Good News for the world today - Anglican slant!

The following is a reworked sermon from a few years back, originally delivered to an Anglican society.

 Introduction 

I want to begin by making a few observations about being Anglican, then to talk about Good News in Mark’s Gospel and in today’s world, and finally say something about the Kingdom of God in today’s world. 

Being Anglican

Some years ago I purchased a wonderful commentary on the Book of Ruth by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (The JPS Bible Commantary Ruth: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary, Philadelphia: Thew Jewish Publication Society, 2011).

This Jewish commentary has the text in Hebrew and English and its introduction is a comprehensive, well written coverage of a number of issues in Ruth.

One issue my eyes were opened to is this: Ruth is a Moabitess but I had not known that in the Mosaic Law there is a striking and decisive condemnation of Moabites in relation to Israel.

Deuteronomy 23:3-4, 6 says this:

No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord, because they did not meet you with good and water on your journey out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.

[6] You shall never promote their welfare or their prosperity as long as you live.

By contrast the next verses in Deuteronomy 23 go on to instruct Israel not to abhor any of the Edomites nor any of the Egyptians.

How come Ruth the Moabitess has a story told about her which is included in the Scriptures of Israel, indeed in our Old Testament, despite her marrying Boaz, an Israelite in Israel in contradiction of the Law?

That this is a problem is readily seen when we see what rabbinical commentators have said through the centuries. They have argued that the Deuteronomic prohibition applied solely to men and/or that Ruth converted to the faith of Israel (as a possibility open to Moabite women but not to Moabite men) (pp. xlv - xlvii).

Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky observe that within Scripture there are "competing traditions" about Moabites:

"Interestingly, Deuteronomy also preserves a different tradition about the Moabites in which the Moabites welcome the Israelites during their wilderness trek (Deut. 2:26-29). The coexistence of competing traditions suggests that the debate about Moabite status was already embedded within Deuteronomy and reflects different hands or changes in attitudes over time." (pp. xlvii-xlviii)

That is, the deeper we dig into what Scripture says, the more we have to ponder about how the "one" Scripture nevertheless includes "more than one" perspective on matters of importance.

The Book of Ruth also figures, in respect of competing traditions about intermarriage.

It is well-known, for instance, that biblical accounts in Ezra-Nehemiah strongly oppose intermarriage between Israelites and people of other nations.

On the one hand, this "post Exilic" writing reflects the vulnerability of Israel settling in its own land.

On the other hand, it is not the only post Exilic voice which reflects on Israel among the nations. Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky note that, in contrast to the exclusivity of Ezra-Nehemiah,

"Isa. 56:3-7 (also likely from the fifth or fourth century B.C.E.) promises the foreigner a venerable place in God's house." (p. xli)

In respect of Ruth, our commentators observe that,

"her story functions as a counterpoint to the negative attitude toward Moabite and other foreign women in the biblical accounts in Ezra-Nehemiah. In its own biblical context, then, the Book of Ruth exemplifies a way that a Moabite woman can marry a Judean and join the community, despite what we read in Deut. 23. Rabbinic sources will seek a basis for reconciling the tension between Ruth's place in the Jewish community and Deut. 23:4-7 regarding Moabites." (p. xlv)

In other words, on the questions of (i) intermarriage between Israel and other nations, and (ii) exclusion or otherwise of Moabites from existence within Israel, the Scriptures of Israel (the Christian Old Testament) do not speak with one voice.

It is not so much that we then conclude the Old Testament contradicts itself as that we observe that within the Old Testament there are signs of lively debate on matters critical to Israel's identity as God's people.

Within the New Testament we also see signs of lively debate - not all of which is resolved neatly (see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 11:16 on a particular, but relatively small matter concerning men, women and their hair in congregational settings; and Romans/Galatians and James on a relatively large matter concerning salvation via faith and/or works, with considerable importance for major theological difference within Western Christianity, between Protestants and Roman Catholics).

One of the questions for the church in the world today, which all too often seems to want to present binary solutions for discussion with a disposition to choose (or impose) but one option for permanent solution, is whether "faithfulness to Scripture" is understood as openness to lively and continuing debate among Christians bound together through shared commitment to the one Christ.

For many Christians who identify as Anglican, to be Anglican is to understand the church as an accommodation of different voices. And this is very much in keeping with biblical tradition itself since the Bible is an accommodation of different voices in the scriptures of Israel and of the church.

