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.

End of the Communion as It Always Should Be or Necessary New Chapter In Its History?

Call me old-fashioned but I am pretty keen on the notion that an Anglican is someone who is in communion with the See of Canterbury.

It is not a bad notion, by the way, for diplomatically distinguishing Anglicans from Anglicans: if many people describe themselves as Anglican (or Episcopalian), what kind of Anglican they are can reasonably turn on whether they are in communion with the See of Canterbury. On this definition, for example, ACNA is not in communion with the See of Canterbury and, so, accordingly, not a member church of the Anglican Communion. But on this definition we also do not need to get stuck on whether members of ACNA are Anglicans or not: they are but they are not Anglicans in the Anglican Communion.

Nevertheless I am but a tiny voice, a long way away from Canterbury and my notions amount to nothing much at all when pressure is on the Communion with various actual member churches of the Communion raising questions about whether they can be in full communion with the See of Canterbury, given that See's current association with polity in the CofE is at odds with the polity of many member churches. Further, there is an increasing sense that the holder of this See, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is simply unable as one single human being to do justice to all demands made on her or him, from within the CofE, in respect of social/political expectations in the nation of the United Kingdom, supporting the Royal Family, leaning into significant ecumenical relationships and leading the Anglican Communion through actual travel to provinces of the Communion and to its various conferences and councils. There is also the question of whether Communion expectations (in a majority) that the Archbishop be a man unfairly presses the CofE to not consider any of its women as serious candidates for the role. (To be clear, notwithstanding my keeness expressed above, I am enitrely sympathetic to all these concerns.)

In response to these kinds of concerns, IASCUFO has been doing a bit of thinking about a new way forward, in respect of what "communion" means for Anglicans of the Anglican Communion and in respect of what the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury might be if it were to be changed.

See further here on the Anglican Communion website.

The "money" proposals are these:

• Proposal 1 – Updating the definition of the Anglican Communion 

  The first proposal offers an updated statement (for the first time since 1930) of the nature and status of the Anglican Communion, a statement that reflects the “maturing of the 42 sister churches of the Communion.” 
  
  The proposed hopeful description states that (1) the churches of the Communion seek to uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer; (2) they are properly autonomous, rooted in their various localities; and (3) they remain bound together in four respects: “through their shared inheritance, mutual service, common counsel in conference, and historic connection with the See of Canterbury.” The latter four characteristics “capture the present reality and ideals of the churches of the Communion, by which they seek to foster the highest degree of communion” with one another and with all churches and communities of the Universal Church.

• Proposal 2 – Broadening how the meetings of the Instruments of the Communion are led 

  The second proposal suggests broadening how the meetings of the Instruments of Communion are called, convened, chaired, and presided over, in order to diversify the face of the Instruments of Communion. 

  This includes “a rotating presidency of the Anglican Consultative Council between the five regions of the Communion, elected from the membership of the Primates’ Meeting by the same; and an enhanced role for the Primates’ Standing Committee in the calling and convening of both Primates’ Meetings and the Lambeth Conference.” These suggestions “fit with the identity and ideals of the Anglican Communion in a post-colonial era. The leadership of the Communion should look like the Communion.” 

There is a bit or even a lot to think about here!

Does, for example, "historic connection" cut it as a way through the maze of considerations about "communion" when some wish to not be in "full" communion with Canterbury?

Is the only way for the leadership of the Communion to look like the Communion a "rotating presidency"? Surely this could also be met by, say, the Archbishop being chosen from around the Communion (perhaps with York chosen within the CofE to be more of a national Anglican voice within the UK society and parliament?)?

Thoughts?

An Observation in Advent

I mentioned something in my sermon this morning for Advent 1, in relation to the strong sense in the gospel reading, Luke 21:25-26, that before Christ's Return, there will be significant convulsions in the world, including in the sea (climate change?). The last aspect being a feature unique to Luke's account of Jesus' end-time predictions.

That something is the curious feature of today's world that despite its many convulsions - wars in the Middle East, Ukraine, threat of war in the Asia-Pacific region - there seems to be very little interest in the Christian world about interpreting these signs as signs of the time of the End.

This is a marked contrast to my youth - well a period roughly the 1970s and 80s - when the Bible was scoured for texts relating to then contemporary events, especially in relation to Israel (the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, wars in 1967 and 1973), formation of the EEC with ten nations (predicted, it was argued in the Book of Revelation), expansion of the role of the UN as a prelude to a to-be-feared "one world government," and so forth. The interest of Russia in the Middle East was - naturally! - Gog and Magog of ancient scriptures forecasting invasion from the north. In 1980 I heard a Kiwi, Barry Smith, speak at Canterbury University, billed as "the world's leading prognosticator". I don't recall anything about what he said, save one focus was on the coming (or even, already present in hidden form) one world government which would require us all to have a personalised identity number - the mark of the beast! 

Today's gospel text includes reference to these kinds of things taking place before "this generation" passed away - always a difficult text - but back in those days I recall a linkage to the re-formation of Israel in 1948: was one further generation 25 years on (note the Israel-Egypt war in 1973 = 1948 + 25) or 40 years on (note that the end of the world in the 1970s and early 1980s would be therefore before 1988 = 1948 +40).

