A Sermon in Celebration of the Council of Nicaea

Over recent months a group of Christchurch church leaders (Te Raranga) have been working on an ecumenical service to celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. The service was held last night at 5 pm, 15 June and I had the honour of preaching. I had decided that this week's blogpost would be the sermon's text ... and then a flurry of comments to last week's post came in. My sermon may or may not settle any disputes therein!

Sermon Trinity Sunday 15 June 2025 1700 Anniversary of the Council of Nicaea

Ecumenical Service in the Transitional Cathedral, Christchurch

Recording of service here

Readings: John 17:20-23 (read in Te Reo), Ephesians 4:1-6

Greetings to all! Thank you to Te Raranga for organising the service. Thank you to the cathedral staff, volunteers, musicians and choir for hosting the service.

We have come together for Kotahitanga (our unity), Whakapono (our formation in the faith) and Taonga (celebration of a precious gift).

Who is this person or being – Jesus Christ - who prays, according to our Gospel of John reading:

“so that they may be one, as we are one” (kia kotahi ai ratou, me taua nei hoki he Kotahi)

and also talks about God the Father

“so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (kia whakapono ai te ao, nau ahau I tono mai)?

John’s Gospel stands out within the New Testament writings for presenting the man Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus the Christ sent from God who is simultaneously the Son of God in a relationship of identity and union with God the Father.

What were the first Christians to make of this presentation, this revelation of who Jesus is, in relation to us, his colleagues in humanity, and in relation to God, his colleague (co-equal, co-participant) in divinity?

That question rumbled its way through the 2^nd and 3rd centuries of the Christian era.

Nick Page, writing in Premier Christianity, offers a slightly racy version of what happened at the beginning of the fourth century: [https://www.premierchristianity.com/features/an-idiots-guide-to-the-council-of-niceas-big-posh-creed-of-compromise/19332.article ]

“We start in Alexandria, Egypt in AD 318. … … a priest called Arius has had a thought: if Jesus is the Son of God then, logically, he has to be younger than the Father. That, after all, is the key thing about sons: they tend to be a lot younger than their dads. And didn’t Paul describe Jesus as “the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15)? If that is true, Arius reasoned, there must have been a time before Jesus was born. 

A highly effective communicator, Arius began to spread his ideas, not only through preaching but simple songs. According to his opponents, he even coined a slogan:

“there was, when he was not” (ie there was a time before Jesus).”

“Arius was not suggesting Jesus wasn’t God; just, perhaps, that he wasn’t quite as ‘goddy’ as God was. And while many welcomed his ideas, many more found them alarming.

If Arius was right, then would it not imply that the Son was inferior – or subordinate – to the Father? What does that do to the Trinity?

John’s Gospel said that Jesus was the Word, eternally present with the Father, through whom all things were created (1:1-3), but Arius’ theories struck at the very heart of Jesus’ divinity.”

“The argument flared into a bitter, factional dispute. Arius was condemned and dismissed from his post. But other parts of the Eastern Church supported him. The anger grew so bad that, eventually, emperor Constantine I intervened.

In AD 325, he announced that he would call the first-ever ecumenical – ie ‘worldwide’ – Council of Bishops.

It would meet towards the end of May, in the city of Nicaea (modern Iznik in Turkey). Together, the bishops would come up with a logical, clear, universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.”

So, between 250 and 300 bishops attended, most from the east; only a few from the west. And the emperor, Constantine, presided over the council or synod – the first ecumenical or worldwide council of the church of God. Kotahitanga at Nicaea!

Incidentally, the Council of Nicaea did make some decisions other than creedal ones, especially in regard to canons governing our life as church, some of which are still observed today.

But, tonight, 1700 years later, I will concentrate our attention on the creedal character of the council.

Now most, if not all of us here have been to synods, conferences and councils of the church where we have done our human best to keep all present in the same tent of roughly common conviction, crafting amendments to motions so some kind of healthy compromise is reached.

A bit of that happened but a full compromise between Arians and others was not the work of this council. Nicaea was decisive.

The creed at that council said:

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible; and continued for a few paragraphs in words we are familiar with …

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both things in heaven and things on earth,

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead,

And in the Holy Spirit.

So far so good to those of us familiar with the later version of this creed which is known as The Nicene Creed. But then we hit this, which is both decisive and exclusive:

“The catholic and apostolic Church anathematises [ie condemns] those who say, “There was when he was not,” and, “He was not before he was begotten,” and that he came to be from nothing, or those who claim that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or substance, (or created,) or alterable, or mutable.”

Here then is the key innovation at Nicaea. A stake in the ground for the Whakapono of the church.

God the Son, according to the creed, is “of one substance” (the Greek is the famous word, homoousion) with the Father. Here substance could be “being” or “nature.”

Nick Page again: “Jesus is both distinct from the Father, but also the same. He is equal in the Trinity, true God from true God. … Begotten, yes, but not made. Not created.” 

Thus, a specific line in what we call orthodox Christianity – the orthodoxy of both eastern and western Christianity was established.

Theological disputes would rumble on through more centuries and further ecumenical councils, especially around precision of language about Jesus as both human & divine.

What we now call the Nicene Creed developed through expanding river, then future councils shaped and smoothed from it the distinctive Taonga which is the Nicene Creed.

So, tonight we neither recite the original Nicene Creed, nor do we curse any Arians present in our midst. 

What are we celebrating after 1700 years? What role could and should the Nicene Creed as we know it play in the life of the church of God in 2025?

Ephesians 4:1-6, after all, speaks challengingly to us as we celebrate an ecumenical council of the church, because Paul talks to us as church and urges that we are

“making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Our three themes tonight are: Kotahitanga. Whakapono. Taonga.

[i.e. we reflect on the Creed as a unifying confession, a tool for spiritual formation, and a precious gift from the church of the past to the church of the future.]

Kotahitanga: we may or may not ever resolve the differences between church denominations; but we can and must live into and develop what we have in common, what binds us together as followers of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. Nicaea highlights what we do believe together. Let’s bind ourselves afresh to the Nicene Creed (understanding unresolved differences between east and west) and at least in this way, make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Whakapono: it is easy to recite the creed as a matter of rote, words we say with out lips while our minds dwell on what we are going to have for lunch or for supper. But the content of the creed is the content of our faith. It is the most concise window we have into who the God is whom we adore, pray to, follow and listen to. Let what we believe form us as followers of Christ. Let’s live faithfully in the faith the creed summarises for us.

Taonga: it has been a fashion in some recent decades to diminish the importance of the Nicene Creed. Theologians question whether we can still believe such things about God. Liturgists planning worship may see the Apostles’ Creed – it has fewer words - as a route to a shorter service. In some forms of free form worship, saying the creed is a funny old thing to do in contemporary culture, so it is quietly dropped.

Might we have a new appreciation, for the creed as a taonga, a gift from the past to hold us to the true faith, to focus our minds on the true meaning of the revelation of God the Trinity in Scripture?

Might we see the creed not as words we have to say but a window into the truth of who God is?