What is Good News? What is "the Gospel"?

Back to the Book of Ruth. One of the great themes in that book is “chesed” or loving kindness:

1:8: The Lord’s loving kindness is hoped for;

2.20: the Lord’s loving kindness has blessed Ruth and Naomi with the guardianship of Boaz;

3:10: Ruth is praised by Boaz for her loving kindness towards him.

Chesed speaks both of undeserved kindness and of loyal kindness – that is, of grace and faithfulness. Ruth is not only the story of the lineage of David from whom the Messiah will come, it is also a story of the grace of God which the Messiah will both announce and enact through dying and rising for the sake of God’s people.

Before getting to a response to the questions in the sub-heading above, I came across a statistic the other day:

“% of Americans who say they believe in God

1͟9͟8͟1͟-͟1͟9͟8͟4͟      No: 2 percent              Yes: 96 percent

2͟0͟1͟7͟-͟2͟0͟2͟0͟      No: 22 percent            Yes: 76 percent”

(World Values Survey Association, https://t.co/4MHSYrjfCI?amp=1 )

It is worth thinking about that decline in belief in God in the USA. Through those 26 years there has been no shortage of Americans preaching the gospel, communicating the gospel by many means (e.g. through TV and social media), and yet the upshot is fewer Americans believing that God even exists.

Of course, we have more than a few statistics of our own like that here in these islands of Aotearoa New Zealand.

This is a challenging time for Christians keen to communicate our faith. We are battling disinterest in the Christian message (whatever answer we give to the question What is the Good News?) and facing the loss of common ground with our hearers: the common ground that both we and they believe God exists.

Mark’s Gospel, as a Gospel for the Roman world, sets out to announce the Good News of Jesus Christ to people inclined to believe the world is governed by one God (the Jews) or full of divinities – of gods (the Greeks and the Romans).

Mark tells the story of Jesus who works mighty deeds and teaches authoritatively about divine things, advancing the argument that the true divinity is the God of Israel now made manifest in the Son of this one and only one God. This Markan telling of the story of Jesus is Good News for Jews, Greeks and Romans in at least three ways.

First, this Son of God is powerful. He undertakes mighty works of healing, control over nature, deliverance and feeding crowds. He even forgives sins.

Secondly, this Son of God is compassionate. Jesus cares for the problems and pains of people and goes about solving the problems and dealing with the pain.

6:34: “As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.” (And, then, when the crowd was hungry, he fed them. Jesus lived out the chesed of the Book of Ruth.)

Thirdly, this Son of God is the antitype of the usual Greek and Roman divinities, whether the gods from heaven or the deified caesars and kings in their palaces:

10:45: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

In other words, Jesus offers a new deal for the world: a world which is different in respect of power and love, with Jesus living out a new way for this new world: the power of love as vital to a better life rather than the love of power.

The way into this world is simple: repent, believe, follow. (Turn to Jesus, trust in Jesus, travel with Jesus).

The possibilities in this world are magnificent: sins are forgiven, sicknesses healed, hunger fed, and demons delivered.

Jesus offers a better life than either the Roman authorities or the teachers of Israel can offer.

The Good News is an announcement that this new world is not a dream about the future but a reality beginning here and now.

God’s best life is available today, a life which is experienced in a new world which God is creating through Jesus. That world is the kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God in today’s world

There is an irony within the stories the gospels tell. Jesus comes because God loves the world so much that in Jesus Christ, God enters the world to save it. There is a hugely social dimension to this love: God loves us all and loves us as “the world” and not as a series of individuals.

Yet in the gospels, encounters with Jesus are often (but not always) encounters between individuals and Jesus who invites or even directs each individual to follow him. 

Cue a feature of Christian history in which being Christian is a private experience of individuals, sometimes manifest in remarks such as “You don’t need to go to church to be a Christian” or “My faith is very private to me and I prefer not to talk about it.”

That such privatization of the faith is not what Jesus intended is seen when we remember that what Jesus taught most frequently about was the kingdom of God.

And “kingdom” by definition is about people in their plurality and not individuals in their individuality.

So, to announce the kingdom is to announce a new world which God is making, a world filled with people loved by God and responsive to that love.

What Jesus works for, when he is teaching publicly, explaining privately, healing all comers and feeding crowds is a new society – a new community of God’s people committed to the rule of God as King of the kingdom.