In 1983 I had the opportunity to visit Israel and recall meeting an American Christian man in Jerusalem. On asking him what he was doing there, he replied that he was waiting for the Messiah to come. On some of the interpretations alluded to above, a perfectly reasonable idea. But some 40 years on from that visit, I occasionally wonder if he is still there ... waiting!

Anyway, with those days in my memory, it is remarkable that today, despite the huge focus on Israel at war through this past year and a bit, with new technology connecting us all into "one world", a once again expansionist Russia and the threat of rising seas and destructive high tides, I am unaware of any end-time anxiety like once featured in Christian discourse.

Or, have I missed something?

PS On just about any way of reading the writings of the 1970s and 80s on end time speculations, if a Trump figure had been foreseen, I reckon he would have fitted in well, in the thinking of that day, as the dragon/beast/antiChrist, especially with his tendency to deceive "even the elect." But that is not how Trump figures in the Christian mythology of today for many Christians!

Trump and Johannine Literature (2)

"Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people" (Proverbs 28:15 NRSV)

At the bottom of this post, a few more remarks re the CofE situation may be found. 

Trump. What are we going to do about this man (ditto Putin, Xi, etc)? Trump's weakness as a leader (already known from his first Presidency, 2016-2020) is poverty of wisdom. This has already been displayed in his proposals for key offices of state. One has already fallen on his sword, Matt Gaetz. Another is very alarming not only for the health of the USA but also the world: Robert F. Kennedy Jnr seems ideal if you are against vaccinations and if you are for vaccinations then ... well, let me not say words unbecoming to such a fine blog as this one!

Something I have been pondering about what I consider to be the utter madness of Trump being re-elected to be President of the USA is what light the Bible might shed on this moment in US and global history.

I have been drawn - somewhat expectedly - to the Book of Revelation in my pondering.

To be clear, I do not see Trump specifically identifiable as a figure within that book (e.g.) the beast or the dragon. Nor do I see the USA as identifiable with, say, Babylon - though the USA has features (and has had them for a long time) in respect of trade which resonate with the fallen city of later chapters in Revelation.

Funnily enough, reading Daniel 5, the story of the fall of Belshazzar, for a sermon yesterday (Christ the King Evensong lectionary reading), I realise there is something of a closer fit between Belshazzar and Trump (focusing on hubris, not on imminent removal and replacement) than between Trump and any figure in Revelation.

No, my pondering has yielded this thought - set of thoughts. In Revelation there is (literally) revelation or disclosure of what is hidden from usual sight. Through John the seer, we, readers, see that behind the appearance of normal life (civic authorities making decisions about sacred life, wars and threats of wars, other kinds of disaster, commercial life driven by a dominant commercial power) there may lurk the most monstrous evil, including the spilling over onto earth the heavenly warfare between the angels and demons). Now, we can argue (as Christians have done) over whether Revelation (and similar apocalypses/disclosures such as Daniel) are an insight into life "all the time/all through time", or some of the time, or just at the end of time. 

Nevertheless we can note that Daniel seems to arise from the particular pressure on Israel of the Greek Empire, especially under the rule in that region of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Revelation seems to have been generated by a real fear of imminent (or, possibly, actual) persecution, with the horror of Neronian persecution in the background, from some 30+ years earlier. And, further, interest by Christians through the centuries in Revelation (and Daniel etc) has been sparked periodically by extreme conditions of life. Is it possible that Daniel and Revelation are not guides to everyday life (albeit evil lurks everywhere) but to specific, but recurring periods in history?

Furthermore, might this era be one such period, the hint being given by the evil we can see in the world today, including the unholy character of Trump (let's never forget he is a convicted felon, etc) and of the people he surrounds himself with or wishes to surround himself with? 

Incidentally, a close read of Revelation highlights the deceptive character of the evil figures within it. To wonder and worry about Trump as a manifestation of evil in the world today does not mean we see no good in his policies and promises. It does mean we see the good he might get done as deceptive - masking the imminent danger the world is in as the leader of the democratic world pals around with dictators, with vaccination deniers and tariff imposers.

What then are we to do, as readers of Revelation? Pretty simple really: we heed the several calls within this book to remain faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ.

We are not called to defeat the Trumps of this world through worldly means. We are called to trust that God is on his throne (Revelation 4) and the Lamb has won all the victory we need (Revelation 5, 7, 14, 19). Filled with such faith we are to be faithful to Jesus, bearing testimony to him - and none other. We worship neither gods, nor emperors, nor angels.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The situation in the Church of England: I have nothing to add to my very few words last week. Not least, this is because a very good set of links has been posted in comments to last week's post (thank you to the "linkers"!).

Clearly the CofE has a lot of work to do, at least at the top, in order to give confidence to insiders and outsiders that the CofE is "safe." The same can be said of many other churches, including my own, in which we have made progress and are not yet perfect.

