Cricket and Christianity

Well, cricket season is upon us in the Southern Hemisphere.  For those reading this in such non-cricketing nations as the US, France, or China, my apologies in advance if you don't understand any of my cricket-related references.  If you want to know anything about the basics of cricket, ask any friend who's lived in one of the cricketing nations (Australia, the UK, India, South Africa, the West Indies, Pakistan, New Zealand, Bangladesh ....).

One thing about cricket is that it exists in three basic formats.  (Interestingly, I can compare these three formats to three different styles of Christian worship and ministry -- more about this later.)

The first format is "Test" Cricket.  (Well, it's only called "Test" cricket when it's a match between two national teams, but this longer, classical format is used between local and regional teams as well.)

This is the format of cricket that people joke about.  A match can take up to five days to complete (and still end in a draw).

When cricket enthusiasts say how much they "love cricket", this is usually the form of cricket that they love.  (Similarly, when some non-enthusiasts say they "hate cricket", this is the form of cricket they hate.)

This style of cricket has inspired many such 19th century "sport-as-a-metaphor-for-life" moralisms as "It matters not who won or lost, but how you played the game."

Nevertheless, when a commentator describes a cricketer as a "great cricketer", the measure of the player's greatness is his or her performance in this longer, classical form of the game.

The second format is "Limited-Overs" or "One-day" Cricket.

In the 1970s, for the sake of television, a shorter form of cricket was devised, and it was very controversial at the time.  (I won't get all technical about the format, for the sake of any readers in Nashville, Calais, or Shanghai who may find all the cricket-speak a bit boring.)  Let's just say that potentially thirty-five hours of play spread over five days has become seven hours of play during a single day.  The playing strategies have changed for the different format.  The game is somewhat more fast-paced.  But the way teams score runs or get batsmen out remains the same.

The third format is "Twenty20" Cricket.

Twenty20 is an even shorter and faster form of cricket.  The match is even shorter than One-day, about the length of a baseball or soccer match.  The style of play is even quicker than One-day.  (It's still cricket, however, in terms of the game that's being played.)  There is a lot of entertaining "razzamatazz" associated with the match.  In Australia or the UK, there is the feel of an American baseball match in the attendant sideshow.  In India, the "razzamatazz" approaches that associated with an American football match.

The three styles of cricket all co-exist with each other.   The first two formats most suit a match between national teams, or teams representing English counties or Australian states.  Twenty20 is at its best when played between professional clubs in India (each with a interesting mix of young Indian players and international veterans).  There are questions about the continued viability of the One-day format, now that Twenty20 has become established.

And I see a real parallel between the three formats of cricket and the diverse styles of Christian worship and community that are available in many places today.

First, we have "Test Christianity".

This format of Christianity is found in the classical liturgical denominations (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran), particularly those with a wide diversity of theologies and spiritualities within the one fellowship.  These churches regard worship in terms of a balance of Word and Sacrament.  In these churches, "Tradition" and "Ritual" are not dirty words.  (And, for the most part, both "Tradition" and "Ritual" are living, evolving things in these churches.)

The main paradigm for worship, in this format, is an encounter between the worshippers and the living, triune God.  God is present among the worshipping congregation, and the worshippers experience that presence.

Secondly, there is "One-day Christianity".

This format of Christianity is found among the churches which find their historical roots in the "Protestant" Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Puritan movement of the seventeenth century, and the Wesleyan revival of the eighteenth century (including those formed by ecumenical unions in the twentieth century, such as the Uniting Church in Australia or the United Church of Canada).  While these churches have adapted culturally over the years,  the strong emphasis of these movements upon preaching and teaching has still continued.

While the encounter with God's presence is part of the paradigm for worship in this format, the predominant emphasis of this format (whether the particular style of worship is that of a 1950s "preaching service", a 1970s "all-age family service", or a 1990s "Café-style Fresh Expression") is the need for the members of the congregation to "learn something" about their faith as a result of participating in the worship service.

Thirdly, we also have "Twenty20 Christianity".

Twenty20 Christianity has its roots in various evangelical, Pentecostal, and charismatic religious revivals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  Like Twenty20 cricket, Twenty20 Christianity is much more fast-paced than the two older formats, and it has a lot more "razzamatazz" than the other formats.  Its style of worship emphasises the popular entertainment value of worship far more than the two older formats.  In the early 20th century, its music resembled that of vaudeville and the English music halls.  Today, its music reflects various popular styles (pop, rock, country, hip-hop ....).