Individuals are called to follow Jesus but as followers they are called to be together, to be a community and a family. 

The Kingdom is made up of communities of God’s people. 

In each of our communities - parishes, para church organizations, other ways of gathering together as Christians, our challenge is to be a community which represents, illustrates and advertises all that is good about the Kingdom of God – all that exemplifies godliness, outward facing love, enthusiasm to share the message of Jesus, and passion to expand the kingdom through growth in people who become its citizens. 

Conclusion 

A Kiwi scholar, Douglas Campbell, in a recent book said a couple of things which I think are relevant to thinking about the Good News as an Announcement of the Kingdom, and I will conclude with these: 

First, “Jesus did not write a book; he called disciples.” (The Triumph of God’s Love: Pauline Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), p. 69)

Then, in an exposition about the great theme of his book The Triumph of God’s Love, Campbell raises this likely question in the mind of someone hearing about God’s great love for humanity:

 

“It’s all very well to speak of a personal God of love definitively revealed in Jesus, yada, yada, yada, but where exactly do we meet Jesus and this overpoweringly benevolent and kind God? I haven’t met Jesus personally myself. So how do I get this deep internal conviction that he was God living among us, loving us, and dying for us? After all, he lived a long time ago.” (p. 56-57)

Campbell then proposes that this is the answer Paul the Apostle gives, as found in his New Testament writings:

“We meet God through people like him – that is to say, through the community [community of Christians], and especially through its designated leaders. And we learn from this phenomenon that Jesus’s followers mediate God’s revelations.” (p. 57)

 We are Jesus’ disciples when we continue to live out the Incarnation of God’s love in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ash Wednesday 2026 - Pope Leo's Message

Pope Leo has given this message for Lent 2026 (source: here). OTOH I think it worth posting in full as part of sharing a message for all Christians. OTOH doing so is handy for me to access this important message, as I prepare to preach on Wednesday night in the Catholic Pro Cathedral here in Christchurch!

Dear brothers and sisters, 

Lent is a time in which the Church, guided by a sense of maternal care, invites us to place the mystery of God back in the center of our lives, in order to find renewal in our faith and keep our hearts from being consumed by the anxieties and distractions of daily life. 

Every path towards conversion begins by allowing the word of God to touch our hearts and welcoming it with a docile spirit. There is a relationship between the word, our acceptance of it and the transformation it brings about.  For this reason, the Lenten journey is a welcome opportunity to heed the voice of the Lord and renew our commitment to following Christ, accompanying him on the road to Jerusalem, where the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection will be fulfilled.

Listening 

This year, I would first like to consider the importance of making room for the word through listening. The willingness to listen is the first way we demonstrate our desire to enter into relationship with someone.  

In revealing himself to Moses in the burning bush, God himself teaches us that listening is one of his defining characteristics: “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry” (Ex 3:7). Hearing the cry of the oppressed is the beginning of a story of liberation in which the Lord calls Moses, sending him to open a path of salvation for his children who have been reduced to slavery. 

Our God is one who seeks to involve us. Even today he shares with us what is in his heart.  Because of this, listening to the word in the liturgy teaches us to listen to the truth of reality. 

In the midst of the many voices present in our personal lives and in society, Sacred Scripture helps us to recognize and respond to the cry of those who are anguished and suffering. In order to foster this inner openness to listening, we must allow God to teach us how to listen as he does. We must recognize that “the condition of the poor is a cry that, throughout human history, constantly challenges our lives, societies, political and economic systems, and, not least, the Church.” [1]

Fasting 

If Lent is a time for listening, fasting is a concrete way to prepare ourselves to receive the word of God. Abstaining from food is an ancient ascetic practice that is essential on the path of conversion. Precisely because it involves the body, fasting makes it easier to recognize what we “hunger” for and what we deem necessary for our sustenance. Moreover, it helps us to identify and order our “appetites,” keeping our hunger and thirst for justice alive and freeing us from complacency. Thus, it teaches us to pray and act responsibly towards our neighbor. 

