Yesterday's gospel reading, Luke 4:1-14, The Temptation of Jesus, is pertinent for the world today in which Christians in some places are taking positions (supporting Trump, supporting Putin, calling for women to be removed from public life because Supreme Courth Justice Barrett voted with other, 5-4, to ... wait for it ... insist that the Trump government pay for work the US government had said it would pay for, writing about "the sin of empathy" and for forth) which come with a Scriptural backing but which seem very, very, very at odds with the main run of Christian thinking through 2000 years, or, more simply, are theologically unsound.
Famously, in this narrative, the devil attempts in the third temptation to draw Jesus away from God's will, by quoting Scripture at him and Jesus responds by quoting Scripture back to the devil. Dare we use the word? Jesus trumps the devil's knowledge of Scripture! In this case, Psalm 91:11-12 v Deuteronomy 6:16.
But the obvious question to then ask, not only of this narrative, but any such exchange between people quoting Scripture to (or, at) each other, is, on what basis is one Scripture "better" than another Scripture? It turns out that Why is Jesus right and the devil wrong?, has the same answer as Why am I right and the Jehovah's Witness knocking at my door wrong?
That is because what Jesus is doing in Luke 4:1-13 is not a kind of "Scripture chess" (To your Knight to D6, I counter with my Queen to B8) but an exercise in theology - in the right understanding of God's will for the world. That is, what God wants and what the devil wants are at odds with each other, and the resolution of the dispute does not come from mere knowledge of Scripture (noting Jesus quotes Scripture to the devil in the first two temptations (4:2-3 [Deuteronomy 8:3] and 4:5-8 [Deuteronomy 6:13]). Resolution comes through Jesus' knowledge of the will of God - the mainline, if you like, of theology: in this theology, Jesus is to be God's agent (God's Son, God's Servant, God's Anointed) in the redemption of the world; not the agent of the devil. Moreover, Jesus will be the suffering servant of God (see the passage following, when Jesus is rejected at Nazareth, 4:14-30) rather than the triumphant, magically powered, populist servant of Satan. Jesus knows and understands this, not only because he has read Scripture and studied it well, but also because of his experience of God at work within him and around him (so, Luke 1-3): his theological understanding is informed by Scripture but it does not solely consist of a treasury of memorised verses. Jesus' theological understanding flows out of a reckoning with the main message of Scripture: that God is God, God has created the world, and even when the world has rebelled against God, God's love for the world sets out to redeem the world back to God. Jesus is committed to that plan and not to the devil's alternative.
So, Jesus himself affirms, through this passage, the importance of theology: of rightly understanding God and God's will for the world.
In our crazy, upside-down world - and, also, in this weekend's horrible, terrifying news, that Christians and others are being massacred in Syria - we need theology as much as ever in the history of the Christian faith. We need a right understanding of God and God's will for the world.
Otherwise the charlatans calling for women to be removed from public office, finding no fault in the supine surrender to Putin or, conversely, willing to remove Russian Orthodox priests from office for proposing a [Russian] end to the war will win. And the massacres will spread unabated.
Gosh, this is great.. I'll return later to spend more time with it!
ReplyDeleteI also came across 'don't put your God to the test' in Wisdom of Solomon (1:2), though presumably Deuteronomy is older. In Wisdom, adding to your argument, Peter, is also says "wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul" (1:4).
ReplyDeleteI like to think Jesus is quoting Wisdom, not Deuteronomy, because that would mean he was reading from a Catholic edition of the bible :)
Peter, what is the view of modern Protestants, including liberal Protestants, on the actual reality of the devil and devils? I know there is a developed account in patristic Catholic and Orthodox tradition that a great angel Lucifer and fellow angels rebelled against God and these were defeated by "St Michael and all angels'. If I understand correctly, this account is based on Ezekiel 14 and Revelation. Is it part of modern Protestant faith? In 'The New Testament and Mythology' Rudolf Bultmann dismissed the idea of devils as one needing demytholigisation, while a comparable trend in liberal Protestant thought (Paul Tillich) has been to psychologise belief in the demonic as projection or mental illness (one thinks of Denis Potter's play 'Son of Man' or that 70s film 'The Exorcist'). Is exorcism part of Anglican baptism today?
