voice. They even give the illusion of being pious and humble and ascetic. But they're just another way of showing off, making yourselves look important."
(The Message)

We've been considering in cell the mystery of Christ revealed to our minds (as well as our hearts), and what it is to grow in understanding and knowledge, something Paul brings up again and again in the early section of Colossians. It's striking to read Eugene Peterson's take on the passage in The Message version.

CS LEWIS on Divine Humility

"I call this Divine humility because it is a poor thing to strike our colours to God when the ship is going down under us; a poor thing to come to Him as a last resort, to offer up 'our own' when it is no longer worth keeping. If God were proud He would hardly have us on such terms: but He is not proud, He stoops to conquer. He will have us even though we have shown that we prefer everything else to Him, and come to Him because there is 'nothing better' now to be had."

(from The Problem of Pain)

"For your sake, O my God"

"Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name." (Daniel 9:18-19)

I have previously posted on praying in Jesus' name, but I started thinking again this evening about what it means to pray for the sake of God's name.

In Deuteronomy 9 Moses tells the Israelites that the LORD will give them victory not because of their own righteousness, (on the contrary they are "a stiff-necked people"), but because of the promise he made to their forefathers. He reminds them of their rebellion 40 years earlier at Mount Horeb and points out, "You have been rebellious against the LORD ever since I have known you." (v.24) Moses reminds them that he lay prostate before the LORD for 40 days and 40 nights praying for them, because they had made the LORD angry and he said he would destroy them.

As he prays, Moses is clear-headed enough to realise that the Israelites deserve judgement and the only thing left in their favour is that they are the LORD's own, that they are called by his name:

"Overlook the stubborness of this people, their wickedness and their sin. Otherwise, the country from which you brought us will say, 'Because the LORD was not able to take them into the land he had promised them, and because he hated them, he brought them out to put them to death in the desert.' But they are your people, your inheritance that you brought out by your great power and your outstretched arm."

It's almost as if Moses is appealing to God's pride, for lack of a better word. For better or worse, He has staked his reputation (his 'name') and his honour on rescuing the Israelites, and has promised to bring them to the promised land. So there's really no option...

The LORD doesn't reply directly at first, but he invites Moses to return up the mountain with some new stone tablets (he broke the first set) - a 'let's try this again'.

Moses ends the recollection by recounting God's almost-resigned instruction to get going:

"'Go,' the LORD said to me, 'and lead the people on their way, so that they may enter and possess the land that I swore to their fathers to give them.'"


(On a side note, while these are a people who define themselves by their relationship with "the LORD our God", their God most frequently references himself by relationship with them: "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.")


In John's Gospel, Jesus' encouragment to ask 'in my name' is tied together with his identification of himself with the Father:

"How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? ... And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." (John 14:9-14)

And again, in John 16:

"Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no-one will take away your joy. In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now, you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will recieve, and your joy will be complete.

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf." (v. 22-26)

And later, in his prayer in John 17:
"Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me - so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me." (v.11-12)

God has given his name to Jesus - which is why Jesus is able to refer to himself as 'I am' (most clearly in John 8:58). In other words, to pray in Jesus' name is to pray in God's name. When he tells the disciples that they haven't asked in his name up to this point (v. 24), he's saying that they haven't recognised just who he is. To ask in Jesus' name is to recognise that he is Lord and God.

"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
(Philippians 2:9-11)

What name has God given Jesus, the 'name above every name', except his own?


This deserves further reflection, but I'll leave it there for this evening. Comments or ideas anyone?

"What do you want me to do for you?"

I've been reading Mark's Gospel recently, and earlier this week I was reflecting on a series of stories in Mark 10. The chapter ends with two, apparently unconnected, stories: James and John ask for places of honour in Jesus' kingdom, and blind beggar Bartimaeus receives his sight.

At first glance, little connection is apparent, but both incidents are tied together by a simple question: "What do you want me to do for you?"

Jesus asks this question twice, to James and John and later to Bartimaeus, and he receives two very different responses.

• James and John: "They replied, 'Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.'" (v.37)
• Bartimaeus: "The blind man said, 'Rabbi, I want to see.'"

In many ways, James' and John's request actually reflects a vote of confidence in Jesus. They are picturing a glorious ending, where Jesus is king in Jerusalem and they, as his trusted disciples, will share in his rule. But their question also reveals how poorly they have understood what Jesus has been saying. He has just been explaining to them (in v.32-34) - for the third time and in the clearest possible language - how he will be put to death in Jerusalem:

"They will condemn [the Son of Man] to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him." (v.33-34)

Tom Wright points out that the disciples probably thought (or preferred to think) that Jesus was talking in pictures, as he often did, and did not mean literally. After all, he closes with the mysterious: "Three days later he will rise."

But clearly their request is born in their ambition and Jesus gently denies their request, warning them that they don't know what they're asking for. He takes the opportunity to describe once again the upside-down nature of the new kingdom: "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (v.43).

