What an interesting week

Looking back through the past 9 days, I can only say, What an interesting week!

Melbourne

Last weekend Archbishop Philip Freier, Archbishop of Melbourne and former Primate of Australia, retired from his role as Bishop of Melbourne, after 18 years in the role, six of which included being Primate of Australia. It was a privilege and a pleasure to be in Melbourne for a farewell dinner for bsihops and spouses on the Saturday evening and a participant in the Farewell Evensong on the Sunday afternoon. A bonus was that our plane from Christchurch to Melbourne arrived early enough on the Saturday morning for us to be present at ++Philip's last ordination service - perhaps uniquely, an ordination of eight deacons and one bishop! Read more about the final service for ++Philip and Joy Freier here, here and here.

Is nothing secure and permanent?

In an English-speaking world of many translations of the Bible, the ESV has a certain claim to fame, both for what it claims (to be a particularly faithful translation of the original languages of the Bible, in the KJV/RSV tradition, conservatively staunch against the alleged deficiencies of the NRSV/NRSVUE stream and the wobbliness of another claimant to be "the" translation for conservative evangelicals, the NIV) and for its popularity (increasingly among Catholics as well as conservative evangelicals, even being adopted as the text of Catholic liturgical reading, by some bishops' conferences.

Now I was once a fan of the ESV and used it a lot. I liked its rigour as a close, word for word translation, and its being in the KJV/RSV tradition but with some updates to the RSV's sometimes old-fashioned English. My increasing concerns over time were (a) its exclusive language (something the NRSV gets right, on the presumption that the people of God are addressed, male and female, even though original languages use male pronouns) and (b) it didn't sound right when read aloud (obviously so in respect of inclusive language; but also a certain clunkiness in phrasing). (My current preferences are NRSV and GNB (1994 or later editions/printings).)

But, my preferences and concerns with the ESV do not detract from respecting ESV as a solid translation of the Bible, with known slants and the possibility of using it when a Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text are not handy, knowing it will give one of the best word for word translations in the English language.

Except.

This week past Crossway, publisher of ESV, have announced changes to the text in forthcoming printings.

Whatever you or I think about these changes, have we reached a point of genuine stability to this text claiming to be "best" (most faithful ever)? The last changes were 10 years or so ago. Are we good now for the next century?

Now, to attempt to be clear: it is a good thing to update translations in the interest of revised estimation of the most accurate rendering in today's language; but perhaps there could be an accompanying sprinkling of humility about the wonderfulness of any given translation (and/or deprecation of allegedly lesser value translations). If any translation, even the ESV, can do some self-correcting over time, then no one translation is yet perfect!

Finally, a point made during an X exchange with my colleague Bosco Peters is worth reflecting: should the ESV re-describe its own name? If I say "the ESV says this" and you respond "which ESV version?" then might ESV help us by offering a new name such as "ESVUE [ESV Update Edition]"? Bosco notes that in the "other" KJV/RSV tradition, we have the NRSV and now the NRSVUE to distinguish updates on the RSV.

Independence of safeguarding?

The continuing discombobulation in the Church of England over safeguarding, well, continues. At its recent session of General Synod a decision was made about the "next step" in (better) safeguarding of ministry (in respect of overall structure for the whole church - it can be overlooked that many people, including many volunteers, "on the ground", are doing a great job, properly). A casual glance at some comments on X could lead to a conclusion such as "the bishops have got it wrong AGAIN" or "Synod has failed survivors of abuse." Now, it is not for me, from far off, to make a determination on what the Synod (including bishops) got right or wrong, but I can point you to a(n arguably) helpful post by Ian Paul on the nuances within the decision made and the process/debate towards that decision, here. I suggest the comments are worth reading as readers chime in with thier assessment of Ian's assessment of the situation. Other responses to the decisions are listed here.

