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!