Are we good stewards? (video)

Are we good stewards?

Sermon 19^th September 2010

In the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen

In today’s gospel reading we hear what is probably one of the most puzzling of all of Jesus’ parables. It is often sub-titled “The Parable of the Dishonest Manager”. Taken at face value, it tells the story of a man who, when faced with dismissal from his work, tries to lessen the effects of losing his job by calling in his employer’s debts in such a way that benefits him, and maintains his social standing. We might expect his employer to react angrily at the way this man has used his position to feather his own nest, yet his boss appears to be quite impressed with his ingenuity and initiative. In spite of his dodgy dealing he receives praise instead of reproach from the very person against whom he has acted. It’s a strange story that goes against our sense of natural justice. Why should he be praised for behaving in this way?

The main motivation of this character seems to be a desire to save face. He is a manager, and therefore will have some level of responsibility. He may well have staff under him and property to care for, though he doesn’t seem to be doing a very good job of it, as he is described as having “squandered” his master’s property! He acts as he does so that people may continue to welcome him into their homes. To him at that time, it may have seemed a very sensible thing to do. He had to somehow maintain his position in society; even if he was to lose his job.

Social status and wealth were very closely connected in Roman times, and all throughout history, right up until today we can see the importance people put upon how they appear in the eyes of others. Those who did not achieve positions of wealth and great influence were often looked down upon by those who did. After all, surely increased wealth was a sign of God’s blessing? It’s something we even see today in some churches that teach as long as you follow the will of God, you shall prosper materially.....the so called “prosperity gospel”.

The Bible has much to say about wealth and how it can be used as well as mis-used. Throughout the Old Testament we often read of the prophets raging against the injustice of the rich using their wealth in order to trample over the poor and maintain their own position. The prophet Amos is one of the most vocal about this as he denounces the greed and self-serving attitude of those who have become rich at the expense of the poor. Jesus himself often contrasts the greed of those who seek to exploit the poor with those who choose to pursue the riches of God. It’s not the wealth or riches itself that is the issue, but rather the attitude that lies behind it. It is the acquisition of wealth for its own sake that we see rebuked by Jesus, not the good stewardship of money that can be used in an honourable way to benefit others.

We hear Jesus in the gospel reading saying, “Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much”. If we can’t manage to be good stewards of what we do have, how can we expect to be trusted with anything greater? Jesus turns the idea of what constitutes true riches on its head. Not for him the accumulation of material things at the expense of what he regards as the true riches found in the Kingdom of God. He points us always towards a higher way of living, that of using what we do have, in the service of others for the glory of God.

We recently marked “Talent Sunday” when everybody who was at the service that week was given a ten pound note, along with the challenge to use it in a way that would benefit the church and society. It isn’t a competition to see who comes back with the greatest return on the money, but rather an opportunity to reflect and put into practice in a small way what it is to be entrusted with the smaller things.  The church is entrusted with the spiritual care of those who are the children of God, which includes each of us sitting here today, in churches throughout the land, and I believe also those who would never even consider walking through the doors of a church building. A measure of the suitability of the church to be given the responsibility of guiding people in the ways of God is in how it behaves towards those who are on the margins. How can we be entrusted with the care of people’s souls if we do not also meet their most basic human needs?

Here at St George’s we are a community I think that does try to reach out in a practical way to those within the wider community. We have been entrusted with a building that we make available for use by those whom we live amongst. The crypt centre downstairs is used daily by many community groups seeking to meet the needs of a hugely diverse group of people. It is in the demonstration of practical love that people are able to see something of Christ in us. By using what we have around us in the service of others we can bring glory to God.

All of us are called to serve and give something of ourselves in some way or another. Whatever gifts we each have can be used to serve those around us and God. Everybody sitting here today has their own particular way in which they are called to serve God. It’s certainly not something that is restricted to the clergy or those who are in licensed ministry. Today we are recognising those who have been called to serve in helping administer the Eucharist. It is a privilege to be able to serve the Sacrament to others, to be used by God as a vessel by which others are able to meet with him.  By being entrusted with the honour of what to many may seem the relatively simple act of assisting in the distribution of the Sacrament, those who do so allow themselves to be used as vessels through which the love, grace and true richness of God is able to flow.