175 years old

It was a joy this weekend to participate in events and a service to celebrate 175 years of existence for Christ's College, one of our Anglican  schools in the Diocese of Christchurch. The Anglican settlement of Christchurch began in 1850 and Christ's College began that same year, with classes held in Lyttelton (Christchurch's port town). 175 years later it is going strong and its Warden [me] can remember one and only one thing from its 125th anniversary in 1975 (when I was a student there): Charles Upham (VC and Bar - WW2 hero, perhaps most famous of our Old Boys) planted a tree in the quad within the school known as the Upham Quad. There must have been an anniversary service but, to be honest, I do not remember attending it. Yesterday's service was wonderful and moving - a tribute to the quality of the choristers - and a reminder of the wonders of worship when music lifts our hearts to God.

Wider world

No comment required from me as the whole world is commenting but this past week has also been interesting (meaning, very alarming) in respect of the further machinations of a certain global leader.

Ordo Trumpis?

So, last week, a commentary on a very direct theological issue which arose up through the Trumpian world. This week perhaps less directly: is there a theological issue around Trump and team's approach to Israel (and thus to Palestine and thus to the extraordinary announcement made by Trump that he sees the USA taking over Gaza and Gazan Palestinians should move to Egypt and Jordan (or beyond))?

I was intrigued towards theological rumination by a Tweet I saw which alleged that Calvinism is responsible for thinking that God's "old covenant" (i.e. with Israel = nation/people) is still in force alongside the "new covenant" (i.e. that God now covenants through Jesus Christ with the whole world), and thus such an idea influences thinking which favours Israel in many Christian communities, including many influential communities in the USA. The point of this post is not to attack or defend Calvinism on this allegation.

Before ruminating, let me be quite clear: unless Trump is very cunningly leveraging this moment and his announcement to get (presumably) the wealthier Arab nations to fund the reconstruction of Gaza instaed of the USA doing it, what he has announced is appalling: it amounts to precisely the imperialism of a former age which (at least) the West has been moving away from, ever repentant for the errors of past eras, including that expansion of interest which ethnically cleansed peoples from various regions, as would happen if Palestinians are forced to leave Gaza.

If Ordo Amoris raises the question whether love has limits and gradations depending on factors such as kith and kin (or not) and geographical distance from lover to potential beloved (a question being answered in a very particular way this past few days as USAID is dismantled), then Ordo Trumpis (the Trump approach to ordering the world) raises the question - on the particular matter at hand of Gaza - whether a muddled approach by Christians to the nature of God's covenantal promises is influencing the otherwise well-known Trumpian predilection for a great property development deal.

At great risk of being labelled a supersessionist (the church replaces Israel), I cannot see how we read the Bible from cover to cover and get past the fact that all God's promises find their fulfilment in Jesus Christ, with the consequence that focus on land/promised land for the Israel of the Old Testament/old covenant becomes a non-geographical focus on Jesus Christ and the fulfilment of life found in him. More succinctly, the kingdom of God as taught by Jesus is not a bounded area of land on the surface of the earth.

Note, of course, that in the christocentric kingdom of God, justice and mercy matter for all, and that includes for all Jews ... and for all Palestinians. The new covenant of God through Jesus Christ does not shift the commitment of God to the well-being of the Jews; it extends that commitment to all. They way forward for Gaza, in Christian perspective, is a way forward for justice, mercy and peace; ditto for Israel; ditto for the West Bank; Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon.

In this theology there seems no room for a US led property development; but there is opportunity for a US-led humanitarian effort in reconstruction, generously funded because ordo amoris trumps ordo Trumpis. Please don't tell me ordo amoris doesn't include Gaza for America because this week President Trump has clearly seen some kind of kith and kinship with Gaza!

Ordo amoris

The USA is the gift that keeps on giving this blog :)

Now, by "ordo amoris" is not meant anything to do with romance. If you're looking for advice on romance, this post is not going to help you.

It may or may not help you in respect of marriage and family ... because it is a notion, partly rooted way back into Aristotle, thence through Augustine and Aquinas, with more than a dose of common sense and natural affection at its core, that we care for family first, then neighbours, then [etc], and finally the most distant strangers and aliens - the last meaning, if there is any residual love left.