Might we say or sing the creed as words of worship to the true and living God?

Might the creed be a celebration of who we are in Christ?

Pentecost and the Needs of the ... next ABC

On the one hand, it is Pentecost, and  [according to some Tweets] the 2000th birthday of the church ... I thoughy that would be 2030 or 2033, but who is counting :).

On the other hand, Pentecost is the beginning of a new era with Eleven apostles restored to Twelve apostle, with the election of Mathias. A remind that we have a new Pope and not yet a new Archbishop of Canterbury.

But we do have - courtesy of a link in Thinking Anglicans - a Statement of Needs for the next ABC. This looks good - comprehensive, careful, considerate, to the needs of the Anglican church there and around our globe.

From the Venerable Dr Will Adam's introduction (with apologies for format as I copy froma PDF):

"The Diocese of Canterbury is looking forward to welcoming its 106th Archbishop. This Statement of Needs, prepared by the Vacancy in See Committee, sets out a little of what the diocese needs and expects in an Archbishop and describes something of the rich life and ministry of the Church of England in the eastern half of Kent as we seek, together, to be disciples of Jesus Christ and to proclaim in word and action the Good News of Jesus."

"Locally we realise that responsibilities in the diocese will form but a small part of the Archbishop’s total ministry. We have a long established, valued and well understood system of delegation of day to day responsibility for episcopal ministry in the diocese to the Bishop of Dover and expect this to continue. That said, there is a real and tangible sense of connection and affection for the Archbishop of Canterbury in the parishes and communities of the diocese. The Archbishop is ‘our’ Archbishop alongside their responsibilities in the Church of England, the nation, the Anglican Communion and on the world stage. We offer in the Diocese of Canterbury and in the Cathedral Precincts a home, where the Archbishop will feel they belong. Canterbury Cathedral is location of the Archbishop’s cathedra, the metropolitical seat and the mother church of the Anglican Communion and the natural location of the Archbishop’s ministry in prayer, liturgy and teaching. The Diocese of Canterbury is not without its challenges. We hope that as we seek to live out a Christ-like life that our next Archbishop would be a supporter and an advocate for us alongside their other weighty tasks. We are praying for the calling out of a faithful pastor to be our Archbishop. If you are a candidate considering whether to express an interest in the post please be assured that we are praying for you in this time of discernment. "

The document then proceeds to a "The Archbishop we are seeking ..." section, which is excellent.

But I note in the last bullet point an interesting implied (or not, let's discuss) note:

"has worked and will continue to work constructively with the Living in Love and Faith process and will fully welcome those from the LGBTQIA+ community. They will recognise with honesty the complexity of the current situation and the strongly held, but different, convictions present in the diocese as in the Church of England more widely. They will affirm that we are all created and loved into being whilst all also having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. They will embrace those who pray for change to enable same-sex partners to marry in the Church of England. They will also embrace those who hold the current Church of England teaching on marriage. "

On the one hand, the implication of "has worked and will  continue to work constructively with the Living in Love and Faith process ..." literally rules out potential contenders from outside of the Church of England, on the grounds that potential candidates in churches as close as Scottish, Welsh and Irish Anglican churches have not so worked with the LLF process.

On the other hand, presumably there is no strict intention to rule out the wind of the Spirit blowing in the direction of, say, a candidate from Ghana or Guyana or Glasgow, and there would be a way of assessing such an extra-England candidate as having a track record of working on LGBTQIA+ matters coherent with the LLF process.

Still, there are 101 reasons, additional to the LLF process, for the CofE looking within itself for its preferred new ABC.

We keep praying ...

Closer to home, and in the spirit of Pentecost, and of Trinity Sunday itself, if you live in or near Christchurch, at 5 pm Sunday 15 June 2025, we are hosting an ecumenical service celebrating the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea at the Transitional Cathedral, Hereford Street. ALL welcome!

Ecumenical Endeavours

In order to explain why this week's post is (a) later than usual, and (b) shorter than usual, I may as well tell you about my weekend!

I have spent Saturday, Sunday and this [Monday] morning at the Uniting Churches of Aotearoa New Zealand [UCANZ] biennial forum. We discussed the present and future of that variety of parishes throughout Aotearoa New Zealand which are union/uniting parishes (almost all are Presbyterian/Methodist combinations/co-operations), or co-operating parishes (almost all involve Anglicans, whether Anglican-Presbyterian or Anglican-Presbyterian-Methodist co-operating parishes, sometimes called co-operating ventures) and come under UCANZ as an oversight/administrative body formed to support such parishes. The Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches are the "Partners" to this enterprise.

We had a very pleasant three days together, at the Onehunga Methodist church, with lovely food, superbly led worship, quality discussions and, I think, a well formed resolution to conclude our proceedings, that the three Partners undertake a root and branch review of UCANZ - meaning a root and branch review of how we Partner churches wish to "do" ecumenical partnerships at the parish level as we move through these changing times. Changing, not least, we were reminded, by Dr. Peter Lineham, because the union/co-operating parishes of NZ are under as much pressure from numerical decline and increase in average age of regular congregants as any other part of the churches of these islands.

It will be interesting to see where we "land" in the review because where we land is where we agree as Partners to the way forward. What will we agree to?!

Put another way, in the week when our Sunday gospel is John 17:20-26 (if Ascension has not been deferred to this Sunday just past), i.e. we focus on Jesus' prayer that we may be one, then our forum highlighted the immense challenge of becoming one, through a great potential means to working through differences to reach a new unity. If some forty to fifty years (and more) of the three Partner churches seeking to formally "co-operate" or "union[ise]" have taught us anything it is that (a) co-operation is definitely possible (b) actual "unity" is about as far away as ever. Spekaing as an Anglican, for instance, we are not likely to give away the importance we place on bishops any time soon! And differences about the eucharist, of course, remain robust theological differences.

Nevertheless, we have no choice in many districts and suburbs but to co-operatively work together in Christ's name and for Christ's gospel. How we best do that will be the great task of the next two years and I look forward to seeing what we discern and what we decide.

Of Deaths and an Election

Renowned theologian Alistair McIntyre has died at the age of 96. I confess to hearing a lot about him but to never having read him - he should be on my to be read task list, especially his most famous book, After Virtue. An obituary is here. A reflection on his impact as a philosopher-theologian is here.

McIntyre's great thesis (as I understand it) is that the Western world has followed Kant and his ethical emphasis on individualism/individual rights to choose one's own best life to its peril; instead, taking a cue from Aristotle, ethics is both a communal and an historical matter, which does not begin with the Enlightenment, and includes concern for all not just for myself.

As a small anecdote (about a large demographic crisis) which - again, as I best understand things - illustrates where Kant's influence is at a kind of communal self-destructive zenith - with birthrates in many countries (not only in the West, also in Asia ... but not in Africa) well below replacement rates (NZ at 1.6 births per woman is one of a number of countries in similar situation), I was listening to a radio talkback session host trying to drum up listener engagement on this matter, and he cited a US survey of why people didn't want children and 57% said (from memory) Just because I don't.