AMEN

Pentecost 2011 (Video) First Sermon

Entering Into the Relationship of the Trinity (Video)

The Kingdom of Heaven is Near

Entering into the relationship of the Trinity

Trinity Sunday, 19^th June 2011

Isaiah 40:20-17, 27-31; 2 Corinthians 13:11-13 & Matthew 28:16-20

In the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

Relationships are curious things! Often quite tricky and complex. When looked at in very close detail it is often difficult to pinpoint exactly how or why they work, but without them our lives would be vastly different from how they are today. I’m not just speaking about the kind of relationship we may have with a spouse or partner, important though they are. We are all involved in relationships of some kind in our daily lives in the way we relate to and interact  with other people. Sometimes those relationships may be relatively superficial with people who we barely know, or just know as a passing acquaintance.

 Most people will be familiar with the kind of relationships that build up in the workplace. Relationships of employer/employee and the tension and difficulties that can sometimes occur there. Relationships built with colleagues over time as friendships grow and a sense of working together towards a shared goal is achieved. And of course the relationships within a family. Father, mother, son, daughter, grandparents, and so it goes on.

 All our relationships work in very different ways, and have very different dynamics, yet there is no doubt about the reality of them. We may struggle at times to put into words exactly what makes them tick, but on the whole we value them and function much more effectively when we have people we can relate to on some level.

Today, being “Trinity Sunday” is the day set aside by the church for considering the most complex and puzzling relationship of all, that of God as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and how we can fit into that relationship. Since almost the very beginning of the church theologians have wrestled with the question of how one God can at the same time be three quite separate persons. That is certainly not a question that I’m able to give any quick answers to.

  Every Sunday we say together the words of the Nicene Creed, in which we affirm our faith in one God. A God who, according to the words of the creed is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  There is nowhere in the Bible where the word “Trinity” occurs, and nowhere where it is explicitly spelled out either. Yet throughout scripture we see examples of how the three persons of the Trinity work together in such close unity, that there is little doubt about the closeness of the relationship between them.

In both the gospel and the reading from 2 Corinthians we have the two most often used passages that point us towards an understanding of the Trinity. Matthew’s gospel tells of the disciples meeting the risen Jesus who tells them, “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:18-19). And in Paul’s closing words to the Corinthians he urges them to live in peace and unity with one another as he says the words that I’m sure we all know, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor 13:14).

Both of those passages speak of reaching out beyond the comfort our own boundaries and self-interest to others. We are called out to relate to others, and to share what we know of the love and grace of God with one another.....and beyond that, with the world, and with those we meet. And we are to do this in the name of the one who has relationship right at the very core of his being

Our reading from Isaiah speaks of the everlasting God as our Creator.  Many people find it more helpful to think in terms of God as “Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer” than in the traditional terms of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And we certainly get an image here of a God who is active in Creation and who strengthens and upholds the weak and the powerless. Even at the very beginning of creation we start to see the first signs of God operating in relationship. Genesis speaks of the Spirit sweeping over the face of the waters. John’s gospel tells us of “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” as his introduction to who Jesus was, emphasising that right at the very start there was a partnership of equals in operation here.

At the beginning of his ministry during his baptism, we have the familiar image of the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove upon Jesus while a voice from heaven calls out “You are my beloved Son, with you I am well pleased” (Mk 1:11). As he prepares to enter into his public ministry of reaching out to those in need he receives this very public affirmation from above.

Before his death Jesus had already told them that when he had gone the Holy Spirit would come to comfort and sustain them (Jn 14:26), and last week we celebrated Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples in power.