On the one hand, virtually no one, whether they have heard of ordo amoris or not wants to save the world at the expense of loving their most immediate family (cf. a character called Mrs Jellyby in Dickens' Bleak House).

On the other hand, it is also common sense that we can love more than one people group at a time (e.g. a loving family might choose to channel their love for each other at Christmas time by not buying each other presents but contributing gifts to support the poorest people furtherest away). Alternatively, I love my wife and my children and generally work on avoiding situations where I must choose one over the other; and if my neighbour rings with an urgent need for help in the midst of a family meal, I do not look up ordo amoris to see whether I am obligated to respond - I respond a la the Parable of the Good Samaritan etc: the need immediately in front of me is also compelling within the everyday hierarchies of my love for others.

So this past week JD Vance, Vice-President, offered a justification for some Trumpian changes (how illegal immigrants are dealt with; withdrawal of US aid from projects overseas) on the basis of ordo amoris: family first = American family first. Nevermind that "America First" with all the anxieties that phrase is inducing around the world, to say nothing of America First justifications for imposing tariffs on neighbours or should that be neighbours who are not far off countries (and, simultaneously, reneging on trade agreements), apparently its all good under the theological hood what Trump/Vance/Musk are doing (and dare we note other news over the weekend as USAID being dismantled (including projects being abruptly stopped right now), the FBI is purged, government workers are made redundant, etc).

Catherine Pepinster has an excellent summary of the situation here. As an aside, this article was sparked by a fascinating theological debate on X between JD Vance and Rory Stewart. We should also note a measured response from the US Catholic bishops to the specific challenge of what to do about illegal immigration.

Now, on the specific debate question "has Vance properly understood the teaching of ordo amoris?" I suggest you head to social media, X in particular and see the to-ing and fro-ing there. I do not propose to say more here. For what it is worth, I do not think he does, not least because it is inconceivable to me that nuanced thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas would be happy to be cited in endorsement of the unnuanced crash and burn policies of Trumpism!

But there are some other adjoining observations to make from afar, not least because theology is always global and, er, US policies have impacts even ... Down Under.

1. Noting that some pretty intense debates over ordo amoris this past week have been between Catholics (including notable names on X such as Edward Feser, Chad Pecknold, and Fr James Martin), we are reminded that, despite some claims sometimes that "the [Roman] Catholic faith is this unity of truth [postscript: note all Protestant divisions and fractionations]", in reality no one branch of Christianity has dibs on truth. (And let's keep reminding ourselves of divisions in Eastern Orthodoxy over Putinism ... what is it about Trump and Putin which have Christians in thrall to them????).

2. The work of theology is important and this past week highlights that. That work is to discern, debate, discover and delinate the truth about God and God's will for us. While it is unfortunate that we are not more united as Christians on matters of truth, we are fortunate that God has given us minds, voices and these days laptops and thus opportunity to pray and to ponder what is truth. Let the work of theology continue. Let theologians be encouraged rather than discouraged by this past week: theology has a role to play in public life.

3. (Noting that yesterday was The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple and part of the scriptural discourse therein is about the secrets of hearts being revealed, Luke 2:35) this does seem to be a time of revelation when some realities of leaders, both inside and outside the church, are being revealed. I remain shocked to find out who among church leaders and theological leaders are willing to give Trump a pass (or even their fervent support) - some of which has been revealed by those stepping up in this past week to support JD Vance's take on ordo amoris in the service of the Trumpian cause. But, even in comments on X supporting Vance, made by "ordinary" Christians, there is an "aha" moment of realising what an inadequate understanding of Jesus' teaching is informing many Christians.

4. To be honest, I don't think I had heard of ordo amoris before this past week. But learning about it reminded me of something often heard more locally, "charity begins at home." A pretty similar concept in my understanding because it has a similar blocking effect to JD Vance's invocation of ordo amoris: we can ignore concerns faraway and/or among people not of my own kind.

Whatever ordo amoris may mean in the abstract or in some general guide to how we dispense resources of time, energy and money, whether at a personal level or a governmental level, the Parable of the Good Samaritan trumps ordo amoris inasmuch as Jesus himself says, in my words, respond with love to what is immediately in front of you.