With spiritual insight, Saint Augustine helps us to understand the tension between the present moment and the future fulfilment that characterizes this custody of the heart. He observes that: “In the course of earthly life, it is incumbent upon men and women to hunger and thirst for justice, but to be satisfied belongs to the next life. Angels are satisfied with this bread, this food.  The human race, on the other hand, hungers for it; we are all drawn to it in our desire. This reaching out in desire expands the soul and increases its capacity.” [2] Understood in this way, fasting not only permits us to govern our desire, purifying it and making it freer, but also to expand it, so that it is directed towards God and doing good.

However, in order to practice fasting in accordance with its evangelical character and avoid the temptation that leads to pride, it must be lived in faith and humility. It must be grounded in communion with the Lord, because “those who are unable to nourish themselves with the word of God do not fast properly.” [3] As a visible sign of our inner commitment to turn away from sin and evil with the help of grace, fasting must also include other forms of self-denial aimed at helping us to acquire a more sober lifestyle, since “austerity alone makes the Christian life strong and authentic.” [4] 

In this regard, I would like to invite you to a very practical and frequently unappreciated form of abstinence: that of refraining from words that offend and hurt our neighbor. Let us begin by disarming our language, avoiding harsh words and rash judgement, refraining from slander and speaking ill of those who are not present and cannot defend themselves. Instead, let us strive to measure our words and cultivate kindness and respect in our families, among our friends, at work, on social media, in political debates, in the media and in Christian communities. In this way, words of hatred will give way to words of hope and peace. 

Together 

Finally, Lent emphasizes the communal aspect of listening to the word and fasting. The Bible itself underlines this dimension in multiple ways. For example, the Book of Nehemiah recounts how the people gathered to listen to the public reading of the Law, preparing to profess their faith and worship through fasting, so as to renew the covenant with God (cf. 9:1-3). 

Likewise, our parishes, families, ecclesial groups and religious communities are called to undertake a shared journey during Lent, in which listening to the word of God, as well as to the cry of the poor and of the earth, becomes part of our community life, and fasting a foundation for sincere repentance.  In this context, conversion refers not only to one’s conscience, but also to the quality of our relationships and dialogue. It means allowing ourselves to be challenged by reality and recognizing what truly guides our desires — both within our ecclesial communities and as regards humanity’s thirst for justice and reconciliation. 

Dear friends, let us ask for the grace of a Lent that leads us to greater attentiveness to God and to the least among us. Let us ask for the strength that comes from the type of fasting that also extends to our use of language, so that hurtful words may diminish and give way to a greater space for the voice of others. Let us strive to make our communities places where the cry of those who suffer finds welcome, and listening opens paths towards liberation, making us ready and eager to contribute to building a civilization of love. I impart my heartfelt blessing upon all of you and your Lenten journey. 

From the Vatican, 5 February 2026, Memorial of Saint Agatha, Virgin and Martyr LEO PP. XIV ____________________________________________________ 

[1] Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te (4 October 2025), 9. 

[2] Augustine The Usefulness of Fasting, 1, 1. 

[3] Benedict XVI, Catechesis (9 March 2011). 

[4] Paul VI, Catechesis (8 February1978).

Waitangi 2026

 

(Photo taken during 9 am service, Friday 6 February 2026, at Waitangi, Bay of Islands.)

I have visited Waitangi twice before - the place that is - but never for 6 February celebrations and commemorations. This year I targeted being at Waitangi for 6 February and was able to be there by 2 pm on Thursday 5 February, in time for a powhiri [formal welcome] for church leaders. Ideally one would be at Waitangi two or three days out from 6 February itself as various meetings and events take place, including a hui [forum] with leading politicians. This year's politicians hui was taking place as I arrived at Waitangi.

On Waitangi Day itself there is a lot going on, from events involving waka (canoes), food stalls, events/meetings focusing on specific themes or issues, a traditional naval parade around the middle of the day with 21 gun salute from a naval vessel moored out in the bay, and generally a fun and festive day with thousands of people. Most importantly, from a spiritual perspective, there is a well attended Dawn Service at 5 am and another service (similar but not exactly the same) at 9 am. I took part in both services (being invited to share in leading prayers in each service) and it was a privilege to do so.

A key figure in the preparation and leading of these services is Bishop Kito Pikaahu, Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau. I was glad to support Bishop Kito this year.

There are many things to be said each Waitangi Day and there is no shortage of news articles and opinion pieces to look up, read and reflect on, with this year being no exception. In what I offer as my reflection here I am attempting to say something I have not seen others say. I see no need to either repeat or to comment on what others have said, especially about the political "temperature" of this year's events, meetings and services.