The narrative of the Bible all the way through is one that speaks of a God who is interested in relationship. A God who is actively involved with his creation, of which we are all a part, and who does not stand at a great distance. In the Old Testament we see the development of God’s relationship with the people of Israel through his covenant with them as he takes them through the dark years of the wilderness. Even in their times of rebellion and disbelief he is still reaching out to them in love. In the New Testament we see in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus the ultimate act of love for a world that so often seems turned in on itself and oblivious to anyone’s needs but their own. And we are given in that reading from 2 Corinthians the perfect template to how we as Christians should aim to live in relationship with one another in a way that mirrors the harmony of the relationship in the Trinity. It is when we are able to be Jesus for others in the things we do or say, when we reach out to those who feel broken and when we allow the Spirit to guide us to say the right words of comfort to somebody. It is then that we are able to enter in some way into the relationship of the Trinity.

As I mentioned at the beginning, understanding how and why relationships work as they do is not always easy. Sometimes the only thing to do is to just get stuck in and be the hands, eyes, and ears of Jesus for someone. Understanding the relationship of the Trinity is something that people far greater than me have struggled with, and all the analysis in the world cannot beat actually experiencing and being a part of that relationship for ourselves, because that is when it becomes more real to us.

May each of us open ourselves to be used as vessels of God’s love and grace to all who we meet, and may our relationships mirror that which we see in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

AMEN

The Paradox of Jesus, Human and Divine!

Presentation on Christology and Incarnation

Given to Tutor Group 6^th June 2011

For many in the church the creeds are where they look to for some kind of definitive “Statement of Faith”. Each Sunday most of us recite the Nicene Creed, setting out an outline of what is widely considered to be the most basic tenets of our Christian faith. In fact the largest part of the Nicene Creed itself actually speaks about the person of Christ himself. Pretty unsurprising I suppose, given that at the very core of what Christianity is all about, the person of Jesus Christ takes centre stage. The Athanasian Creed also, though used much less than the Nicene Creed, speaks a great deal about who Christ is and how he relates to the other two persons of the Trinity. I want to take the creeds as a framework by which to examine different aspects of Christology and Incarnation, how the view of the church was developed, and how it fits into the church we are part of today. When we study Christology we examine the nature and person of Christ himself, rather than the work he does through salvation and the atonement.

The section about Christ in the Nicene Creed makes a big deal of both the divinity and humanity of Jesus in equal measure. We say the words week by week, yet how often do we actually take time to think through exactly what it is that we are saying? At one and the same time he was both God, and man! The main discussion in Christology centres on this one point....the union of the divine and human in one person, Jesus Christ.

One of the earliest protagonists that brought the subject into the debate was Arius, who gave his name to what later became known as Arianism. His basic train of thought was that the Son and the Father are not of the same essence, and that the Son was created by the Father. The Son however is the foremost of all creation, but being a creature himself, there must have been a time when he did not exist. For Arius there was no real sense in which Jesus could be divine, as that particular attribute could only be applied to the Father. God was so “other” that it was absolutely unthinkable to Arius for him to enter into the messiness of human history and take on our humanity for himself. Jesus, as one who had been created experienced emotion, fear, pain and change just as we do. This, according to Arius is something that was impossible for an unchanging, essentially non-interventionist God to do.

 The two main schools of thought, one from Alexandria and the other from Antioch had very different views on the matter. In simplified terms the Alexandrian view was one that emphasised the union of the human and the divine in Christ, while the Antiochian view saw much more of a distinction between the two natures.

McGrath devotes a section to describing both these opposing ways of looking at who Christ was. He speaks (p227) of the Alexandrian emphasis of the Logos assuming human nature. He gives the example of how in the writings of the Old Testament prophets, the Logos was seen as “dwelling within humanity” as though he is somehow separate, yet at the same time a part of humankind. In John’s gospel (Jn 1:1) we see the “Word”, the “Logos”, who was there at the very beginning of time described in terms that immediately identify him with God. There is no separation evident here between the two. The entirety of this prologue is about setting the scene, so that the reader is completely aware that the Logos and God are one and the same, and that in contrast to simply dwelling within humanity, he actually took on the very nature of humanity (Jn 1:14) in becoming flesh. Jesus was the eternal “Word” who was already fully united with the Father before the Incarnation.