Someone in my life who often mentioned Alistair McIntyre (along with other notable theologians such as Robert Jenson) was the Reverend Dr Bryden Black. Bryden, until a few years ago, was a regular commenter on Anglican Down Under. He was also a personal friend, a clerical colleague here in the Diocese, and a larger than life character with many luminous thoughts on a wide range of matters, not limited to theology and ecclesiology, because he owned a large sheep station in North Canterbury and thus had many things to say about the state of the economy, the weather and the quality of our political leaders.

Bryden died recently after a brief illness and his funeral will be at 1 pm Friday 6 June, 2025 at St. Christopher's church, Avonhead Road, Avonhead, Christchurch.

I will miss him!

This blog is Anglican Down Under which means a special interest in Anglican matters in the West Island. Having been earlier this year to the farewell for Philip Freier, the immediately past Archbishop of Melbourne, I have paid attention to the election of the next Archbishop. That election was held 22-23 May, this weekend past. On the slate were local candidates and one candidate from England. Since the latter was already a bishop - Ric Thorpe, Bishop of Islington in the Diocese of London, and bishop with responsibilty for supperoting church plants in the CofE - I wondered if he might do well in the election. My theory is that a bishop on an election slate has a head start since they already answer the question, Could this person be a bishop?, before getting to the question, Should this person be our bishop?

The result of the election is that Archbishop-elect Ric Thorpe will be the next Archbishop of Melbourne, with his installation being later this year.

I met Bishop Ric at Lambeth and enjoyed a brief conversation with him. Many  Down Under Anglicans, as well as members of other denominations, will have had much longer conversations with him, since he has been a frequent visitor to these parts, speaking at conferences on church planting and like subjects.

For some media statements/reactions, try here, here, here and here.

A Catholic Kind of Archbishop of Canterbury?

If last week I posted a few thoughts (with tongue in cheek) about Leo XIV being an Anglican kind of Pope, then this week let's have a go at the converse, A Catholic Kind of Archbishop of Canterbury? But no tongue in cheek.

First, I have noticed some Anglican concerns about how long it is taking to choose the next ABC, with unfavourable comparisons to the seped with which the new Pope was chosen. While there is much to learn from the Catholic church, and, yes, we could, arguably, be a bit quicker, let's acknowledge that it is very unlikely that Anglican (whether in the CofE itself or across the Communion) would ever agree to an electoral body for the next ABC which consisted of:

- only males

- only bishops

- about 80% membership picked by the previous ABC

I think not! We are not going to have A Catholic Kind of Process of Choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury Ever :)

Secondly, it may or may not be a bad thing that a bit of time has elapsed in the Anglican process.

Thirdly, since catholic means universal, we can observe that this time around (due to initiative by Archbishop Welby) there is greater representation of the Anglican Communion in the Crown Nomination Commission put together for the occasion (from 1 to 5 members). 

In the past week the process of choosing the five has been completed and it is a delight report that the Reverend Canon Isaac Beech, a New Zealander, a member of Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa, has been chosen to represent Oceania (which, by the way, is not "the South Pacific" but South Pacific plus some of Asia plus North Pacific). See further here. 

For a complete overview of where the process is at, see what Andrew Goddard has to say here.

Fourthly, perhaps the bigger "catholic" question about the next ABC is whether the next ABC will have universal reach into and around the Communion, as well as into and around the CofE?

Consider the following issues:

- could we have a female ABC (as many in the CofE would like) v would that work well in wider Communion relationships (noting that some Anglican provinces do not ordain women as bishops)?

- if an English bishop is chosen, will that person connect with the CofE if not appropriately "moderate" v will that person connect with most of the Communion if not explicitly conservative, especially in connection with That Topic?

- what if a non-English (non-Welsh/Scottish/Irish) bishop were chosen, for example, an African bishop was chosen, who then would have greater acceptability to the wider Communion (the vast majority of which is African) v would any non-English bishops, from any part of the world, other than Great Britain and Ireland, be acceptable to the CofE as a whole?

Of course, fifthly, ultimately, the greatest "catholic" question re the new ABC is whether she or he will have ability to enhance unity in the CofE and in the Communion?

Incidentally, the title question to this post has a further aspect: customarily the ABC is successively evangelical ... catholic ... evangelical and it is now the catholic turn!

An Anglican Kind of Pope?

Okay, my tongue is somewhat planted in my cheek but let's see if there is a modicum of truth in my title.

Since last week's post, the smoke has burned white and Cardinal Robert Prevost, lately of Chicago, the Augustinians, Peru and recently domiciled in Rome with a red hat, is now Pope Leo XIV.

There seems much to like in Leo XIV, not least from a personal perspective, that he stands with Francis' critique of JD Vance on ordo amoris, which is also my position. Alternatively put, Leo may be an American but he is not a Trumpian American.

He also in statements since his election is affirming of the Francis way of modernising the church. Yet, liked by "traditional" Catholics, he is wearing all the papal vestments including the mozetta, and living in the papal apartments. 

What is in a name? Well, may be not that much if one's parents named one X or Y because "they liked" it. But there is quite a lot in a name chosen by popes because they set out to live up to and to live out that name. John Paul 1 and John Paul 2 wanted to capture the best of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI who straddled the (as it turned out) epochal decades of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, including Vatican II. Francis chose that name because of his "bias to the poor." Now we have Leo XIV, with specific resonance to Leo XIII, who wrote Rerum Novarum on the rights and duties of capital and labour, upholding the dignity of the labourer and challenging capitalists to live out obligations to their fellow humans. Sort of Marx without actual socialism (because not espousing collective ownership of the means of production). I haven't been to Peru but I can imagine that many years sent in Peru would point one to an encyclical such as Rerum Novarum.

There is more to the Leo XIII and (likely) Leo XIV connection than the Christianising of political economics. I leave that to other commentators. The point for now is that for those on the Catholic left, there is a lot to like in Leo XIII and for those on the Catholic right there is nothing to dislike in Leo XIII, and thus all (as I read across X and open up some of the articles tweets point to) have much to hope for in Leo XIV, including the chiefest critics of Francis.

Clearly, to this point in recitation of things said in the past few days, Leo XIV is very Catholic, so Catholic we might even say that it seems very unlikely that any Catholic will come up with the jibe (sometimes made about Francis) that the Pope was not Catholic!

We might also note - with much appreciation - that Leo XIV is a Christ-centred man of God, as Robert Imbelli draws out in this article.

Why bother then with a tongue in cheek remark about Leo being an Anglican kind of Pope?

Well, I have seen a number of commentators these few days past talk about Robert Prevost as a man not given to taking sides, but keen to walk a careful middle line. For instance, here is Dan Hitchens writing about "Leo XIV and the Best-Case Scenario" (meaning the best case for conservative Catholics to take heart even though Leo looks like "Continuity Francis" in certain respects):

"Trawling the Holy Father’s Twitter history, as one does, suggests a churchman who has made it to the age of sixty-nine without feeling any need to choose a side in the Catholic culture wars. Yes, he is outspoken on the rights of migrants; but he’s also seriously alarmed about the trans issue. Yes, he retweets the more progressive Catholic publications; but he also shares writings from the sturdily orthodox Cardinal George and Archbishop Chaput. Yes, he admires Pope Francis and likes the idea of “synodality”; but (unlike some people) he does not seem to regard either as a kind of inspired update on the gospel that calls into question what the Church has been doing for the last two thousand years."