Many people who are attracted to Twenty20 styles of Christianity wear their affinities with a congregation or a denomination rather loosely.  They are "consumers" of  what their church has to offer, but some are always on the lookout for a different - and more exciting - product.

Now, the experience of God's presence is part of the paradigm for worship in this format, as is also a "teaching dimension" to the service.  Nevertheless, the predominant (or at least the most obvious) aspect of worship in this format is the dimension of worship-as-entertainment. 

The three styles of Christianity, like the three styles of cricket, can - and should - coexist happily with each other, and - at the very least - they should acknowledge each other as various formats of the one "game" (as happens in cricket).

And like good cricketers, perhaps Christians should be increasingly able to "pad up" and "play" in a variety of formats.  For example, in my own case as a minister, my parish ministry has (other than a brief time in an ecumenical parish with a strong Anglican component) almost exclusively been in churches that play the "One-day" format of church life and worship.  Nevertheless, when I attend church as a worshipper in a congregation, my strong preference is for churches experiencing the "Test" format.  (I personally find it very hard, though, to engage myself in the "Twenty20" format, in either church or cricket, however.)

Christmas: a season of opportunity

In December of 1994, a few days before Christmas, shoppers were shocked and children were terrified on the streets of the New South Wales country town of Lismore. People from a church - not one of the mainstream churches in this case, but one of the narrow sects - staged a realistic-looking mock assassination of Santa Claus. Shoppers in the central business district thought they saw a man in a Santa suit being gunned down by a man who shouted “Freeze, Santa. You’ve ripped me off for the last time. You’re a fake.”

 

This happened 43 years after a similar event in France in 1951, this time (unfortunately) involving a mainstream Christian church. The priests of Dijon Cathedral burned an effigy of Peré Nöel, the French version of Father Christmas, during the week before Christmas. The effigy of Peré Nöel was burned as a “usurper and a heretic”.

 

Personally, I find these incidents very disturbing. (And I believe that they say a great deal about the emotional health of the people responsible for the incidents, far more than the incidents say about anything else.)

 

As I said in an earlier article, there is much happening at this season within the wider community that we find very frustrating. There is also a lot happening that we can celebrate:

• The same carols we sing in church are played over the loudspeakers of supermarkets and shopping malls.
• The same lessons we read in church are read at Carols by Candlelight events sponsored by local government bodies.
• Nativity scenes are seen in all sorts of non-churchy settings.
• There is a general sense of generosity, hospitality, tolerance, and goodwill in the air, reflecting (if incompletely) the extravagant generosity of God whose self-giving we celebrate at this season.

For the Christian church, Christmas is a season of opportunity. Rather than being overly aggressive toward the broader community, I believe the church needs to build bridges with our community at this time. 

 

One year, at the Hobart Carols by Candlelight, I was given a great example of what not to do.  A young man handed me a pamphlet. The pamphlet was headed: 

 

“Why glory to the new-born King? 

What did he ever do for us?”      

Under the heading , it continued:

 

This is not a sweet this-time-of-year flier

or anything like that,

I just want you to think about this, be honest:

Why on earth are you singing these songs?

Is it because you’re a Christian and are praising God?

Is it because it makes you feel nice?

Or just an excuse for a drink?

Is it because the kids enjoy a bit of a sing-along

and it seemed like a good thing for all the family?

Well, these songs are here because it’s Christmas,

But what is Christmas?

 

From there, the pamphlet continued as a evangelistic tract. For me, the single most striking – and most arrogant - thing about this pamphlet was the way it discounted the serious possibility that a person receiving it may actually have a consciously Christian spirituality: “Why on earth are you singing these songs? ... Is it because it makes you feel nice? ... or just an excuse for a drink?” I’m not sure which church produced the pamphlet. It didn’t say. The wording of the pamphlet led me to believe that it was one of the “fringe” sects, and not a mainstream church. 

 

But that doesn’t matter, anyway. It’s not only the extreme sects who discount our neighbours’ spirituality. In mainstream churches, it’s also too easy to mock those whose churchgoing is confined to times such as:

• Christmas or Easter;
• baptisms, weddings, or funerals.