Is Waitangi a "thin" place?

I am a sucker for natural beauty and ona previous visit to the Waitangi treaty grounds, I was blown away by the immense beauty of the location and its buildings. On any reckoning, it is a place of beauty: land meets sea meets trees meets historica houses. On Friday morning, sitting through two services, as part of wider celebrations of Te Tiriti, I was struck by the "thinness" of the place - a sense that heaven meets earth there as much as land meets sea. Althought it is 186 years since the signing in 1840, it felt like the signing was only last year, and somewhere nearby were the missionaries and chiefs, the Busbys and Hobsons who signed the treaty. Might we call the Waitangi treaty grounds one of NZ's "sacred spaces"? Can we properly deem that on 6 February 1840 a spiritual compact was formed between two peoples, even though the language is focused on more material matters of land, sea and sky, and governship and chieftainship?

Te Tiriti matters, not only as a document but as a cultural pivot

Moving through the remainder of the day, which was literally moving through throngs of many groups of friends and families as (I suppose) more than 10,000 people flocked to Waitangi, Maori and Pakeha, I was struck by the thought of how - notwithstanding many shortfalls and significant work-ons - we happily mingle, Maori and Pakeha, in a cultural, social, relational mixing which flows from 6 February 1840. Our history is different because of 1840. Different from the histories of, say, Australia, Canada, the United States of America, as well as of New Caledonia and Tahiti. Even though we have had long periods of neglect of Te Teriti and continue to have raging controversies over its active meaning for us in present times, nevertheless, Maori and Pakeha relationships have always been on a different footing to relationships in other countries between first peoples and new settlers. We might have been different as a nation but we are not, and that is due to Te Tiriti. Whatever we make of the wording of Te Tiriti, its signing is a pivotal moment in the development of our distinctive Kiwi culture.

Church-state relationships in NZ are ambiguous but the church was "there" when Te Tiriti was signed

Part of Bishop Stephen Lowe's sermon emphasised the role Bishop Pompallier played as one of the religious overseers to the process of Te Tiriti's wording being finalised and signed off. Indeed, if I have my facts correct, it was Pompallier as much as anyone whose influence pushed for the "Article 4" (verbalised but not written into the Treaty) which promised protection for differing religions in NZ. Other missionaries were involved, notably the Williams' brothers from CMS. What might the Treaty have been if the missionaries, Anglican, Catholic and Wesleyan had not been around? Perhaps more importantly, what might the Treaty have been without some specifically evangelical Christian minds at work in the British government and bureaucracy? We have never been a church-state and there is no formally defined state-church, yet our history records the church as being present for and in the background to this pivotal moment. As Christians we can be proud of that presence, and we can and should celebrate God at work on 6 February 1840. We also need to continue to assert the importance and appropriateness of the Dawn Service (and any later services) as vital to celebrations of Te Tiriti as anchored into the historical fact of the missionaries' role.

A Note on John's Gospel and History

I have enjoyed the discussion in the comments to the post below about John's Gospel, a discussion which has ranged over a number of questions concerning the history John tells and the theology expressed through that telling. Is John's theological history more theology than history?

I want to offer an observation or two here but am not specifically relating these observations to any observations in the comments below as I do not have time this week - much travelling about to take place - to fully engage in a fascinating conversation (and a respectful one too - thank you commenters).

Observation 1

John's Gospel, whatever we make of the cleansing of the temple (is John's "early" cleansing a shift in time or a second cleansing to the Synoptics' late cleansing?) or the day of Jesus' crucifixion (which differs by a day from the Synoptics' version) or any other anomaly we seeby comparing John with the Synoptics, is a historical account in at least this way: John's narrative outline is the Synoptics' outline in respect of the big events: baptism, miracles/signs and teaching/discourses, entry into Jerusalem at the end of his life, debate and dispute, a last supper with disciples, betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial and resurrection. That is, when John talks about the Word being made flesh (1:14), he is talking about the Word being made Jesus of Nazareth in the same way as the Synoptics. This man called Jesus and no other man called by any other name, and this man Jesus has things happen to him and is involved in events as all the gospels recount. John's Gospel is historical in the same way as the Synoptics regarding most of the significant events of Jesus' life. Whatever spiritual or heavenly insights we glean from John such as about Jesus as the apocalyptic revealer-agent of God, descended to us and ascending back to the Father (see end of John 1, John 3), with all the mystical overtones involved in such passages, everything in John's Gospel is about the man Jesus, just as the Synoptics are.