ReplyDeleteIs 'talk of the devil' among non-Pentecostal and non-conservative Protestants rhetorical or real?
Should the last line of the Paternoster be translated 'deliver us from evil' or from 'the evil one'?
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
ReplyDelete1. There are a range of views.
2. Anglicans hereabouts do not exorcise at baptism.
3. Anglican hereabouts do exorcise demons from houses etc.
4. It could be either: surely that is an issue for Bible translators and commentators?
Hello, Peter - your first answer sounds like kicking into the long grass. You apparently agree that liberal Protestants don't really believe that the devil and devils exist. This is what I had always understood. So what was actually happening in "the temptation in rhe wilderness" - if this actually happened and isn't just a literary creation of Matthew and Luke, as liberal scholars contend? Liberal biblical studies, after all, hold that the Gospels tell us more about the faith of the early church rather than the actual experiences of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteIf the devil doesn't exist, then these narratives are at best about a struggle inside Jesus's mind and nothing more. It can all be psychologised - and to be fair, that is where I would usually start with untoward thoughts, as arising from our fallen nature. But Christ's nature was not fallen, was it? Was he capable of sinning? These are genuine questions for clarification and they touch on the will(s) of Christ.
On #2, you will know of course that exorcism was anciently an essential element in baptism. Why have NZ Anglicans dispensed with this part of the sacrament? Id it because it is primitive and embarrassing?
#3 raises an interesting question, the relation of Christianity to Maori religion and its gods and tutelary spirits. Does/should a Christian take these mythological ideas seriously? Recently I visited the "pop-up museum" in Christchurch with its strange wharenui covered in crocheted wool (hardly a traditional Maori material!), and noted a sign that informed visitors that they had to remove their shoes before entering. I wasn't aware that Maori traditionally wore shoes (except flax sandals for long journeys), so I wondered if this was one of these 19th century rationalisations following knowledge of Moses at the burning bush. I wonder what Maori leader Brian Tamaki would make of this - or a crocheted wharenui! Do NZ Anglicans believe that Maori tutelary spirits actually exist and can harm those who disrespect them? What do Christian Maoris make of this?
On #4, the definite article suggests " the evil one". God doesn't 'deliver' us from the evils of pain, hunger or death - but surely he will keep us from Satan? As a Bible teacher yourself, which do you think is the likelier translation?
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
ReplyDeleteIt is for liberal Protestants to answer questions addressed to liberal Protestants. Not sure why I, apart from a bland, there is a range of views, should be answering on their behalf; ditto re questions addressed to Maori or to the compilers of the modern NZPB.
On evil/the evil one, I might come to a view, but "evil" is a translation many liturgists [Including Roman ones] and Bible translations have come to: are you saying they are all wrong?
If they are, what are you doing to change their minds?!
A very pertinent post +Peter. Jesus’s replies seemingly evokes a reversal of the first temptation of Adam and Eve to be like God, in the humility with which He answers every question by refusing to take any position that places him as above God even as in Philippians it says
ReplyDeleteWho, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;….
Hmm … using scripture to ones own advantage might be a good theological place to start when it comes to interpretation!!
William, so do you think evil and the evil one are distinctly separate. It’s just, well, it kinda makes sense in my mind that evil comes from the evil one so being delivered from either is really the same thing. Don’t get me wrong I have encountered in my wandering many biblical interpretations that I have found contrary to what I perceive as truth e.g. in a Pentecostal church being told if you are going to pray you need to do it publicly totally ignoring the “go into your closet’ and a Protestant service where the preacher reckoned Jesus was just sitting on the shore having a vision about a boat in a storm. Either way, the error as I perceived them both to be was not to do with liberalism or conservatism or Protestantism or Catholicism or Pentecostalism but human tendencies. In such instances the brave thing to do is voice ones opinion to the people in question. Let us not join the U.S. in division whether it be denominational or political.