Christmas is a time when Christian churches have a season of opportunity in terms of relating to our wider community, but we rarely grasp the opportunity. I want to make two very practical suggestions for how the church can treat this time as the season of opportunity that it is:

1. Cut down on the disapproval.

2. Cut down on the casual.

 

1. Cut down on the disapproval.

 

This is a hard thing to say in some church settings Many people, both inside the churches and outside the churches, think of the churches in terms of the things that the various denominations are against. You know the drill, it goes something like this:

• One denomination is against drinking and gambling;
• Another denomination is against gambling but doesn’t mind if you have a drink;
• A third denomination is not only against gambling and drinking, but it’s also against dancing, wearing make-up, and doing anything on Sunday that isn’t specifically “religious”;
• A fourth denomination doesn’t worry too much about drinking or gambling, but it is against a lot of other things, usually involving bioethics;
• Meanwhile, some people joke about more "liberal" churches like the Anglican and Uniting Churches, because we’re not really against anything, … except the things that everyone is supposed to be against, things like violence, bigotry, and greed, … you know, all the stuff Jesus was against.

Nevertheless, many Christians – even in the Anglican and Uniting Churches - have learned to be very disapproving of the ways in which the rest of our community enjoys themselves. We’ve learned how to finger-waggle, how to tut-tut, and how to give the disapproving look. It’s one of the most effective ways that so many congregations have found to almost empty our churches of young people, of working-class people, and of men.

 

A big first step in terms of the church treating this time of year as a season of opportunity is to cut down on the disapproval. (This is also good advice for many church people at other times of year as well, but Christmas is an excellent time to start.)

 

2. Cut down on the casual.

 

I’m speaking here as the first adult in my family to be a regular churchgoer for three generations. I broke a proud family tradition of people who sent their kids to Sunday School but didn’t attend church themselves, other than on special occasions.  From this vantage point, growing up among people who didn’t go to church a lot, let me say that people who don’t go to church a lot find casual worship very hard to take. Some church people enjoy casual worship, but most people who don’t attend church a lot look at casual worship and wonder what it’s all for. 

 

I’ve heard other clergy speculate whether overly casual worship – or overly gimmicky worship - is more about outreach to the unchurched or entertainment for the overchurched. Personally, I believe it’s all really about entertainment for the overchurched.

 

People who don’t go to church a lot get their casual in many other places:

• They get their casual at home - a lot more naturally than when the church tries to “do” casual.
• They get their casual from the TV - a lot more naturally than when the church tries to “do” casual.
• They get their casual watching sport - a lot more naturally than when the church tries to “do” casual.
• They get their casual at the pub - a lot more naturally than when the church tries to “do” casual.

People who don’t go to church a lot - on those special occasions when they do, such as weddings, baptisms, funerals, Easter, and (of course) Christmas – when they go to church, they look to the church to worship God:

• with a bit of style and flair,
• with a bit of dignity and solemnity,
• with a bit of awe and wonder,
• with a bit of mystery and transcendence.

They can get their casual elsewhere, at places that “do” casual much more naturally – and with much more integrity - than churches “do” casual. People who don’t go to church a lot look to the church for something different. 

 

At Christmas, we celebrate the birth of the Saviour. We celebrate the Word made flesh. We celebrate God in our midst. The awe, the wonder, the mystery of this event is good news that many of our neighbours want to hear and receive. At any time, but particularly at Christmas, cut down on the casual.

***

Christmas is a season of opportunity for the Christian church, a time when the church has much in its favour in relating to its wider community. If we want to grasp this opportunity, let’s begin by remembering these two things:

1. Cut down on the disapproval.

2. Cut down on the casual.

And, if you'd like some of my reflections on Advent and Christmas sitting on your bookshelf as well as on your computer, you may want to buy my book  Christmas Lost and Christmas Regained from Amazon.

  

The Peaceable Kingdom (a sermon: Isaiah 65:17-25)

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, 
the lion shall eat straw like the ox; . . .
They shall not hurt or destroy 
on all my holy mountain, says the Lord.

In the nineteenth century, the American artist Edward Hicks painted a series of pictures with the same title:  “The Peaceable Kingdom”.  Edward Hicks was a Quaker and he saw his art as his way of sharing the Quaker community’s convictions about peace and non-violence.

The paintings are landscapes, with some animals in the foreground and a child in their midst.  The animals are painted in what the art world calls a naïve style, in other words not very realistically, even though the landscapes are very realistic.  In each of the pictures, we find a group of animals of different species: fierce predators resting alongside defenseless grass-eaters. 

All the animals have a look of calm about them. 
·        The carnivores are not agitated by the presence of their prey. 
·        The herbivores are not worried by the presence of their hunters. 

All the creatures have a wise, almost philosophical, look on their faces.
·        The child has the expression of a mature adult.
·        The animals have almost human expressions on their faces.