A Budde Right moment

Wow. A long while since one Anglican/Episcopalian bishop lit up the world's media (both mainstream and social), but Bishop Marian Budde, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, did that last week with her direct address to President Trump at the end of her sermon in a customary post-inauguration service in the Washington National Cathedral.

The whole sermon is available here (and obviously the whole is context for the final part, along with events of the day or two beforehand, including a flurry of executive orders signed by President Trump immediately after he was sworn into office).

The words that have become famous (for those supporting +Budde and her plea to the President) and infamous and objectionable for many (whether passionate supporters of Trump, or enthusiastic enemies of progressive Christianity, or simply agin women preaching) are these:

"Unity is relatively easy to pray for on occasions of solemnity. It’s a lot harder to realize when we’re dealing with real differences in the public arena. But without unity, we are building our nation’s house on sand.

With a commitment to unity that incorporates diversity and transcends disagreement, and the solid foundations of dignity, honesty, and humility that such unity requires, we can do our part, in our time, to help realize the ideals and the dream of America."

"Let me make one final plea, Mr President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families who fear for their lives.

And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in our poultry farms and meat-packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals – they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples.

Have mercy, Mr President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. Help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were once strangers in this land.

May God grant us all the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world."

Like many people making comments, I have been enthusiastically for Bishop Budde. I think she was right to respond to the urgency of the hour - in the light of presidential executive orders about gender (there will henceforth only be two genders in the USA) and illegal immigrants, to (1) observe to the President that people affected by such orders were fearful (2) to ask for the President to be merciful to such people. 

Claims that what she said was (politically) partisan and not honouring the intended bi-partisan nature of the service do not wash with me. Trump crossed a line with his executive orders. As incoming President he exacerbated division and polarization in his nation. +Budde's sermon focused on the unity of the USA. Alarmed by the executive orders, +Budde understood that to be salt of the earth meant avoiding the blandness of saying nothing about people's fears. People are people, not pawns in ideological wars. Their dignity and well-being matter in ways which Trump seems quite oblivious to (at best) - at worst he may be a cruel man (as many think he is). If a Christian leader is not going to speak out when able to, when will it happen? If a disposition to speak up for marginalized communities is "partisan" then disciples of Jesus are and should be partisan! In fact, +Budde struck no particular "party policy" position; she made no claim as to what mercy might mean in respect of Trump's implementation of his policy positions; but she knew that Trump has some understanding of mercy - after all, part of his executive orders was to pardon a whole bunch of people.*

Of course some have taken umbrage at a woman - any woman, whatever title -speaking; President Trump has called her a "so called bishop" but I assume that was not prompted by his understanding of Leo's famous Bull about Anglican orders!; others have looked up her record as a "progressive" theologian and dismissed her plea for mercy not only as partisan but also as the usual drippy wet stuff progressives say; one Republican politician called for her to be deported (she is an American citizen by birth); etc. All this is ad hominem and does not deal with the substance of her appeal which was that this powerful ruler might consider finding the kindest route to achieve what he wants to achieve.

What has both surprised me and disturbed me is that in the midst of such comments Christians, Protestant and Catholic have poured opprobrium upon her - seemingly oblivious to the Christ-like, Christ-disposed substance to her concern: that a powerful ruler might show mercy to the marginalized. Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:3; Matthew 9:13; Luke 6:20; etc anyone? These past few days have demonstrated that global Christianity (not just American Christianity) is horribly rent in at least two parts. For instance, the Russian Orthodox support for Putin in substance seems indistinguishable from many American church leaders support for Trump. Is this the Christianity of Jesus or another phenomenon? (I have even seen comment that Trump is now the anointed supreme church leader for many American Christians ... how can this be so?)

John Sandemann ("Obadiah"), writing from Sydney, Australia, seeing some criticism of +Budde, makes this helpful observation:

"But it struck Obadiah that Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, who, while in the progressive mainstream of The Episcopal Church, has shown more grace to conservatives than her more extreme colleagues, did NOT hammer home her progressive views. She did not ask people to become progressives. Instead, she simply called for mercy towards immigrants and LGBTQIA persons, especially children. That Obadiah thinks was smart."