Hello, Peter: I appreciate that you as a leader of NZ Anglicanism run this blog and (sometimes) interact with commenters and their questions. I don't know anyone else in NZ who does this, I know it cannot be easy. I assumed there was a doctrinal position in Anglicanism on demonology and as a bishop of NZ Anglicanism you were authorised to explain your church's doctrine, hence my question. I know Catholic bishops are authorised to speak on Catholic doctrine, expounding the teaching of the Catholic Catechism. Does NZ Anglicanism have no formal beliefs about the existence of Satan and devils? Is it adiaphora?
ReplyDeleteOn Maori traditional Polynesian religion/mythology, I assumed Maori Anglican Christians have views about tutelary spirits, gods, karakia etc and how they relate to or conflict with their Anglican faith. Does this question never arise in Anglican circles? ("In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, barbarian nor Greek, Maori nor pakeha.") And does anybody believe these gods and tutelary spirits actually exist, any more than I believe in the Celtic gods and goddesses of my Irish ancestors? Does Anglicanism believe that the crucified and resurrected Christ overthrew the false gods of Polynesia as well as of Rome? This is what missionaries and Maori evangelists taught in the 19th century.Or is there some cultural cringe going on today?
Have you perchance seen the crocheted wharenui? The origin of 'no shoes in the wharenui' rule (supposedly so you don't upset the Maori god of war) is a question for the historians and cultural anthropologists to settle. Since pre-colonial Maori didn't typically wear shoes, I do tend to doubt the given explanation. It looks like a late folkloric rationalisation. But a lot of that went on in the latter part of the 19th century, when Percy Smith was writing down Maori legends and some of these became canonical, ending up in the school syllabus (e.g. the legend of Kupe). In reality, since the Maori were never a unified people but hundreds of scattered tribes, I imagine there were many local legends within a broad East Polynesian culture and language group.
On the meaning of 'tou ponerou' in Matt 6.13, Hagner (WBC) and perhaps most modern commentators take it to mean 'the evil one' in the light of the first half of the verse 'do not bring us to testing'; of itself, I agree that tou ponerou' is a ambiguous but I think 6.13a nudges it toward meaning the devil. Leon Morris disagrees. In any case, there is no doubt that Jesus believed in the existence of the devil and devils, and that should be regulatory for his followers. 'A disciple is not above his teacher', as someone said.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hello, Jean:
ReplyDeleteNo, I am just trying to get at the likeliest meaning of Matthew 6.13, whether it means 'evil' generally or 'the evil one'. The context of the whole verse inclines me to the latter viewpoint, but I am not 100% certain. I cannot comment on what you heard once in a Pentecostal church, but I suspect most Pentecostalists, if asked, would stress both 'the closet and the street' - the latter part disturbing to those of us with a reserved and private nature. Most theological liberals take their cue from Hume, Kant and Schleiermacher (the headwaters of Bultmann), and deny the actuality of miracles and demons; hence the demythologised version you heard of stopping the storm. (The plain man or woman responds: 'In other words, it didn't really happen.' William Barclay in his popular commentary seemed to question whether the miracle of the storm actually happened. The subjective vision theory also lives on in denying the historicity of the bodily resurrection, as with the Australian Anglican archbishop Peter Carnley.)
The temptations narrative is indeed "a dispute over the correct interpretation of Scripture", as Pope Benedict XVI argued in his excellent historical exposition in 'Jesus of Nazareth', pp. 25-45.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
ReplyDeleteScholarship seems either divided or loath to make up its mind one way or t'other. Speaking for myself, when there is much evil abroad in the world (and, no doubt the devil and his minions at work), I am very happy to pray that we are delivered from evil.