Edward Hicks’s paintings picked up themes we hear in our Old Testament lesson today.  In the 65th chapter of Isaiah, we hear an image of peace at the climax of human history:

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
the lion shall eat straw like the ox; . . .
They shall not hurt or destroy
on all my holy mountain, says the Lord.

This image echoes a theme found earlier in the book of Isaiah, in the eleventh chapter; in a passage we’ll hear in three weeks’ time on the Second Sunday of Advent:

The wolf shall live with the lamb,
the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze,
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,
the weaned child shall put its hand
on the adder’s den.
They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

As some background to why this theme is found twice within Isaiah, most Old Testament scholars – whether Christian or Jewish – most Old Testament scholars believe that the book of Isaiah was actually three different books, written by three different people, at three different times in history.
·        The first part of Isaiah, chapters 1 to 39, was from a time before the Jews were taken into exile in Babylon.  Isaiah the prophet attempted to warn the community of the crisis that was to come.
·        The second part of Isaiah, chapters 40 to 55, was from the time of the Exile.  A later prophet, following in Isaiah’s tradition, sought to provide comfort and encouragement for the community struggling to maintain its life together during the crisis.
·        The third section, chapters 56 to 66, was from a time after the Exile, as a third prophet in the tradition of the first two intended to provide guidance to the Jews as they rebuilt their national life.  Along with the books of Ruth and Jonah, also from this time, this third section of Isaiah was an encouragement to the Jews to rebuild their community on a far more inclusive basis.

In today’s passage, from what we can call “Third Isaiah”, we find an image of God’s future expressed in terms of wholeness and well-being for humanity.  People live to a ripe old age.  People can enjoy the fruit of their own labour in safety and security.

The sense of security seen in this passage extends from the world of humanity to the wider world of nature.  We see this in the image of animals at different positions on the food chain eating together without eating each other.  This is the dramatic, yet peaceful image found in Edward Hicks’ paintings.

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
the lion shall eat straw like the ox; . . .
They shall not hurt or destroy
on all my holy mountain, says the Lord.

As well, there's another dramatic image of peace from the book of Isaiah – in a passage we’ll hear in two weeks’ time on the first Sunday of Advent - an image of swords being beaten into ploughshares.  This other dramatic image is given visual expression in a statue found on the grounds of the United Nations building in New York, a statue that was a gift to the UN from the old Soviet Union.  In this statue, a muscular, athletic-looking bloke (possibly even one of Karl Marx’s “workers of the world”) is busily engaged in beating a dangerous-looking sword into a useable-looking plough.

They shall beat their bayonets into tractors,
and their Kalishnikovs into combine harvesters.

Back to our lesson, the images of peace and well-being we find in our lesson are affirmed as God’s initiative:

For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth
the former things shall not be remembered
or come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I am creating; . . . .

While this is God’s initiative, however, we are not let off the hook.  With any of God’s activities, God calls humanity as a partner in the task of creation.  Now as always, God calls us to be partners in peacemaking.

As Christians, we celebrate God-as-Trinity.  In the love of Father, Son, and Spirit for one another, the living God whom we worship lives in community.  The profound love of God-as-Trinity spills over into profound love for the whole creation.  Thus, we affirm that God always takes the initiative in making peace and creating community, among humanity and among the whole created universe.

God calls us to join in the task of building community, of helping in God’s task of building the peaceable kingdom. 

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
the lion shall eat straw like the ox; . . .
They shall not hurt or destroy
on all my holy mountain, says the Lord.

Christmas: not only for the religious

In 1981, the Tasmanian department store chain Fitzgerald’s (now part of Harris Scarfe) had an advertising campaign that featured the slogan: “Christmas is Fitzgerald’s”.   Justifiably, many people were annoyed. People wrote letters to the editor of all three Tasmanian papers.   Highly critical statements were issued by various church bodies. Fitzgerald’s business began to suffer.   Finally, they withdrew the ads and, in their new ads, apologised for any distress they caused.

 

A priest I knew was shopping in a supermarket.   He wasn’t wearing his clerical collar.   (It was about the time when most Catholic priests were starting to wear civilian clothes most of the time.)   He overheard a conversation between two shoppers about the Fitzgerald’s advert.   He decided to eavesdrop on the conversation, and he heard one woman say:

 

“Imagine that, Mavis; the flaming churches are even trying to take over Christmas!”

 

In many cases, there is a sense of frustration at this time of year on the part of those of us within the churches.

 

On the one hand, there is much happening that we can celebrate.