Pause on Trump and Johannine Literature (aka CofE this week)

Partly or even mostly because of time I need to not attempt a post this week which would be part 2 on a mini series on "Trump and Johannine Literature." This is possibly not a bad thing as the fuller disclosure of the current mode of Trumpianism is being made as [pop your own adjective in here] nominations for senior cabinet office or ambassadorships are made. Suffice to say for now that Trumpianism's (core?) business of creating chaos is unabated and, in my view, no voter for Trump should oppose what is now happening. You shouldn't have voted for him in the first place ...

Further, it is not appropriate this week to write no words about the resignation of Archbishop Welby as the first Archbishop of Canterbury to resign for reasons other than retirement or simply closing out the role in order to do other things.

What to say?

I want to say very little. What do I need to offer when so many things are being said by others?

So, I advise heading to Thinking Anglicans which, as always, offers a great round up of news and views (across more than one post, so keep scrolling down).

I also think worth attention is watching this interview with Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley (Newcastle). +Helen-Ann is direct, clear and concerned for survivors. She also has interesting comments on the extent to which "careerism" may be affecting some bishops through a season such as this. (Finally, she is asked about assisted dying legislation in the UK, and in her answer references her experience of similar legislation here in NZ.)

Trump and Johannine Literature (1)

 After such great comments through the past week on my last post on John's Gospel, I can scarcely not continue to think out loud about John's Gospel.

After Trump's election, I can scarcely not comment on it.

Might the two topics come together?

Definitely if we consider Johannine Literature, i.e. move more widely from John's Gospel to John's Revelation (yes, I know likely two different Johns are involved) and Trump. Next week's post has just about written itself in my mind and the key word is "madness." Perhaps a second key word is "false" and its synonyms.

How about John's Gospel and Trump.

First, a few thoughts about John's Gospel, working from some of the comments made below to last week's post.

It is a stretch to see John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels as equally "histories" of Jesus of Nazareth. Sure, if the Synoptics have access to historical facts about Jesus then John's Gospel likely also had access, and potentially to historical narratives of Jesus based in Jerusalem and surrounds compared to the heavy emphasis in the Synoptics on Galileee-based narratives. But the resulting histories of Jesus read quite differently - despite some important common ground re matters as diverse as the centrality of Simon Peter among the twelve disciples, miracles such as the feeding of the 5000 and healing of a blind man, and importance of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. John's Jesus talks differently to the Synoptics' Jesus - so differently that he comes across in the former more as sophisticated Jewish theologian with mystical interests, occasionaly performing dramatic miracles compared to the latter where he comes across more as a wise Jewish teacher frequently communicating through parables and performing numerous miracles, including exorcisms. By contrast no exorcisms appear in John's Gospel. Notwithstanding the robust comments made through the past week, I still think John's Gospel is well explained (if not best explained) by presupposing that John knows the Synoptics and uses their stories of Jesus, along with some of his own, to compose a theological history of Jesus which has more theology than history in it.

I agree that the history of Jesus is important: The word became flesh in a specific individual, Jesus of Nazareth. His words and deeds are God speaking and God acting in a manner which is different in important ways from whatever God spoke through (say) Moses and did through (say) David or Elijah. Not least we say this because the death of Jesus matters for our salvation in a way in which no other death of a human being makes one iota of difference, salvifically, to you or to me.

Each gospel is, of course, an interpretation of the significance of the death of Jesus because the death of Jesus by itself is just a bare fact of human history: Jesus was crucified by Roman authority, as so many thousands were in the era in which Jesus lived. Paradoxically, the death of Jesus is important for salvation not because the death of Jesus itself conveyed any message about its significance but because God revealed its importance to us, partially through Jesus' own words (e.g. Mark 10:45) and more fully through other human beings (notably through Saul of Tarsus, but also through John the Evangelist).

John's Gospel is, ultimately, a revelation of the truth about Jesus which no mere history of Jesus could give - though words of Jesus give us many clues as to that truth. Even Jesus himself does not disclose that he is the word made flesh (John 1:14).

What then can we say about Trump from a Johannine perspective?

Here is a thought: he is a kind of incarnation - an embodiment of words (to be very clear NOT an embodiment of THE WORD!!). That is, and not the first politician to be such an embodiment, he is seen to embody an extraordinary collection of policies and proposals ...

- someone who will galvanise business in the USA (and make America great again = MAGA), despite wishing to impose tariffs etc which potentially will contribute to inflation, and despite proposing tax cuts which will make the rich richer while the poor will pay the tariffs;

- someone who will uphold free speech, undoing perceived censorship controls from left-wing do gooders (and MAGA), despite also threatening to "go after" various critics of himself;

- someone who will save (conservative) Christianity in the USA (and MAGA), despite being a man of very low morals, convicted as a felon, openly not a churchgoer and, in all likelihood, an intentional manipulator of voting Christians (e.g. note how he changed his tune on abortion going into this election);

- someone who will save Americans from their (deep state, inimical, ordinary people hating) government by becoming President (and MAGA) and essentially maintaining the apparatus of government.

Themes of "Saviour" and "Messiah" emerge from the list above!

But Trump is not the Saviour, not the Messiah, and not the Incarnate Logos. He is a very naughty boy ... If anything he is the antitype of Saviour, Messiah, Logos.

And that takes us to the Book of Revelation ... more next week.