For some other good commentary read this or this. 

A correspondent (personal to me) this week makes this important observation about what underlies +Budde's sermon (and many instances in Christian history of people faithful to the kingdom vision of Jesus and to the universal unity of all things which Paul preached):

"... an offer from God of a "Beloved Community." In it, those formerly oppressed  would be freed from assaults on their dignity. Likewise those formerly complicit in oppression would be healed of the moral injury that their abuse of force had brought on them. ... Bishop Budde .... her comment to the new president is at least beside the tradition above. ... She is explaining that the unity of America depends in part on mercy and invites him to stand in that unity with her. The holism of her vision of America as God sees it and her inclusion of herself and her listener in that whole are what lift her remarks above mere partisanship and toward divine prophecy."

That is, in a world of polarization of societies, if not division of the same, and of divisions in humanity, if not brutal wars between humans, Christians of all stripes and persuasions, reading the whole of Scripture, with an understanding of God's purpose for all of history, to bring redemption (NT) to creation (OT), to secure a new creation of grace (NT) from the old creation of law (OT), tend to speak for social harmony, for unity among human beings, for dignity and respect for all and not for some. The Bible is a vision for a "Beloved Community" and not for a beleagured society with winners and losers. This commitment to unity, including a pathway of mercy to secure it, is a charism of the Christian faith. +Budde (whether or not on some things past and present has said things which place her on the spectrum of theology deemed "progressive") in her sermon was thoroughly Christian. Whatever Trump and Vance's personal situation before God, they do not embrace a Christian understanding which accords with this fundamental character of Jesus-shaped Christianity.

Well, that is more than enough from me. You will have your own thoughts. Save for one final note:

Perhaps we could all agree that preaching - a sometimes questioned aspect of worship - remains a very powerful possibility for saying something which speaks to the world and not just to the congregation physically present before the preacher.

The sermon is not yet dead. Long live preaching!

*Clearly immigration, controlling borders and the like is a complex matter for the USA, noting how successive administrations have largely failed to control illegal migration into the States (including Trump's first administration), and also noting how many parts of US society seemingly collude with illegal immigation by gladly employing such immigrants. Ditto, gender-based policies are also complex matters (e.g. how does a society affirm basic human rights of a transgender person while also affirming other rights such as a sportswoman's right to compete in a "fair" sports field). The point of +Budde's sermon was not to challenge the right of Trump and his administration to change policy settings on such complex matters. It was to ask that the implementation of changed policy might be conducted mercifully.

New Year Reflections: Humanity ("We're complicated"), Ceasefire, Improved summer here in Chch

If last week's post, in part at least, was about the complexity of theology because, well, God is complicated (at least, complicated for us to understand who God is, what God is up to, etc), then this week's post begins with the complexity of humanity. 

A section of a comment from Mark to last week's post is worth repeating here:

"One of the big errors, I think, in understanding human beings is to assume that there is a generic, singular "type" - that we are fundamentally rational, or fundamentally relational, or fundamentally emotion-based etc. While all of these are true, it is also obvious that beyond what we have common there is also a great diversity of ways of being. Religions who stress our unity and equality (especially strong with the monotheistic religions) often have the challenge of accounting for our great diversity too (polytheistic religions are perhaps better at allowing and even celebrating this, as they allow and celebrate it in their doctrine of God).

Too much diversity and we lose a sense of our (and God's) unity and wholeness; too much too much unity and we lose a an appreciation of the myriad forms in which human and divine being appears.

There are many models for understanding human diversity-in-unity. By this stage in my life I've tried many of them out on myself and clients! The one that keeps proving it's worth for me, as a basic foundation, is the Myers-Briggs typology based on the pioneering insights of Carl Jung. ..."