It is useful at this point to speak of “homiousios” (of like substance), and “homoousis” (of same substance). In 381 when the Nicene Creed was formally agreed upon the idea of the Father and Son as being of the “same” substance rather than merely similar became the accepted orthodoxy. This joining together of the two natures of Christ, both the divine and the human became known as the “Hypostatic Union”.

In Antiochian thought however this emphasis on the union of the two natures of Christ by the Alexandrians, the divine and the human led to too much mingling of the two. There needed to be a way to draw a distinct line between them. Again, McGrath speaks of how these two aspects of Christ are almost like two “watertight compartments” (p 219), not interacting with each other in any way. So God in the Antiochian view did become human, but it was only in the specific individual person of Jesus that this humanity was manifest rather than God actually assuming a general innate human nature himself.  According to this way of thinking Christ was a single, unified human being, apart from his relationship to God.

The Christology that we see in the three synoptic gospels tends to concentrate on the humanity of Christ, his way of relating to those around him. John’s gospel on the other hand places the emphasis more on his divinity, and while not ignoring his interactions with others, his miracles or his story-telling focuses more on his divinity. He does not focus so much on the “how” Jesus came into the world as the other gospels do. Put together though, the four gospels as a whole help us to a fuller understanding of who Jesus is, in a way that just looking at them individually can’t do.

The early church spent years debating the nature of Christ before eventually reaching a general consensus, which we now see in creeds such as the Nicene Creed. Alternative Christologies such as Arianism, which saw Christ as a subordinate creation of the Father or Gnosticism, which spiritualised him to the extent of almost denying his physical reality were defeated in the process and were so far as the early leaders concerned, heresies to be stamped out.

As well as our understanding Jesus coming from the creeds, for many people, particularly perhaps those who are not always as familiar with the language and ideas that the church uses, an image is often built up in the use of hymns or carols. The carol “Once in Royal David’s City” is, I think a good example of this. Especially in the second verse it speaks very clearly of the Incarnation, making very clear that this child that had been born was no ordinary person, but also at the same time God in human form. He was born of a human mother just as any other person is, yet he was also something beyond that. The hymn speaks of both his humanity and his divinity, as it traces his childhood in a pattern that is probably not unfamiliar to us today. Yet it also speaks of him as being “God and Lord of all”, and of being the one who redeems us. Maybe rather than the complex words of theologians and scholars, and even the creeds this is where the ordinary person in the street, who doesn’t come to church too often gets their image of who Jesus is. Often though it ends up with a slushy, romanticised image of Jesus as some kind of sanitised, meek and mild individual who though he may be human in a nice fluffy kind of way doesn’t seem to have too much of the divine about him.

Migliore tells us that “God acts, suffers and triumphs in and through Jesus”, a concept that brings to mind the paradox between the human and the divine. In not simply identifying with, but actually being fully human Jesus was able to suffer, yet how could this be so if he was also God? It brings us back to the Arian view that God cannot experience suffering without it diminishing his own divinity. Yet it follows that if, as we state in the creeds, Jesus is just as fully God as he was human, then it is God himself who was crucified, and God himself who died, fully experiencing, albeit in the most extreme form, what it is to be human.

There is a definite tension between a God who is all powerful and divine, and a God (in Christ) who experienced what it is to be human more fully than even we can appreciate. It is almost seems as though there are two competing and opposite personalities each trying to be as prominent as the other. It may well seem to be a bit of a cop-out, but it truly is a mystery how both these natures of Christ can remain distinct, yet at the same time fully joined and inseparable. Our human instinct is to continue to search for answers even when they are not always as forthcoming as we would like.

(Discussion followed)