How much more Anglican can you get than that? 

:)

(Update (after first comment below): Anglicans do not need to walk the middle line as individual members of the Anglican Communion. But Anglican bsihops do find themselves walking the middle line ...).

PS For a beautifully written account of aspects of the contemporary Catholic scene with respect to Pope Francis and now Pope Leo, see Colm Tobin's reflections-with-advice-at-the-end.

Smelling the Sheep

Josie Pagani heads up her latest column for the Stuff newspapers with "Restoring politics as a broad church". Her general political point is that some of what we are seeing in politics such as Trump's resurgence in the USA (and, we might add, noting UK election results over the weekend, Farage's Reform party's success) is the result of  a widening gap between those who opt in to running the place and those who opt out. Her overall argument is that "politics" needs to become a "broad church" - more inclusive of, and better recognising the plight of those who have opted out or, perhaps, just feel left out:

"Our politics cater to those who opt in. They see those who have fallen off life’s train, but they don’t know what to do for them. Governments throw them pity, at best, and the gap keeps widening between those who are part of the system and trust it, and the big chunk of people who have opted out and mistrust.

...

The more politics leaves people behind, the more unstable politics will become. Sooner or later, they will come for you.

Social observer Chris Arnade jokes that Donald Trump’s opponents are the kids who sit in the front row of class while Trump’s supporters are the kids at the back of the class.

...

To be a political party only for those who opt in, in a country where too many are opting out, will lose elections."

Pagani notices that, nevertheless, some hope from the centre-left is emerging as both Carney and the Liberals in Canada and Albanese and Labour in Canada and Australia have had solid wins in very reent elections.

But laced through her column are some citations of remarks made by Pope Francis who, of course, tried to make his church as broad as possible, with a special emphasis on inclusion of the poor and the marginalised. Thus Pagani notes:

"Pope Francis spent his life thinking about poverty, and how to reach the excluded.

He had a catchphrase, “reality is more important than ideas”. He wanted believers to move beyond abstract doctrines, and deal with the world and its people as they found them.

“Smell the sheep,” he used to say. Live and eat with the people.

... and ...

There is another politics that can reach people. Pope Francis said the church must be “a field hospital after battle”, a refuge and place of repair. It must “go to the peripheries, which are often filled with solitude, sadness, inner wounds and loss of a zest for life”."

These words resonate with me - a mere Anglican and not too sure whether I am centre-left or centre-right :).

Facing reality. Smelling the sheep - i.e. understanding people in the actuality of their lives - often messy lives. Taking care not to live in the world of ideas (or blogs!!) but among and with people. Church as a hospital more than a schoolroom; church as refuge more than a fighting vehicle; church with people difficult to love rather than filled with lovely "nice" people.

None of this is easy. All of this fleshes out the gospel stories in the 21st century. What does it mean for church to be "the body of Christ" - the living, breathing, perspiring (or smelly!!), sometimes bleeding, sometimes sore-muscled living expression of Jesus on earth.

Jesus is risen. He is risen indeed IN HIS CHURCH - the bodily resurrection of Christ.

All of this as we head to next Sunday, Good Shepherd Sunday! 

Can people change?

Look it could be a very long blogpost if I tried to answer the question in the subject line with appropriate comprehensiveness and scholarly depth, so let's offer as succinct a partial answer as possible!

First, this three word question arguably lies at the heart of Pope Francis' papacy and he tried to answer the question affirmatively. He wanted the church to change and he knew that ecclesiastical change occurs as individuals change.  Although his proposals for change had doctrinal implications, he never changed (i.e. never presided over change of) any doctrine; but he was keen on a church changed its self-understanding. For example, less concerned with doctrine, more concerned with practice; less focused on outward dress, more attention to inward demeanour. All, of course, in pursuit of the body of Christ looking like the gentle, merciful Jesus of the gospels. As a Jesuit he was schooled in the conviction that drawing close to Jesus, allowing the gaze of Jesus on one's life, bringing the whole of one's life before Jesus in "examination" was crucial to transformation of life (cf. Ignatian "Spiritual Exercises).

If nothing else, and with acknowledgement that most of the current voting cardinals have been appointed by Francis, the selection of the new Pope will tell us something about the extent of change he has wrought across the whole Roman church.

Incidentally, there are many things being said about Francis' papacy and one starting point is to head to First Things  where various assessments can be found and perhaps the best and fairest of them is by Robert Barron (and mentioned already in comments to my previous post).

For a Kiwi comment or two on the funeral mass itself and what will be looked for in a new pope, see what Cardinal John Dew, and our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, have to say, via RNZ News.

Secondly, and still in Rome, our three word question relates to President Trump himself. Perhaps the most extraordinary photo of the day of the funeral mass - when amazing photos have been taken, not least of the vast congregation gathered - is the photo of Presidents Trump and Zelensky in earnest, peace seeking conversation seated in St. Peter's itself. (Photo from here, which acknowledges Associated Press.)

What a contrast from the terrible media session a month or two back in the White House with J.D. Vance and Trump seeking to carve Zelensky (and Ukraine) up in one easy as you go bullying session.

How moving that in the house of the Prince of Peace, kings and rulers should seek peace - that Trump and Zelensky should speak directly and face to face on how peace might actually be achieved (i.e. not by parroting Putin's talking points). The Guardian has articles here and here about this extraordinary moment.

Has Trump changed? Has Francis's life had an impact on him? Has a "Franciscan" miracle occurred, even after Francis' death? [Hint: we may never know this side of Glory.]

Thirdly, Damien Grant, a regular Stuff columnist here in NZ, is moved by news of the Pope's death to opine about the course of his own life - brought up Catholic, later rejected that upbrining.

Relative to the question of whether people can change, Grant offers this reflection:

"I rejected Catholicism while still at school, but this wasn’t a casual schoolboy rebellion. I struggled with the contradictions, as I saw them, inside my faith. God is omniscient and omnipotent. He created the universe, from the laws of physics and the architecture of the big bang all the way through to my DNA that formed the instant I came into existence.

"From that moment until now everything that has happened to me has been a product of His creation and my response to that creation. And the atoms and laws of the universe that constitute my being exist only as a result of His actions. Given his omniscience, the path of my life, and afterlife, was known at the instant that He brought the cosmos into being.

Given this; how could the Christian Brothers, the denomination responsible for my education, maintain that I possessed free will? Everything that you are in this instant is a product of everything that has happened to you and how you have previously reacted to that stimulus, right back to the involuntary actions from the moment of conception.

If God is as defined by Catholicism you have as much free will as a crystal vase tossed from a moving car on a trajectory towards the asphalt. There were other issues but I entered adulthood free from the moral restraints imposed, and demanded, by a belief in the teaching of Christ."