• The same carols we sing in church are played over the loudspeakers of supermarkets and shopping malls.
• The same lessons we read in church are read at Carols by Candlelight events sponsored by local government bodies.
• Nativity scenes are seen in all sorts of non-churchy settings.
• There is a general sense of generosity, tolerance, and goodwill in the air, reflecting (if incompletely) the extravagant generosity of God whose self-giving we celebrate at this season.

On the other hand, there is much of which we can, should, and must be critical.   The worse of it is a certain manipulation on the part of advertisers that tries to say that the one, effective way of showing love at this season is by spending frantically.   Often, the people who have the least money to spend are also those who are emotionally least resistant to this manipulation.

 

There always has been a certain ambivalence within the Christian church to our celebrations of this season.  Frequently, this ambivalence has been strongest among the more intensely “religious” sort of Christian.   At its most extreme, the English Puritans refused to celebrate Christmas.   And, in fact, during the rule of Oliver Cromwell, Christmas was banned in England.

 

But, even at the beginning of the Christmas celebration, there was a certain ambivalence on the part of the church.   It was only about four centuries after the time of Christ that Christmas began to be observed.   It was soon after Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire.   There was a popular pagan Roman holiday called Saturnalia at this time of the year.   The Christian church was concerned that some Christians (particularly those who were less-committed) may be tempted to lapse into pagan worship if there was no Christian competition for Saturnalia.   So, a celebration of the birth of Christ was established at the time we do so now.   (Before then, Easter and Pentecost were the only major Christian festivals.)   Celebrating Christmas gave Christians an opportunity to celebrate at the same time as their pagan neighbours.   The idea worked.   It worked well.  From the beginning of the Christmas celebration, Christmas was not only for the “religious”.

 

And in our gospel lessons about the birth of Jesus, we also see people who were not so “religious”, people who were outside the community of faith (or at least the active community of faith), playing important roles in the church’s retelling of the birth of Jesus.

• In Matthew’s gospel, we find the wise men.  Now, the wise men weren’t Jewish.  They were Persian scholars, ... members of the Zoroastrian faith, ... exotic foreign intellectuals.  In fact, the wise men did the highly un-Jewish thing of practising astrology.  These exotic foreign intellectuals were among those who followed the star and paid tribute to the infant Jesus.
• In Luke’s gospel, we have shepherds.  Now, the shepherds were Jewish but they wouldn’t have been considered very good Jews.  For one thing, they couldn’t go to the temple all that often.  It went with the job.  Working with animals, they came into constant contact with the blood and the faeces of animals.  As a result, they were ritually unclean and would have to take a number of days off work for ritual baths before they could go to the Temple.  Thus, a religiously-minded Jew didn’t think of becoming a shepherd.  It was a job for your basic secular, working-class bloke.  But it was these secular, working-class blokes to whom the angels gave the news about Jesus’ birth.  

In the gospel accounts of the first Christmas, Christmas was not only for the “religious”.   Matthew’s exotic foreign intellectuals and Luke’s secular, working-class blokes were there as well.   From its very beginning, Christmas was not only for the “religious”.

 

But I’ll conclude this article with a story from an English Methodist minister named Jack Burton.   For a number of decades, Jack Burton earned his living as a bus driver in the city of Norwich, so that he could engage in a deliberate ministry with people for whom the churches - for whom any churches - are unfamiliar territory.   One day, a few days before Christmas Day, Jack entered Norwich Cathedral, with Tony, his bus conductor.   Like the shepherds in Luke’s gospel, Tony was a secular, working-class bloke; one of these people for whom any church is unknown territory.  Jack Burton tells the story:

 

“Inside the great building, decorated for Christmas, Tony looked round and said, ‘Is this for everyone?’   I wasn’t sure exactly what he meant: ‘Can anyone walk round here at any time?’ ‘Can anyone come to the services here?’   But I didn’t stop to ask - I answered immediately and emphatically, ‘Yes, of course.’   It was a good question.”            (Jack Burton, Transport of Delight, SCM, p. 61.)

“‘Is this for everyone?’ … ‘ Yes, of course.’”

 

From its very beginning, and continuing to our own day, Christmas was not only for the “religious”.


And, if you'd like some of my reflections on Advent and Christmas sitting on your bookshelf as well as on your computer, you may want to buy my book  Christmas Lost and Christmas Regained from Amazon.

 

Advent without the supercessionism

OK, I know I've just put a VERY technical theological term in the title of the post.  But, anyway, for those who aren't scared off by the technical term, here goes.

Supercessionism is a term used by theologians to describe a common (too common, really) attitude held by some Christians towards Judaism. 