Observation 2

John's Gospel can be historical (per observation 1 above) without implication that the way it tells history satisfies expectations we may have for consistency. If the cleansing of the temple according to John is placed chronologically differently to the Synoptics, that is awkward to explain because it means there is an inconsistency between the Johannine and Synoptical histories of Jesus. We don't like inconsistencies between histories. But what if there is an explanation other than that "there must have been two cleansings, one told by John, one told by the Synoptics"? What if, in a different world and in a different time, that way of telling history, driven by wish to make a theological point or three, was accepted as "okay"? And, if that is so, it may undermine our regard for John as history and not exactly uplift the mana of John as theology. But is the "our" here as important as understanding the "he": John wrote the gospel not us!

That is enough for now. I am off on a roadie to Waitangi. Next week, see my report on events there. Might it be a theological history of what happened in a deeply historical place, over which there is much arguing as to the meaning and significance thereunto :).

If John draws directly on the Synoptics, what do we then draw from that?

My "best book I have read this summer" is Mark Goodacre's The Fourth Synoptic Gospel: John's Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2025). It is not a long book but it packs a punch. Written by the New Testament world's leading proponent of the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis (i.e. that non-Markan material common to Luke and Matthew is explained by Luke's knowledge of Matthew rather than by proposing use of a hypothetical document called Q), this book argues that 

"the author of John's Gospel knew, used, presupposed, and transformed the Synoptics" (p. ix). 

This is not a new position since for most of Christian history Christians have assumed John's Gospel had a relationship to the other three gospels, but it is a renewed position (with good arguments in the light of latest scholarship) since much of NT scholarship since the middle of the 20th century has either  argued or simply assumed that John is independent of the Synoptics. 

To be fair to the argument that John was composed independently of the Synoptics, there are multiple ways in which John's gospel is very different to the Synoptics. To take a few glaring differences, John reproduces none of the parables we know well from the Synoptics, he places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry and not at the end, and he narrates three Passover visits by Jesus to Jerusalem when the Synoptics know of only one. 

Nevertheless, Goodacre argues, with the aid of a number of clearly set out textual parallels (in Greek and in English), that 

"there are significant literary parallels between the Synoptic Gospels and John , and that these are sufficient to establish that John was familiar with Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The author of the Fourth Gospel did not use Synoptic-like traditions but the Synoptic Gospels themselves" (p. 17). 

I am persuaded that Goodacre is correct (and thus my personal position has shifted from "John seemed to know Mark's Gospel, possibly the other two" to "John definitely knew the Synoptic Gospels and drew on their wording in various parts of his gospel").

If Goodacre is correct, then what implications might that have for how we understand John's Gospel?

In no particular order of priority:

1. We must reckon with how John deals with the three Synoptic gospel accounts which he knows directly rather than allowing a form of wriggle room for John to have known "Synoptic-like" traditions so that where he differs from the Synoptics we can explain that in terms of his receiving variant traditions rather than the actual Synoptic material. 

If John knows the Synoptic material he absolutely changes a number of ways in which their collective narrative is conveyed to us.

In particular, note these examples from a larger set of possible examples of Johannine changes: 

- the revealing of various titles for Jesus is compressed into John 1 (along with some new John-sourced ones such as "Word" and "Lamb of God."); 

- the calling of the first disciples is (so to speak) fish-free in John 1 (though it is possible that there is an initial Johannine calling and a later Synoptic calling from their nets); 

- the cleansing of the temple by Jesus is brought forward chronologically (John 2); 

- the healing of an official's son (John 4:46-50) is strongly reminiscent of the healing of a centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-20: were there multiple such miracles in Jesus' ministry or has John recast the Synoptic stories?); 

- then the healing of the man at the Bethsaida pool (John 5:1-18) recalls the healing and forgiveness of the paralyzed man (Mark 2:1-12 and parallels), with particularly strong verbal links concerning talk of taking up his mat and walking (John 5:8-9/Mark 2:9-12 - see further in Goodacre, p. 7) - again, there were multiple instances of dramatic healings across the gospel narratives, and so maybe John's language in influenced by Mark, rather than John has made a dramatic transformation of Mark's 2:1-12 story; 

- then, the biggest change John makes to the narratives at the end of Jesus' life, is to detail his death occurring on the day of preparation for the Passover (Jesus is crucified as the lambs for Passover meals are slain, John 19:31) rather than on the day of Passover itself (so, the Synoptics).