We are a diverse bunch - I have seen that in various interactions through this holiday season. But each of us as individuals, wherever we might be located on some scheme of human diversity, is a complex being. We are rational and emotional, we have a history, a present and a future (each of which might be charted on a spectrum from painful to pleasant), we are (with a nod to last week's post) full of desire and may or may not be planning appropriate means of fulfilling those desires (or ignoring them due to other priorities such as meeting the desires of others), and we have capacity both to bore others and to surprise them.

There are perhaps two chief means by which we regularly reflect on the complexity of humanity: 

- gossip (focused on the quirks and quarrels of friends, family, acquaintances, workmates, neighbours, etc) and 

- news (focused on the triumphs and tribulations of people we mostly do not know directly but feel we know because their lives are lived in our heads (politicians, film stars, sports stars, other celebrities). 

Recent weeks of news have of course been dominated by the politician/TV star/golf star (at least on his own golf courses!)/celebrity Donald Trump and his entourage of prospective leaders of his about to be inaugurated empire - their appearances before hearings to determine their fitness for office have been, well, interesting. From the perspective of the complexity of being human, it is intriguing how well known sinners prior to nomination for office take on a certain saintliness in their own minds and in the minds of their supporters. Much as we might deride this phenomenon when viewed on YouTube/X/etc, do we not all do a bit of this "transformative view" of ourselves from time to time (or, indeed, all the time)?

Another aspect of the complexity of humanity is that few if any people are unable to do at least one good thing in their lives. And, speaking of Trump, my reading of this week's news about the Gaza-Israel ceasefire is that while credit goes to Biden and Blinken for laying the groundwork for the current deal - some months back, but not at that time actually achieving a deal - it has been the involvement of Trump which has enabled a deal to be clinched. 

Even as the ceasefire unfolds (and as I write this, the news is of three Israeli hostages being released from Gaza), it seems that one might reasonably assess that the ceasefire is merely a cessation of hostilities and not an actual breaking out of peace. 

Humanity is complicated; each of us are complex beings; whether we invest hopes in a new president or prime minister or monarch, or seek for genuine peace and justice in human communities (our own families? the neighbourhood? Sudan? Ukraine? Gaza/West Bank/Israel?), we are nearly always guilty of underestimating that complex people create complex situations for which simple solutions are mostly unachievable. (As an aside, isn't a strong part of the attractiveness of Trump for American voters and global supporters that he offers simple solutions for every problem. And, as a further aside, isn't there an illustration of the complexity of humanity in how four years of his presidency, 2016-2020, has seemingly created no voters' remorse!).

So, where is the God of Jesus Christ present in our world through the Holy Spirit in our complexity?

Certainly there is some complicatedness about answering that question. This morning, looking at X/Twitter - there is a bunch of Christians in Washington this week with a very simple answer to the question (summarising, Donald Trump is God's anointed saviour of America and the world) and there is a vast number of Christians elsewhere in America and the world deeply anxious for a Trumpian future and even more deeply disturbed at the state of (some) American theology! Whatever God is up to in the world at this time, Trump is an ordinary human sinner not an extraordinary vessel of God's grace.

My own answer to the question is this: 

1. God is doing all kinds of things in the world all the time using all kinds of people. It is not promised to us that any one of us or any one order of the church (not even prophets!) will have discernment as to what is happening. It is possible that with the hindsight of historical reflection we will have some discernment. It is also possible that there will be moments of insight granted to us "this IS God at work in the world" - especially when we see that wonderful sign of the kingdom when people commit their lives to Christ the King of Kings!

2. We can answer the question by being people open to God working in us and through us: being faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, loving neighbours, makers of peace, workers of justice and living holy lives.

If you are wondering where the weather issue from the subject line comes into this post, let me conclude by saying that, like humanity, weather is complicated. The dismal weather of last week's post has given way to pleasant, stock standard Christchurch summer weather. Praise the Lord!