On this logic, people may change if there is freewill and no God! Nevertheless, I think that Grant simplifies the mystery of predestination and freewill (if you are a Christian) or of determinism and freewill (if you are a philosopher).

Nevertheless Grant later in the column affirms the good role faith has played in changing people:

"Yet the longer it has existed, the better it has become. Christianity has changed those who believed but has also been changed and the fragmentation of Christianity has contributed to modern religious intuitions reflecting the values of the communities."

Grant concludes his reflections with this thoughtful question (my bold):

"We are increasingly disengaged from the religious foundations that are responsible for the best aspects of our civilisation. Pope Francis was alive to this issue and often spoke about a spiritual desertification that has come about as “…the result of attempt by some societies to build without God, or to eliminate their Christian roots.” He concluded that the Christian world was becoming sterile, depleting itself like overexploited ground where the soils once deep Christianity was being denuded.

The solution proposed by Francis is a return to faith but for many that is intellectually impossible. So we must confront the great dilemma of our age; How do you prevent a secular society degenerating into a Nihilist one when we have relied upon religion to provide the moral basis of our civilisation?"

Can people change?

Answer: I hope so. Change is desperately needed! 

2025 Thoughts on the Resurrection Narratives (plus) (updated)

First, the "plus":

- Since beginning to write this post, we have heard the news that Pope Francis has died. I am both glad to read all the lovely things said about him and his ministry, agreeable to the considered reflections on his shortcomings, and feeling no need to add to fine words said by others. As good as anything anywhere by way of comprehensive appreciation and critique is this reflection by Liam Hehir, a Palmerston North lawyer and lay Catholic theologian. (For those who think Liam is being unkind, try this by Carl Trueman by way of comparison).

- For the considered words of our Archbishops on Francis, read here.

- Futher on ++Welby: an interesting reflection "In Welby's Wake" by Alistair MacDonald-Radcliff. 

- NZ's most controversial theologian, the Reverend Dr Lloyd Geering is now NZ's second oldest man and time has not wearied him of his views (including, most controversially, on the resurrection, hence, I assume, an interview of him published at Easter). [Behind a Paywall.]

- Good signs of an uptick in interest in Christianity across the Ditch.

- Last week I referenced news out of Britain of a quiet revival. Ian Paul has a helpful interview about this news here.

The Resurrection Narratives [Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 [and Acts 1], John 20-21, 1 Corinthians 15] continue to fascinate me, and especially, obviously, at this time of the church's year.

It may or may not be helpful to refer to last year's ADU post, for example, to see if my thinking is evolving ... like the narratives themselves (Mark through to John)!

Here is this year's thinking:

Why is Mark's account (16:1-8, rather than the longer ending which is clearly a pastiche of stories hither, thither and yon) so brief and abrupt, without even one appearance of the risen Jesus, only the promise of an appearance?

Might 1 Corinthians 15:6-7offer a clue? "Then [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died. Then he appeared to James, and afterwards to all the apostles." (Note 1. This was likely written in the early 50s AD, i.e. within 20 years or so of Jesus' death and resurrection, conceivably around the time Mark's Gospel itself was written [an earliest date for which is c. 45 AD]. 2. "all the apostles" here means those designated apostles beyond "The Twelve" who have already been mentioned in verse 5.)

That is, when Mark writes his story of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, he has no particular need to tell his community of readers about resurrection appearances of Jesus because that community was [quite likely] in touch with people drawn from the 500+ people mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:6-7, if not with Peter himself. Mark's interest is not in what is readily at hand (testimonies to the resurrected Jesus) but in what might be lost sight of, the mighty deeds and inspiring teaching of Jesus, as well as the stirring story of his suffering and death. Thus his resurrection account is brief and contains, essentially, the bare confession of the resurrection, "He is risen."

If so, then Matthew, Luke and John's longer resurrection accounts, likely written later than Mark's account, offer elaborations which we do not need to view as "legendary accretions" to Mark's bare narrative. Rather, we can look at them as offering for various reasons accounts of resurrection appearances [sharing an interest in these appearances with Paul] and analyse their longer accounts for what their interests are - in this way:

- Matthew: 

1. deals to rumours the tomb was empty because the body of Jesus was stolen. 

2. Notes and corrects a shortcoming in Mark's account [which implies resurrection appearances would only occur in Galilee] by offering a description of one appearance in Jerusalem. 

3. Offers, like Luke, a "final word" of Jesus - his "Great Commission" to spread the Good News throughout the world, thus wrapping up his whole narrative of the very Jewish Jesus whose mission is, nevertheless, for the Gentiles also (cf. the Gentile women in the genealogy, the wise men, the Roman centurion in Matthew 8, etc).

- Luke: 

1. for reasons I do not entirely understand, focuses his resurrection narrative on Jerusalem and close environs to the point where he changes Mark's angel's words about a forthcoming resurrection appearance in Galilee [compare 24:6 with Mark 16:7]. 

2. Adds a unique testimony to an appearance of Jesus ("The Road to Emmaus") which highlights, among other things, the continuing presence of the risen Jesus in the gatherings of believers as they break bread together. 

3. Like Matthew, Luke offers a "final word" from Jesus - a commissioning for mission, linked to waiting for the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit to empower that mission.

- John: 

1. manages between John 20 [Jerusalem focused] and 21 [Galilee focused] to affirm the appearances of Jesus occurred both in Jerusalem and in Galilee [cf. Matthew but not Luke or Mark]. 

2. Highlights individual encounters with Jesus [Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Peter] as well as group encounters [the disciples, in the Upper Room and beside the Sea of Tiberias]. 

3. Offers reports of commissioning [20:19-23] and re-commissioning [21:15-19]. 

4. Possibly also refutes rumours about the body of Jesus being taken from the tomb as an explanation for its emptiness [see 20:1-10]. 

5. Affirms for all readers who were not among the 500+ direct witnesses to the risen Jesus, that believing is more important than seeing, 20:24-29). 6. Also concludes his gospel, twice!, 20:30-31; 21:24-25.

6. In John 21 offers a very specific, detailed report of an appearance of Jesus in Galilee to say something about the respective Petrine and Johannine churches. This point is a little ambiguous but may be well understood as declaring that each church is important for the risen Jesus.

Nevertheless, some challenges about the history of the resurrection appearances remain.

Paul categorically states, 1 Corinthians 15:5, "that he appeared to Peter and then to all twelve apostles." None of the gospels supports this unequivocally. Gospel appearances are: to the women who went to the tomb [Matthew 28:9-10]; to Mary Magdalene alone [John 20:11-18]; to the two on the way to Emmaus [Luke 24:13-32]; to all the disciples [save for Thomas, John 20:19-23]. 

True, nevertheless, when the Lukan-Emmaus two report back in Jerusalem to the eleven disciples gathered with others, they say "The Lord has risen indeed! He has appeared to Simon" [24:33-34] and then Jesus appears in the midst of the eleven and others gathered [24:36] - this is fairly close to Paul's account.