2. We should note the ancient assessment of John's Gospel in relation to the Synoptic Gospels: 

"Last of all, aware that the physical facts had been recorded in the gospels, encouraged by his pupils and irristibly moved by the Spirit, John wrote a spiritual gospel" (Eusebius, History, 6:14, citing Clement of Alexandria [c. 150AD to c 215AD].)

On the one hand, this is testimony to the view of Christian scholars through most of Christian history, that John knew the contents of the other gospels.

On the other hand, this is testimony to a reasonable way to understand the different character of John's Gospel in relation to the Synoptic gospels: it is a "spiritual gospel" in comparison to the Synoptics giving us "physical facts." Today we (if we might assume Clement's role for a moment or two) would likely say, 

"Last of all, aware that the historical facts had been recorded in the Synoptic gospels, encouraged by his disciples (those belonging to his school of theological teaching about Jesus) and irristibly moved by the Spirit (who, according to John 16:13 "will guide you into all the truth"), John wrote a theological gospel (where "theological" means that John told the history of Jesus in such a manner that he took his students then, and his readers now, deeper into the truth of Jesus Christ in relation to the God of Israel and of the universe, summed up in John's conveying the idea that God the Father and Jesus the Son were one)."

3. We should allow that John has other sources of information than he has read in the Synoptic gospels. Some of this additional information may be due to his strong links with Jerusalem and Jewish leaders based in that city. But John's greatest source may be Jesus himself, if he (the beloved disciple) had intimate conversations with Jesus (perhaps including Jesus reporting to him special conversations between Jesus and others such as Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well). Nevertheless, it is far from explicable to suppose that every difference between John and the Synoptics is due to John's own sources.

4. We should allow that John may have changed what he read in the Synoptics because he lived in a different cultural context to our own and in that context saw no moral difficulty in writing what he wrote in comparison to the Synoptics. Today we would call such changes "spin doctoring" or "fictionalizing the facts." But our day is not John's day. In his day "biographies" and "histories" were different to our day. There is a wealth of scholarship devoted to those differences and I am not knowledgeable enough of that particular field of study to give a summary of findings. Suffice to say that we should not presume to conclude that John was doing anything other than writing the truth about Jesus Christ, with special reference to understanding the role of the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Jesus in guiding him to write what he wrote. The heart of that truth not being "historical facts" (if by that we mean "Jesus did this, then he did that, and afterwards he had a meal with these people, during which this particular dispute arose") but a profession of faith, that Jesus Christ was the Word of God become human flesh, that he was the ever existent Son of God in union with God the Father, and so forth. John writes not to recite for a fourth time (following Mark, Matthew and Luke) the historical facts of Jesus' life and times, but to lead us to belief in Jesus - the Jesus who is "the Messiah, the Son of God" so that through belief we might "have life in his name" (John 20:31).

5. We should allow that there are unexplainable (or yet to be explained) mysteries here. This is, I suggest, the critical question we do not have an answer to:

Why does John set out his understanding of Jesus Christ in relation to God and in relation to ourselves in the form of a gospel, structured similarly to the Synoptics (baptism, ministry, last supper, betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) rather than, say, in the form of an exposition such as Paul gives (e.g. Ephesians 1, Philippians 2-3 and Colossians 1) or as an extended sermon such as the writer of Hebrews gives?

There is much more to be said and perhaps I will come back to this topic later in 2026.

Anglicanism for today - the sharp edges of this "today"

I am just not going to get a post I am working on finished this week. So, why not point you in the direction of a finished post, a challenging post, an inspiring post, a very Anglican post?

Mark Clavier writes here on "Formed for Faithfulness: Recovering the Anglican Way of Life."

Out the window ... and (international) law is an ass

I naively harboured the hope that 2026 would be a better year than 2025 (in whatever way one might measure such things). And that harboured hope concerned the world as a global, political, conflictual entity, as well as the church at large, the church in our nation, ACANZP and life for me as bishop. We went into the new year with protests arising in Iran (potentially offering a better 2026 than 47 years previously for Iranians, but also full of dreadful possibility for a horrible crackdown on ordinary Iranians), and had scarcely gotten a couple of days into 2026 and ... 