But it may be about to change ... :)

New Year Reflections: 2025 off to a rocky, tragic and (here in Chch) miserable start

Let's get the least difficult matter out of the way - cold, miserable January weather in Christchurch (and other parts of NZ) - not the summer we wanted but the farmers get needed rain ... and, segueing to much, much more difficult matters, we are not in a tragic situation such as Los Angeles is experiencing through these days ... nor are we at war. I am not aware that any conflicts on 31 December 2024 have ceased with the turn of the new year. 

Then, thinking of a rocky start to the year, there is Trump wanting more American territory, seemingly oblivious to the ethical logic of his rhetoric: that Putin may as well seek Ukraine as Trump Greenland ... or Canada.

But I do like the joke on the internet: that Australia has announced that it has offered New Zealand to Trump as territory he might like to acquire :). It would be one way to get the longed for free trade agreement with the USA!

New Year reflections: by this I don't mean reflections on world events (though they form context for thinking about the perenniel question, What is the Good News in our day?). I do mean: thinking about the Good News, with Anglican hues, with reference to some reading I have managed to do during the holiday season.

So a bit of reading Barth's Church Dogmatics led to some enquiry into De Lubac's mid 20th century controversy with Dominican Thomists over nature/supernature (a controversy I do not fully understand, in part because it includes "This is what Aquinas meant" v "No, that is not what he meant" ping-pong!) which moved into some internet enquiries yielding some interesting articles/chapters, including the nugget of information that Garrigou-Lagrange (erstwhile chief Thomistic antagonist of De Lubac's) was a supporter of Vichy France (because it represented opposition to "modernism"). Naturally this got me thinking along the following lines ... (in no particular order of merit):

- What is it about conservative theology, whether in the early to mid 20th century in Europe or in the early 21st century in America/Europe, which leads to associated support for fascist or fascist-tending politicians?

- In different words, why are some theologians careful to question "modernism" in any given human era but seemingly careless about whom they unquestioningly welcome as allies against "modernism"?

- Can we ever be fully rational about how God works in the world? The nature/supernature controversy is (in my understanding) an issue about how God as God makes connection with creation (whether nature is "the whole of creation" or focused on nature as "humanity"), the supernatural with the natural, with the conjoined issue of whether natural desire for God exists "naturally" and if so, is God obligated to fulfil it (which impinges on God's sovereign freedom)?, or, desire for God is implanted by God through the creation of us ... briefly, there is a mystery about God's work in the world and, just may be, it cannot be explained by a combo of Aristotle's and Aquinas' propositions? Or, can it be? My own lean is towards De Lubac's suspicion of a wholly rational explanation for God's work in the world.

- Why, across a number of bits and bobs of writings about these matters was it hard if not impossible to find a fairly straightforward christological approach to the nature/supernature dilemms? That is, a Christian approach to bridging any assumed gap between nature and supernature should invoke the Incarnation (the Word became flesh) as the specific, concrete instance in which the gap is bridged and, further, recalling Pauline "in Christ" theology, is not our desire for God fulfilled by our being "in Christ" - within the very life of the One in whom all things in heaven and on earth are fulfilled?

- Conversely, just as anti-modernist politicians can be engaged in order to support a specific theological agenda, so can the Christian faith be invoked to support a certain line of political or socio-political thought (the current instance being the acknowledgement by various global pundits that Christianity has profound influence on our aspiration for "the good life" in the here and now). But, much as we Christians, feeling beleagured in secularised modern life, may relish such endorsement, is there not an ever constant need to focus on truth rather than utility? Does God exist? Is this existent God the God revealed in and through Jesus Christ? What does this God say to us and expect of us?

- De Lubac has a fascinating passage (as cited in something I read) which in his context was about (in my language) Catholic propositional theologians but which I reckon could apply to evangelical propositional theologians:

De Lubac "Disappearance of the Sense of the Sacred." pp. 233-4, (in Theology in History, trans. Anne Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1996), cited in Randall S. Rosenberg, The Givenness of Desire: Concrete Subjectivity and the Natural Desire to See God (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), p. 28.