Cue longer discussion etc - no time today for that. Suffice to say that between the five accounts, we have a sense of multiple appearances of the risen Lord Jesus, occurring here [near the tomb], there [on the way to Emmaus], elsewhere in Jerusalem [John's two accounts in chapter 20 a week apart; Luke's accounts in Luke 24 and Acts 1], and in Galilee [so Mark, Matthew, John 21]. There is a degree of messiness but then the risen Jesus was not confined to time and space like an ordinary, physical human body.

The four gospels unite on the presence of Mary Magdalene at the tomb, and unite on the fact that the tomb is empty-because-Jesus-has-risen-from-the-dead-bodily. Three of the four gospels unite with Paul on the fact of resurrection appearances. Only one, Luke, aligns closely, though not exactly, with Paul's reporting in 1 Corinthians 15. Those three gospels have no need to invent appearances but they each use appearance reports to make various points relevant to concerns of the day in which they are composing their gospels.

God at Work in our World

Thanks to the work of others, I bring you two videos which remind us that God is at work in our world. Jesus died and rose again some 2000 years ago but the God of resurrection continues to bring new life to people!

Courtesy of The Other Cheek, this testimony:

Then courtesy of a clergy colleague:

Have a great Holy Week!

Filling the whole house of the world with the aroma of Christ

Yesterday's gospel reading, John 12:1-8, is amazing/interesting on a number of levels.

Level 1: John 12:1-8 is arguably the strongest evidence from an individual passage in John's Gospel that John knew at least two of the other gospels.

Level 2: (whether or not John knew the other three gospels, or at least Mark and Luke) this story has amazing resonances with three other synoptic gospel stories, while being "John's own" story.

Level 3: This story speak to us as disciples of Jesus: what is our devotion to him? What is our response to the poor?

Level 4: You can race to the bottom of this post if you wish ...

Level 1: John 12:1-8 offers evidence that John knew at least two of the other gospels

Each gospel has a story of a woman anointing Jesus at a dinner party: Mark's and Matthew's are quite similar, and placed chronologically near the end of Jesus' life, and geographically, close to Jerusalem, at Bethany; Luke's occurs during Jesus' ministry in Galilee and is placed before Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem where he will die (Mark 14:3-9; Matthew 26:6-13; Luke 7:36-50).

Now, John could have composed his story on the basis of some such story (or stories, if Luke's is a distinct, second such story) being orally communicated around the Christian communities, and needing no reference to any of the texts. It is an easily remembered kind of story, "There was a dinner party ... a woman turned up ... she used her hair ...". And such a composition theory could easily account for John agreeing with Mark and Matthew, that the dinner party took place at Bethany: no need for a text lying open before John to have noted that details in the story: "There was a dinner party at Bethany and ...".

But there are some common phrases and words, which of themselves do not prove John knew the texts of Mark (and possibly Matthew) and Luke, but point in that direction.

Consider:

A. John/Mark parallels

John 12:3: murou nardou pistikes polutimou (ointment of nard pure costly)

Mark 14:3: murou nardou pistikes polutelous (ointment of nard pure costly)

(Note that Matthew does not follow Mark closely here. Matthew 26:7 has: alabastron murou barutimou (alabaster phial of ointment very expensive)

John 12:4-6 is paralleled in both Matthew and Mark. The latter offer an argument among the disciples about the waste of money the perfumed ointment represents. John focuses attention on one of the disciples, Judas. John and Mark mention the same sum of money the ointment might have been sold for, three hundred denarii (Matthew mentions a large sum of money rather than a specific amount); all three talk about the money being given to the poor.

John 12:5: dia ti touto to muron ouk eprathe triakosion denarion kai edothe ptoxois?

Mark 14:5: edunato gar touto to muron prathenai epano denarion triakosion kai dothenai tois ptoxois

Matthew 26:9: edunato gar touto prathenai pollou kai dothenai ptoxois.

In response to this avalanche of unimpressed criticism from the disciples, John and Mark record Jesus offering his sympathy to the woman, "Let her alone, ...":

John 12:7: eipen ouv o Iesous afes auten, hina eis ten ...

Mark 14:6: O de Iesous eipen afete auten ti aute ...

Finally, John has the same words as Mark (and Matthew, see below) in respect of the famous saying "You will always have the poor with you but you will not always have me":

John 12:8: tous ptoxous gar pantote exete meth eauton, eme de ou pantote exete.

Mark 14:7: pantote gar tous ptoxous exete meth eauton, ..., eme de ou pantote exete.

B: John/Luke parallels

Whereas Mark/Matthew have the woman anointing the head of Jesus, John and Luke are in parallel over the feet (tous podas autou, John 12:3/Luke 7:38) being anointed and the woman (Luke) / Mary (John) wiping his feet with her hair. If John is drawing on Luke then he simplifies Luke whose account includes tears and a kiss as well as ointment. In the excerpts below I have italicised the words common in Greek to both accounts.

Luke 7:38: and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment [the same word for ointment is used here as John uses in 12:2.

John 12:3: and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair.

C: John/Matthew parallel

This one is arguably weak, since John and Matthew could have independently come to the same decision about something they choose to omit from Mark, but it is worth noting. Mark, in 14:6-7, records Jesus as responding to the disciples criticism of the woman (see above re his first words, "Let her alone ...") with a short speech about how she has done a beautiful thing; the poor will always be with them, when they have opportunity to do good to the poor, and that the disciples will not always have him. Matthew shortens the last part of this speech by omitting talk of doing good to the poor. Thus, in respect of the last part of the speech, John appears to follow Matthew rather than Mark, but offering a similar omission to Matthew (who undoubtedly was following Mark):

John 12:8: tous ptoxous gar pantote exete meth eauton, eme de ou pantote exete.

Mark 14:7: pantote gar tous ptoxous exete meth eauton, ..., eme de ou pantote exete.

Matthew 26:11: pantote gar tous ptoxous extee meth eauton, eme de ou pantote exete

That is, in sum, there is evidence, as cited above, for John knowing and choosing, here and there, to follow the texts of Mark and Luke and, possibly, also Matthew. The evidence does not constitute proof.

Attribution: nothing above is original to me nor new to the world of Johannine scholarship. Many commentaries on this passage pay attention to these parallels. They are readily observable in "synopses" which set out the four gospels side by side - in this case I used both Greek and English synopses.

Level 2: (whether or not John knew the other three gospels, or at least Mark and Luke) this story has amazing resonances with three other synoptic gospel stories, while being "John's own" story.

Irrespective of theories about how John came to compose the story in John 12:1-8, the story has resonances with the synoptic accounts: Jesus is anointed in a poignant scene, set at a dinner party, with expensive perfumed ointment, which occasions sharp criticism from one or more of his disciples, and leads Jesus to support the woman and her action while offering an observation about the permanency of the poor in human history. The poignancy of the scene is that in John's and Mark/Matthew's stories, the anointing of Jesus is an anticipation of his burial, that is, of his death which will occur not many days hence.