The word supercessionism is based on the verb "to supercede".  For example, this year's calendar has superceded last year's calendar.  ... The software in my computer has superceded older versions of the same software. ...  My car has been superceded by the various models of the same car that were built since 1997. ...  And so on.

And, following along from this, supercessionism is the idea, held by far too many Christians, that Christianity has somehow superceded Judaism. 

Supercessionism is the notion that Judaism exists in the past tense, not in the present tense.  Supercessionism is the idea that the purpose of Judaism was to prepare the world for the emergence of Christianity.

Personally, I reject supercessionism.  In fact, I'm even a member of a denomination (the Uniting Church in Australia) that has officially rejected supercessionism.  I believe that Judaism provides its adherents with a viable relationship with the Sacred, just as Christianity provides its adherents with a viable relationship with the Sacred (and as other faiths also provide such a relationship.)  No less than Christianity, Judaism is a living faith for today.

Supercessionism is usually an idea that is strongest among Christians who have very little contact with Jewish people.  For Christians who know Jews, and particularly for Christians who've had a chance to talk about matters of faith with Jews, there is a strong understanding that Judaism is a living faith, that Jews today have a vital relationship with the Divine, a vital relationship with the same sacred Reality with whom Christians relate.  For Christians who know Jews, there is a real sense that there is much in our Jewish neighbours that we as Christians should emulate.

For those of us who reject supercessionism, Advent has its theological difficulties. 

• Many of the readings from scripture we hear during Advent are passages from the Hebrew Scriptures for which the Christian churches had developed a particularly Christian meaning, without reference to the older, Jewish meaning that these passages have had well before the emergence of Christianity.  For many Christians, passages of scripture written centuries before the time of Jesus are regarded as simply being predictions about Jesus (and including an idea that Judaism was intended as a way of preparing the world for Jesus and for Christianity).  Many don't realise that their Jewish neighbours read the same passages of scripture without interpreting the passages as being about Jesus.
• Many of the hymns of Advent also convey a sense that the role of Jewish faith and life during the centuries before the time of Jesus was merely a preparation for Jesus.

For many churches, our worship during Advent can be an exercise in supercessionism.

The question for most congregations is, how can we avoid supercessionism at any time, including Advent.

For those of you who are ministers, priests, or pastors, this is a time to make sure that you share with your congregation the information you learned when you were studying theology.  Assume that the members of your congregation are smart enough to deal with this.  Tell them that the prophets of ancient Israel were more about encouraging their people to practice justice than about predicting a future Messiah.  While the Christian church re-interpreted some of the prophets' visions of peace and justice in terms of the life and ministry of Jesus, these visions are also relevant (albeit with a different interpretation) to people whose view of God doesn't include the life and ministry of Jesus.  As Christians, we see God's hope in terms of Jesus, but we also recognise God's hope within other communities of God's people.

If you're a lay member of a congregation, encourage your minister, priest, or pastor to go deeper with this with the congregation, either from the pulpit or in adult teaching opportunities.  If your minister, priest, or pastor is any good at all, she/he will be delighted to have the opportunity.

In any event, whether you are ordained or not, there are a few good recent books you may find helpful.

The First Christmas by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan (HarperOne, 2007) is an attempt by two serious biblical scholars to write a popular book about the origins of the Christian celebration of Christmas.  In speaking of the Jewish context for the emergence of Christianity, they recognise the integrity of Judaism as a faith in its own right, as both Borg and Crossan do in their other books.

Amy-Jill Levine's The Misunderstood Jew (HarperOne, 2006) is a book about Jesus by a practicing Jew, who is also a noted biblical scholar.  She writes with strong sympathy and deep respect for both faiths, with the desire that the mutual relationship among both faiths can develop with deep honesty.

For those who preach, whether occasionally or on a regular basis, Ronald Allen and Clark Williamson's Preaching the Gospels Without Blaming the Jews (Westminster John Knox, 2004) is a resource for each week of the three-year lectionary (including the weeks of Advent each year) which comments on the scripture lessons for each week of the lectionary with particular reference to the need for Christians to avoid caricatures and stereotypes of Jewish faith and practice.

Advent is a time of great joy and hope for Christians.  This joy and hope can be all the greater when we celebrate this season without the supercessionism which seeks to diminish the life of our fellow-members of the people of God.


And, if you'd like some of my reflections on Advent and Christmas sitting on your bookshelf as well as on your computer, you may want to buy my book  Christmas Lost and Christmas Regained from Amazon.