Trump's troops invaded/policed Venezuela, and kidnapped/abducted/arrested-and-removed its legitimate/illegitimate President and his (collaborating) wife, for reason(s) such as oil-for-America/denuding a marco-terrorist state of its despicable trade in drugs and terrorism/fostering democracy in order to install its recently democratically elected leadership (as a long-term plan)/dismissing its recently democratically elected leadership as incapable of actually leading the country forward (in the short-term, what was actually said)/boosting someone's ego/pour encourager le autres (i.e. put the fear of the USA's power into other countries such as Cuba and Colombia so they pull up their dishevelled socks.

OK. Things can get better. Maybe the worst has happened and the year ahead will be glorious. But there are big concerns: Ukraine is no better; Syria now seems worse after a crackdown on the Kurds; Iran, should it survive the protests, is breathing fire against Israel and the USA; Sudan continues to be bad; rumbles in Somalia/Somaliland; Trump's Venezuela gambit may embolden China re Taiwan; the global economy stutters and stammers; and the planet continues to heat up. Woe is us!

So, some initial thoughts about early posts in 2026 have gone out the window (for now). Momentous moments of mondiality move minds to memos!

Of course many commentators are commenting and I feel no need to add to them with much. Two quick thoughts.

First, "international law" has taken a hammering with Trump's disregard for it. Suppose there was a gang of drug traffickers operating in NZ and when the police went to stop them, their lawyers advised that, actually, the gang had cunningly found a workaround the current laws about drug trafficking so that they couldn't be arrested. Cue an urgent sitting of parliament to change/update the laws so that police had the necessary powers to stop the trafficking, arrest the criminals etc. When we go international on a similar scenario, there is no world police, no world parliament and no ultimate regard for international law because it has consequences such as arrest, trial and imprisonment. (Yes, I know there is the ICC etc). Trump's action (irrespective of whether it is morally right or wrong, or internationally legal or illegal) highlights that "international law" works by consensus and is non-sensus when the consensus is broken. Of course, we didn't need to have Trump highlight the weakness of international law, we already had Putin/Ukraine, Hamas/7 October, Netanyahu/genocidal actions and other recent actions between nations, or involving non-nations crossing national borders. Further, of course, we seem to have had Venezuela itself supporting drug trafficking on a significant scale without fearing the consequences of that support ... until a couple of weeks ago.

Secondly, not for the first time, Trump has thrown some of the moral calculations of world punditry into chaos, with some great questions being generated about whether our moral calculations have been well made previously. In this case, we have moralized that a nation is sovereign, its rulers legitimate (to some degree or another, even when normal democratic results are overridden), and thus we can do nothing about whatever may concern us about those rulers actions, even when those actions may lead to drugs proliferating on our streets. (According to one article I read, such proliferation in Europe may even involve this "sequence of evil": Venezuela sends raw drugs to Lebanon, Hezbollah refines them, sells them, buys arms for fight against Israel, and for power struggles in Lebanon.) Trump sends in the troops to arrest and take Mr and Mrs Maduro away, and, suddenly, it seems like respect for national sovereignty, at least in some cases, is not so morally privileged after all, because few wish to defend national sovereignty protecting this particular "narco-terrorist".

Yes, many questions remain, including, and relevantly for NZ and the Pacific, what precedent has Trump created for nations who think other nations, or at least the rulers of other nations, are bad people presiding over bad decisions? After all, Trump's point about Maduro being a bad dude, is basically Putin's point about Zelensky (albeit not involving narco-terrorism in the latter case). Here Down Under, in the Pacific arena, it is mind-boggling to consider what China might think it worthwhile to do if it played "the great game" according to Trump's rules ... and I am not just thinking about Taiwan. Even now, NZ is considerably under the thumb of China and on various matters "dare not step out of line." And where we do dare step out of line (particularly in respect of support for Taiwan), we get our knuckles wrapped. The prospects for Christian churches under China's yoke are bleak: may that yoke not further fall on our necks.

It is not as though considerations of international law are now much of a check to the growth of hegemony on a global scale.

Some pundits are even predicting a world of three hegemonic spheres. And NZ wouldn't be falling into the US or Russian hegemony if this comes to pass.

Let the reader understand.