- Reflecting on such a critique of a "We've got it all sewn up theology", De Lubac was mindful, as other theologians have been, as I hope I am, that the God we adore and attempt to serve, the God in whom we believe ultimate blessing is to be found, is the God of Jesus Christ - the God who in great complexity, diversity and not always rationally reconcilable disclosures is revealed through the Old Testament, the four Gospels, the Pauline and other epistles - but whom may be understood simply (if profoundly and unable to be exhausted mystery) as Love.

- In 2025, whatever rockiness, tragedy and miserable-summerness befalls us, the Good News of Jesus Christ is that God is Love, we are loved by Love itself and the best life - the Augustinian rest for our restlessness, the Thomistic beatitude we seek - is yet to be but always present in Jesus Christ, risen from the dead.

Christmas Reflections (Scripture)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

This will be my last post for 2024 and the next post will be circa mid January 2025 so the little grey blogging cells have a chance at a recharge. I have updated this post a little to reflect concerns raised in the comments about inaccurate, even heretical thinking. I have used italics to indicate the updates

Continuing one theme this year past (and other years), What is going on in the gospels?, especially as we try to make sense of the differences between the gospels, and the significant difference between the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel, I have a few thoughts about "Christmas" and the gospels.

For instance, if we think about what is essential to all four gospels and what is not, then we see that across all four gospels it seems essential to the shared core gospel narrative, that John the Baptist features, there are miracles, there is teaching by Jesus, there is recognition of Jesus being the Son of God, there is building conflict between Jesus and Jerusalem-based religious authorities, one part of this conflict involves an incident in the Temple in which Jesus' upsets economic activity there, a plan is hatched to do away with Jesus, Judas is drawn into the plan, Jesus is betrayed, arrested, placed on trial, Peter denies knowing Jesus, Jesus is committed to being crucified, he is crucified, dead, buried by Joseph of Arimathea, and rises again on the day after the Sabbath which follows the day of crucifixion.

What is not essential is a narrative about the conception, birth and infancy of Jesus: Mark has none, nor does John.

What unites the gospel writers is that Jesus has an origin: Mark locates Jesus' origin in the prophetic scriptures of ancient Israel, and comfortably reports him described as "the Son of David." Behind the Markan Jesus is Israel's history fuelled prophecies, that a new David would come to Israel. Matthew locates Jesus' origin in genealogical terms (descended from Abraham) and spiritual action (conceived by the Holy Spirit), with numerous prophecies fulfilled in his birth, infancy and adult mission. Luke locates Jesus' origin in spiritual action-come-angelic announcement (conceived by the Holy Spirit, connected to a miracle overcoming barrenness in a relative who will be the mother of John the Baptist), connects him genealogically further back than Abraham, to Adam the son of God, while also locating Jesus into the prophetic tradition of Israel, his active role in Israel's life fulfilling ancient prophecies about the restoration of Israel.

John whizzes past David, Abraham and Adam to locate Jesus' origin in the very being of God: Jesus is the Word through whom the world is created, the Word become human flesh, the revelator of God who comes into the world from the very heart of God.

If Matthew and Luke tell a narrative in which Mary is the mother of Jesus and God the Holy Spirit is the agent by whom Jesus is conceived of a human mother without a human father, then John tells a narrative which invites us into the intimacy of Jesus God's Son with God Jesus' Father. Put another way, Matthew and Luke open up the question, What does it mean that God is Jesus' Father and Jesus is God's Son?, and barely offer an answer. John takes up the question and provides a full answer to it.

Yet, not to neglect Mark, if Mark is the earliest gospel, then Mark presents the reader with Jesus doing God-in-action things: forgiving sins, healing people, delivering demons, feeding multitudes, ruling nature. Matthew and Luke also present Jesus in this way, but develop Jesus the teacher imparting wisdom, law, announcement of Good News. John takes up what all three propose and develops their proposals: In Jesus God is present in the world, through divine actions of Jesus God offers life for the world, what Jesus says and does is a full and complete revelation of God. To see Jesus is to see God; to seek God, you should meet Jesus because only in Jesus is the fullest representation of God to be found in the context of human history.

Essential to the Gospels, all four, is encounter with Jesus is the means to eternal/abundant life.