“Jesus is also the question.” (a sermon: Luke 20:27-38)

I heard a story about the time the great Swiss theologian Karl Barth visited the United States.  In his travels, he saw a sign painted on the side of a barn, with the words:  “Jesus is the answer.” 

Barth looked at the words on the side of the barn, thought for a while, and said:  “Ja, but Jesus is also the question.”

In today’s lesson, Jesus is also the question.

Our lesson begins with the Sadducees asking Jesus a stupid question. 

Sometimes, if you’re at a public meeting and the speaker consents to have a period of questions and answers, you’re often apt to hear at least one stupid question. 

Now, by “stupid question”, I don’t mean the sort of question that is asked by the person who doesn’t understand the issue and is honestly seeking information or clarification.  That’s not a stupid question. 

I’m thinking of the sort of question that is aggressive in its stupidity, the question that’s asked by the person who wants to demonstrate his own knowledge of the topic, at the expense of the speaker.  That’s the sort of aggressively stupid question the Sadducees asked Jesus.

But, first, we may want some background to the Sadducees and who they were.  The Sadducees were the extreme conservatives of Jesus’ day.  They held to the Law literally.  For them, there was no room for interpretation where the law was concerned.  The Sadducees were opposed to the Pharisees who were of a more progressive bent, despite their bad press and the way we use the word “Pharisee” today. (When we use the word “Pharisee” in English to mean a small-minded religious bigot, as many people do, this use of the word is highly unjust to the Pharisees.)

One important thing about the Sadducees was that they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.  In the Old Testament, any belief in a life after this physical life was very slow in developing.  In fact, it was only during the century or two just before the time of Jesus that much of a belief in a life after this one was found among the Jews. 

The Sadducees opposed this development.  The reason the Sadducees opposed this new emerging belief in the life of the world to come was that they couldn’t fit the idea into a literal view of the law.  The question they asked Jesus in our lesson was the standard Sadducee-type question:  “If a woman married seven men, whose wife would she be after the resurrection?”

This question has a background.  The Jewish law said that if a man died without leaving an heir, his brother (or his nearest unmarried male relative) was obliged to marry his widow and produce an heir.  This was the theme of the book of Ruth.

Anyway, for Sadducees with a literal view of the law and with a tendency to downplay the resurrection of the dead, this was the standard trick question to discredit those who seemed to accept an idea of the life of the world to come.

Jesus responded to the question.  Not only did he give a good answer, but he tried to assist the Sadducees to find a better question.  This was just as important, if not more so.  As Karl Barth said:  “Jesus is also the question.”

The Sadducees asked Jesus the wrong question on a number of grounds:

1.       The question assumed that the woman involved had no dignity of her own, that the woman’s status in God’s future life depended on whose wife she was.  It was a bad question just on this basis alone.

2.       The question assumed, as well, that the men involved had a reduced dignity in God’s future life if they were without a wife or without heirs.  It was a bad question just on this basis alone.

3.       And worst of all, the question assumed that God’s truth is set in the past, that people cannot discover new aspects of God’s emerging truth for a new era.  The emerging new truth of the life of God’s future was seen as somehow without merit if it was seen as contradicting those treasured truths of the past.  It was a bad question just on this basis alone.

And we still find this today.  There are many people of faith who, even with the best will in the world, cannot for the life of them see new aspects of God’s truth emerging for a new time and a new place.  As we frequently sing in the classic hymn, “The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from the word.” 

Sadly, many Christians cannot grasp this.

·         To give one example, many Christians cannot see the presence of God in the lives of people of other faiths (Jews, Muslims, Baha’is, Buddhists, and others.).   “The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from the word.” 

·         To give another example, many Christians cannot see faithful, life-giving, God-blessed relationships among couples that have not entered into a formal marriage, whether these couples are heterosexual or same-gender.  “The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from the word.” 

God’s truth comes freshly to God’s people in every generation.  “The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from the word.” 

Today, as it was two thousand years ago, Jesus is also the question.

May God grant each of us the sensitivity to receive with enthusiasm God’s new truth in our new day.

Advent: a season in search of a theology

“Advent: a season in search of a theology”: There may be a bit of a problem in the title.

“Theology” is one of these words that’s received a bit of a bad press lately. Often, “theology” becomes the excuse for some Christian to avoid dealing with our contemporary world.

• Some Christians, for example, use “theology” as their excuse to oppose the ordination of women.  
• Some Christians use “theology” as their excuse to be prejudiced against GLBT people.      
• Some Christians use “theology” as their excuse for creating a false opposition between Christian faith and science.  
• Some Christians use “theology” as their excuse for not relating positively to people of other faiths, and even at times for not relating positively to other Christians.