If Luke's story is distinct from Mark/Matthew's story (e.g. the former having occurred in Galilee and the latter in Bethany near Jerusalem), nevertheless the manner of John's telling, even though the setting is Bethany, recalls the Lukan story for us as well as the Mark/Matthew story.

Yet John makes this story his own: only he names three people present who are not named in the other stories: Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Lazarus figures in the story not only to underline the anticipation of Jesus' death inherent in the anointing with ointment but also to offer the hint of hope, that death will not be the end of Jesus: he like Lazarus will be raised to life after (and beyond) death. 

Martha and Mary, who have figured in John's overall narrative, one chapter earlier, as the earnestly entreating sisters of Lazarus, believing that Jesus can do something about the death of their brother, appear here: one, Martha, undertaking necessary service for the meal to happen; the other, Mary, being the named anointing woman. But their figuring in the story is itself resonant with another story, told only by Luke, in 10:38-42, in which Jesus is at their house, with Mary sitting at the feet of the Lord (and doing precisely no housework) and Martha doing all the housework and complaining to Jesus about Mary's lack of involvement. Mary, perhaps annoyingly for Martha, is commended by Jesus for her attention to him and his teaching!

In John 12:1-8 there is no specific approbation for Mary in comparison to Martha, and Martha has no complaints. But Mary serves (12:2) and Mary anoints the feet of Jesus.

If John knew not the synoptic texts, he seems to have imbibed their spirit from the ethos-sphere!

Level 3: This story speak to us as disciples of Jesus: what is our devotion to him? What is our response to the poor?

The story John/Mark/Matthew tell is sophisticated and nuanced (so is Luke's story). On the one hand the story sets in motion 2000 years of expensive, extravagant devotion to Jesus: churches, cathedrals, stained glass windows, works of art in paint and in marble, lives devoted in sacrificial ways to being with Jesus (e.g. through the prayer work of religious orders).

On the other hand, the story sharply remind us that the poor are (as has been the case and still is) always with us, and the implication, even if we read Matthew and John and not Mark is, nevertheless, the point Jesus makes in Mark's story: "any time you want to [help the poor], you can help them" (14:7). Indeed, a bunch of other texts in the gospels and in the epistles challenge us to make "can help them" into "will help them."

If, focusing on John's story, Mary is a model disciples in respect of extravagant devotion to Jesus, then Judas is a model anti-disciple: we should not be like him, harping on about the waste of money, nor like him being a thief, nor like him being a mouther of words and a non-doer of relevant action.

This story offers, subtlely, the both/and of extravagant devotion to Jesus and of generous provision for the poor.

Level 4: Filling the whole house of the world with the aroma of Christ

The Good News Bible renders John 12:3 in a lovely and inspiring way: 

The sweet smell of the perfume filled the whole house.

Is John offering a little descriptive flourish here, or teasing the reader to think outside of the story, to the ongoing story of each of our lives as followers of Christ?

We are the salt of the earth (Matthew) and meant to season and flavour all of life and all lives around us.

Here, John is implying we are the perfume of the world and meant to spread the sweet fragrance of that perfume into every corner and nook and cranny.

If so, John is not alone in such conception. Paul writing in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 says:

God uses us to make the knowledge about Christ spread everywhere like a swet fragrance. For we are like a sweet-smelling incense offered by Christ to God, which spreads among those who are being saved and those who are being lost. For those who are being lost, it is a deadly stench that kills; but for those who are being saved, it is a fragrance that brings life.

Beyond the obvious challenges in the story: to be devoted to Christ, to help the poor, there is another challenge.

How might we fill the whole house of the world with the aroma of Christ?

New Blog on the Block, and a couple of other thoughts for the week

Mark Murphy, commenter here, has developed his own blog, Tumbling Ages.

Welcome, Mark!

His "About" page is here and his initial, vision-casting page is here.

I like what Mark says at the last link:

"I’m calling this blog Tumbling ages because it seems appropriate for the polarities, disorientation, intersections, and complexity we are living through. My particular focus will be Christianity, the religious tradition I was born into and have practised all my life, and which I’ve been rediscovering with special urgency as a middle adult. I hope this blog might be read by others on their own tumbling journeys of curiosity, disintegration, and wonder."

In the "disintegration" of the world around us this week, I note (in no particular order of merit or demerit):

- a news report this morning that Trump is "very angry" with Putin. As best I can see, his anger is that Putin is just the person many of us in the West had already marked him down as. In the language of a former time, he was, is and always will be "a cad and a bounder."

- lovely, joyful to be in Dunedin on Saturday for the ordination of the Reverend Dr Anne van Gend as bishop and installation as new Bishop of Dunedin. (No news report yet on Anglican Taonga.)

- Archbishop Justin Welby has given a first interview since concluding his term as Archbishop of Canterbury: sorrowful, regretful, explanatory. I feel for him. There is much that is "overwhelming" for bishops.

- it was good to participate in an Evensong last night to celebrate the life and achievements of one of Christchurch's most renowned architects, Benjamin Mountfort (1825-1898). This month of March being the 200th anniversary of his birth. His imprint is on our city (albeit with some removals from the scene due to the earthquakes in 2010-2011), and on our nation.

I have tried telling you so

Something I am often saying is that we (Western Christians in respect of living Christianly in the Western world) are in a very difficult place because there is a tide of secularization sweeping our world and it makes our gospel work of witnessing to the Good News of Jesus Christ very difficult.

Secularization is the notion that one doesn't need God to live a blessed life, that society can operate more or less effectively without organised religion, and it has an ever increasing grip on the way we Westerners live. 

So we see these days: few people want to hear our message; many people who have heard the message no longer identify as Christians, or if they do still identify as Christians are no longer active in the church; even if there is not outright hostility to the gospel, there is steadfast indifference to it; and generally, in a wonderful world of material plenty, longlife through good health and effective health systems, there seems, for many, no need of God in any sense, let alone the God of Jesus Christ. (Please remember that no matter how long the waiting lists for operations, or how many people need food from foodbanks, across the whole of Western societies we are way better off than our forbears ever were.)

Incidentally, secularization doesn't have much trouble coping with "spirituality" compared to "organised religion"; and it seems, in NZ, to be coping with karakia in public events (whether or not those karakia are thoroughly Trinitarianly Christian or not). What secularization doesn't cope with is that there might be another authority - indeed, the Authority of authorities - than "the state", "public opinion", "me."

Let's be honest: the secularization sweep across societies and cultures has absolutely enjoyed a boost from the many, now well reported failings of churches, especially in respect of sexual and spiritual abuse. failure to lift women into leadership and slowness to keep up with scientific discoveries.

Back to my key point which is this, we underestimate the tide of secularization at our ecclesial peril. We are in a situation where we must pray, be faithful to Jesus, bear testimony to Jesus, and hope hugely that God's power through the pervasive Holy Spirit in our world will find a way out of this current "dark age" into a new age of (true, gospel) enlightenment. Yes, let's do all we can with our courses and programmes, with improving our welcomes at the church door and what happens inside the church worship and teaching spaces: through such things people come to faith, people remain in the faith, and God is honoured. Yes, let's celebrate every church which is growing in numbers, especially because people are becoming Christians.