Bartimaeus' request is also a personal one. He doesn't ask for world peace, or for power or riches, he wants to see. And he is healed immediately.

"'Go,' said Jesus, 'your faith has healed you.'" (v.52)

It's interesting to remember that the last time we come across a story of a blind man being healed, in Mark 8, it follows directly on from Jesus berating his disciples about their lack of understanding and their failure to see:

"Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your heart's hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?" (Mark 8:17-18)

Again, in this chapter, Mark follows a story about the disciples' lack of understanding with one about a blind man receiving his sight. In setting these stories against each other, Mark leaves us asking where the real blindness lies.

I'm left pondering my own answer to Jesus' question: "What do you want me to do for you?" How often do I assume I've got the picture of what God's doing, wanting to get involved, wanting to gain influence and status? Or do I answer honestly out of my weakness and need: "I want to see."

The Pulley - GEORGE HERBERT

WHEN God at first made Man,
Having a glass of blessings standing by—
Let us (said He) pour on him all we can;
Let the world's riches, which dispersèd lie,
Contract into a span.

So strength first made a way,
Then beauty flow'd, then wisdom, honour, pleasure:
When almost all was out, God made a stay,
Perceiving that, alone of all His treasure,
Rest in the bottom lay.

For if I should (said He)
Bestow this jewel also on My creature,
He would adore My gifts instead of Me,
And rest in Nature, not the God of Nature:
So both should losers be.

Yet let him keep the rest,
But keep them with repining restlessness;
Let him be rich and weary, that at least,
If goodness lead him not, yet weariness
May toss him to My breast.

Cravings

In my earlier post Henri Nouwen ends the quoted section with the following:

"It is a world that fosters addictions because what it offers cannot satisfy the deepest craving of my heart."

It left me reflecting on cravings and addictions, and I remembered these verses from Ecclesiastes:

"I have seen the burden God has laid upon men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." (Ecclesiastes 3:10-11)

People often say that we ought to be content, and whilst I acknowledge the futility and ungraciousness of complaining about life, I fear being satisfied. The deep hunger in us, the heart that longs to be satisfied, is not an accident of our fallen human position (except in the sense that we have rejected the source of satisfaction). As Solomon says in the passage above, God has "set eternity in the hearts of men". He has made in us a heart that desires infinity, a craving that only He will satisfy. The Bible is full of that sense of expectancy: wanting more, being glad that this is not all there is, looking forward to a day when every hunger will be satisfied and every desire fulfilled.

"...but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears...Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Not I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Cor 13:10-13)

We often hear repeated that modern fable about the rich man who, despite owning more than we could imagine, still wants more. It is right to recognise that wealth, or any other earthly thing, will never satisfy but setting aside that deep dissatisfaction is not the answer. I want God to increase that craving in me, but at the same time keep reminding me that I will find my thirst slaked nowhere else.

Searching where it cannot be found

A follow up to my earlier post, here Henri Nouwen reflects on the question: "To whom do I belong? To God or to the world?"

Many of my daily preoccupations suggest that I belong more to the world than to God. A little criticism makes me angry, and a little rejection makes me depressed. A little praise raises my spirits, and a little success excites me. It takes very little to raise me up or thrust me down...

As long as I keep running about asking: "Do you love me? Do you really love me?" I give power to the voices of the world and put myself in bondage because the world is filled with 'ifs'. The world says: "Yes, I love you if you are good-looking, intelligent, and wealthy. I love you if you have a good education, a good job, and good connections. I love you if you produce much, sell much, and buy much." There are endless 'ifs' hidden in the world's love. These 'ifs' enslave me, since it is impossible to respond adequately to all of them. The world's love is and always will be conditional. As long as I keep looking for my true self in the world of conditional love, I will remain 'hooked' to the world - trying, failing, and trying again. It is a world that fosters addictions because what it offers cannot satisfy the deepest craving of my heart.

As ever, Nouwen speaks deep sense. We put ourselves in bondage because tie ourselves to the world's expectations and demands. This is no freedom. And those demands have no power over us except that we give them. I'm reminded of a line in the sonnet 'Batter my heart' by John Donne, which struck me recently:
"But am betroth'd unto your enemy..."

We run around, desperately trying to please, to earn acceptance and love, and all the time we have a heavenly Father, who loves us desperately and is just waiting for us to come home.

HENRI NOUWEN on the Beloved

Henri Nouwen reflects on hearing the voice that says "You are my Beloved, on you my favour rests", from the book 'The Return of the Prodigal Son'.

As the Beloved of my heavenly Father, 'I can walk in the valley of darkness: no evil would I fear.' As the Beloved , I can 'cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils.' Having 'received without charge,' I can 'give without charge.' As the Beloved, I can confront, console, admonish, and encourage without fear of rejection or need for affirmation. As the Beloved, I can suffer persecution without desire for revenge and receive praise without using it as proof of my goodness. As the Beloved, I can be tortured and killed without ever having to doubt that the love that is given to me is stronger than death. As the Beloved, I am free to live and give life, free also to die while giving life.