I’m not talking about that negative, heavy-handed thing when I use the word “theology”.

 

The word “theology” essentially means: “talking about God” or “ideas about God”. And that’s the way I’ll use this word in this article.  Theology, in short, is “ideas about God”, preferably “ideas about God” expressed in an inclusive, open way, rather than any heavy-handed “thou shalt not” sort of thing.

 

Advent, this time when we prepare for Christmas, is a season in search of a theology. It’s a season in search of an appropriate idea about God.

 

In the broader community, we find a time of frantic - if enjoyable - activity for many people in Advent. Retailers and advertisers pressure shoppers to buy their wares. Most of us go to great lengths during this lead-up to Christmas in buying gifts, buying food, preparing food, attending (or hosting) Christmas functions (or end-of-year functions). For many, there is a time of frantic activity. But (to be honest) most of us enjoy it really, even if we do complain about it.

 

This contrasts with the way Advent is often observed in some churches. In many churches, Advent is a very austere time, almost a mini-Lent. The sense of joyful preparation for the good news of Christmas is sometimes muted. Instead, we hear a dour message of judgement coming through, as if the good news we’re preparing to hear is just an afterthought.

• For one example, I know of some churches where Christmas carols are not sung until Christmas Eve at the earliest. I prefer not to do that, but to sing Christmas carols during Advent alongside the hymns of Advent. (Maybe not on the First Sunday of Advent, though.) 
• To give another example, some churches give a heavy emphasis during the early part of Advent on the Second Coming. This often raises the questions for many people of how literally, or how otherwise, the church regards the Second Coming? While the Second Coming is a powerful metaphor for our faith that the future is firmly in God’s hands, we have a real problem when we regard the Second Coming in an overly literal manner. This often leads to various forms of religious lunacy, particularly when it is accompanied by a strong theme of judgement – and judgementalism. (My own feeling here is that churches need to be very careful about teaching anything - whether to children in Sunday Schools or RE, to teenagers in Confirmation classes or youth groups, to adults in sermons, or to anyone in the church’s liturgy - that it expects people to later “unlearn” in adult study groups. There are too many worshippers who never attend adult study groups. There are also far too many adult study groups that are overly timid about challenging inappropriately literal understandings of scripture.)

As I said, there are some churches that treat this time of Advent as almost a mini-Lent, as a dour, austere time of judgement that contrasts negatively with the hope, optimism, and generosity that are celebrated in the wider community. This, I believe, is one example of a time (one example out of many) when the broader, secular community has far better religious instincts than many churches. 

 

Thus, I believe Advent is a season in search of a theology; a season searching for a compelling idea about God.

 

In searching for a positive theology for Advent, I believe that a good place to start is with the generosity that we see celebrated within the community. Advent, the period leading up to Christmas, is a time when the community celebrates generosity.

• It’s a time of year when many people consciously try to be generous, to be tolerant, to be considerate of others.  
• Of course, this is a generosity, a tolerance, and a consideration that should be practised all year round. 

Still, in many ways, there is a greater sense of generosity around the community at his time of year. Even if the generosity sometimes verges on the extravagant and the “over the top”, there is as a spirit of giving about. That’s why most charities do an appeal at Christmas, even if their major appeal is at another time of the year. 

 

At Advent, I believe the thrust of our celebrations as the Christian Church should be on the generosity of the living God toward the world.

• We celebrate God’s wildly extravagant generosity that resulted in his great act of self-giving through Jesus Christ.  
• We prepare to encounter Christ, not in fear, but in joyful expectation.  
• We look forward to our Christmas encounter with Christ Jesus who embraced our humanity.         
• We look forward to this encounter with all the excitement of a child waiting for the arrival of that other midnight visitor on Christmas Eve. 

Our worship during this time leading up to Christmas should reflect this growing expectation, as well as our celebration of God’s extravagant generosity. In celebrating the generosity of God, we celebrate also God’s call to us to be generous. Through such programmes as the Christmas Bowl (and similar programmes in other countries), we can stand with communities around the world as they seek to be active peacemakers in the name of our God of extravagant generosity.

 

“Advent: a season in search of a theology”? I believe our Advent ideas about God should be based on God’s extravagant generosity, the generosity that didn’t stop giving, even to the point of God giving Godself for the sake of the world.


And, if you'd like some of my reflections on Advent and Christmas sitting on your bookshelf as well as on your computer, you may want to buy my book  Christmas Lost and Christmas Regained from Amazon.