But let's do all we can with eyes wide open to the scale of what we face as census declarations of Christian identity wane, as church attendance (across all churches) declines (either in sheer numbers or in proportion to a growing population or both), and as we face closures of churches, parish mergers and so forth.

What prompts me to write thus and so this week?

A recent post by John Sandeman at The Other Cheek alerts us to this:

"... Nexus, a conference attended by evangelical ministers mostly of the Sydney Anglican variety. ...

From all accounts, they were examining responses to the attendance drop in Sydney Anglicanism, frankly facing up to their problems. For a overview of the stats a good place to start is the passionate speech by Dominic Steele complete with graphs that slope down, down that he gave at the Sydney Synod (church parliament) – he happens to host the Nexus conference at the Annadale Village church he leads."

(As an aside, the post linked to above is actually about some interesting observations made by a Presbyterian at the conference.)

What did Dominic Steele have to say?

"Steele began with this graph, which shows a steady attendance until 2017, then a decline which is projected through the Covid years of 2020 and 2021 and a bounce back in 2023. Steele noted: “Sydney Anglican adult attendance declined 6.7% between 2013 and 2023, or 14 percent against population.”"

Now, in the Anglican world of the West, Sydney is "the" diocese which stands staunch on certain fundamentals of the "orthodox" Anglican faith, stands true as "conservative" on the spectrum of theological positions held by Anglicans, and stands out in its contribution to leadership of and within GAFCON. When the jibe is made (often by certain pundits of my acquaintance) that the only growing churches in the Anglican Communion are the conservative, orthodox ones, I can only presume that such generalisation includes the Diocese of Sydney ... even as it is meant to exclude, oh, I don't know, my own diocese [smile].

But the evidence is not supportive of this generalisation that the staunchly orthodox grow. Church growth through conversions is hard in our secular world. If any diocese in the Western world should grow on the basis that one particular approach to gospel ministry is destined to succeed, then it should be Sydney. But like all of us, it too is finding it difficult to counter the tide of secularization.

To be very clear: this post is not having a go at Sydney re its particular character. That might or might not be a post for another day. It could be that the statistics of church attendance are such that Sydney is doing, so to speak, "least worst" of all dioceses in the Western world, that is, it is the best of all of us.

The question remains, I suggest, that there are no easy answers to the matter of "what then should we do?" as gospel Anglicans eager to see people come to faith, for the church to grow in numbers as well as in depth.

There are, however, some straightforward things we should do simply because we love the Lord Jesus Christ: pray, bear witness to the love of God in Jesus Christ, through word and deed, give praise to God, and break bread together. The Holy Spirit is in charge!

New Sights to See in John's Gospel

This past weekend I have been at a retreat for bishops and spouses - something we managed two years ago and then again this year. Hopefully we can do this again next year. What follows are some insights I gained, catalysed by things said during the weekend, but for these thoughts, especially if deemed heretical, I am solely responsible!

So: something said about Jesus being fascinated with us; about how we respond to the word "heart" (e.g. Jesus looking into our hearts and being fascinated by us) got me thinking ...

- When God or Jesus looks into human hearts, with the notable exception of the young David's heart, it is (interestingly enough) often less than good things that are found there.

- My thinking, for instance, was drawn to John 2:23-25 where Jesus does not trust himself to people "because he himself knew what was in their hearts."

- Yet, thinking about where in the gospels Jesus might be "fascinated" with someone, my mind went to John 1:43-51, the story of the call of Philip and Nathanael. When Nathanael and Jesus meet, Jesus says something about Nathanael - that he is an Israelite without guile - and Nathanael asks Jesus how he knows him.

"Jesus answered, 'I saw you when you were under the fig tree before Philip called you'."

Jesus "sees" Nathanael. Although there is no mention of Nathanael's heart, it is pretty clear that Nathanael's heart is looked into by Jesus, and he likes what he sees.

- But, further, that got me looking again at this chapter and the verb "see". Jesus invites two disciples to "Come and see" where he lives (39). So, "they went with him and saw where he lived" (39). Andrew introduces Simon to Jesus. Jesus "looked at him" and tells him his name will now be Cephas/Peter (42). Jesus then finds Philip and Philip finds Nathanael. When Nathanael questions whether anything good can come from Nazareth, Philip says - of course!! - "Come and see" (46). Then, per above, Jesus says he "saw" Nathanael (48).

Are we done yet on the verb "see" in John 1?

Not at all!

"Then Jesus said, 'Do you believe just because I told you I saw you when you were under the fig tree? You will see much greater things than this!' And he said to them, 'I am telling you the truth: you will see heaven open and God's angels going up and coming down on the Son of Man'." (50-51)

I realised, pondering these occurrences, that I had never really seen (!!) this verb "see" so often in this chapter.

What is going on?

With some background learning about John as a gospel of revelation, of disclosure of inner secrets of the divine life (e.g. John 3), I make the not particularly original suggestion that John is not merely reporting an interesting dialogue to us which points to his gospel being a gospel of revelation - enabling us to see things about God's purposes in Jesus Christ - but is, in fact, issuing an invitation to us as readers ... to see. 

To see for ourselves what the disciples here in John 1 have been invited to see: who Jesus is, what his relationship to God the Father is, what the significance of his life, death and resurrection is, what life in the Spirit of God holds in store for those who not only "see" but also "believe."

And there is more: just as the disciples-and-also-us-who-read-the-gospel are invited to come and see for ourselves about Jesus; we are also being invited to understand that Jesus sees us: he knows who we are, he knows what we are like, nothing is hidden from his sight, and yet, wonderfully, marvellously, he loves us and he invites us to "Follow me".

A final insight - though I think this one came to me a little while ago rather than at this retreat - but I thought some more about it while on retreat: it concerns why the great theme of the Prologue (1:1-18), that Jesus is the Logos/Word is hardly touched on again in the remainder of John's Gospel.

In John 1:14, we read - the very familiar words - "the Word became flesh" - the Word took on the full form and substance of a human being, Jesus of Nazareth. Is the remainder of the Gospel concerned with the history of "the flesh" the Word has become, and that is why we see little further reference to Jesus being "the Word" (and such reference as there is, is somewhat oblique rather than explicit)? The Word becomes a human being and John is now focused on the meaning of the human being (with particular and recurring reference to this fleshly Jesus being the Son of the Father).

In particular, in John 1, we see "the Word" being, in the fleshly man, Jesus, addressed with all the familiar christological titles from the other gospels: Son, Son of God, Rabbi, Messiah/Christ, King of Israel,  Son of Man, plus the novel-to-John title, Lamb of God. Through the remainder of the Gospel, John will stick to familiar titles, but all, it could be argued, as stretching out and focusing within the meaning of Logos/Word; and all such titles being used of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, whose history is retold because when Jesus is, according to the awesome, profound insight of John, "the Word became flesh" there is more to see than has been brought into the light by Matthew, Mark and Luke.