Anglican doctrine is one thing - I have nothing to say that demurs from it, and that doctrine both incorporates scripture [which speaks of the devil and demons] and permits common practice of the ministry of exorcism - many dioceses have an appointed exorcist or two. What individual Anglicans across the spectrum of our diversity hold to in practice is what I am demurring from putting words in the mouths of others.
Ditto re Anglican theology and specific Maori affirmations, or departures from it.
Shoes off before entering a house may have many origins; but I am happy to take them off out of respect for the householder.
I haven't seen the crocheted whare. It did not strike me, when I had opportunity to see it, as of any great interest to me - I have, naturally, immense respect for artists of wool, but the gift of working such art has ben denied me :).
Thanks for your response William…. I suspect you are right re Pentecostals due to the many I know and have known, it was the particular preacher at a random service I was at that got my gander up lol. It was not his emphasis on praying out loud but his condemnation, and it was akin to that, of anyone who prays in any other way.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this was the point I was attempting to make that is there seem to be people with different theological takes in all ‘streams’ if you like it of gatherings of Christians….. I suspect there will be also Catholics whose interpretations of scripture are quite liberal. Personally I know a faithful Anglican who was exposed in his youth to the teaching that people only spoke in tongues when the disciples were around and that gift has now gone… It took years, decades for him to change his perspective. My most stunning experience was an old parishioner I had known in my youth in his latter years telling me he really wasn’t sure about the Christian faith he much preferred Buddhism!! I was astounded one could attend church every Sunday for decades and proclaim such. Error in interpretation and doctrine abounds alongside people who never get to the point of examining and exploring faith to any degree beyond tokenism. The effort in persevering to teach and preach the truth is a worthwhile one.
+Peter I took up crocheting 🧶 last year, albeit I have only been somewhat successful… I can recommend it if you wish to develop patience 😜
At its best, theological liberalism kicked the old heavy door of the church open to new winds of the spirit, blowing through the world as always, needing to be carefully discerned, as always.
ReplyDeleteTheological liberalism - whether Protestant or indeed Catholic - was never really about achieving a new catechism or credo of faith. Hence Peter is surely correct in his response (there are many understandings of evil and the devil) though he has wisely refrained from positioning himself as a liberal Protestant (as well as a crochet artist). Our ego likes to wear badges, but the true reformed state of humanity, as per Adam and Eden before the fall, has nothing to pin them to!
Although intense personal evil exists no doubt, and some of us will have our own, strange and perhaps chilling experiences (and be always grateful for that aspect of faith that speaks to this and offers us the protective cloak of God), modern voices have rightly cautioned us from becoming too obsessed with evil in its personal form, lest we lose sight of evil as collective and systemic structures and forces (as Catholic Social Teaching so clearly emphasizes).
One of the clearest examples of collective evil is this:
"As of late 2022, 735 billionaires collectively possessed more wealth than the bottom half of U.S. households ($4.5 trillion and $4.1 trillion respectively). The top 1% held a total of $43.45 trillion.
The top five billionaires and by individual wealth are:
1. Elon Musk of Tesla/X and SpaceX with $252.5 billion
2. Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $204.8 billion
3. Larry Ellison of Oracle fame moving into number three spot with $197 billion, surpassing Marc Zuckerberg
4. Mark Zuckerberg of Meta with $182 billion
5. Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway with $141 billion.". (Inequality.org)
Now the richest man in the world (Musk) also has direct access to the most powerful man and nation (Trump, USA) and, though completely unelected, attends the highest level meetings, campaigns for fascist far-right political parties in Europe, controls access to a key piece communications system in Ukraine (Starlink) etc etc numerous etc.
Usually I hate Lent and its moralistic, self-punitive emphasis on giving up things (perhaps good advice for billionaires but not really for most salt-of-the-earth church goers). This year, though, I'm going to try giving up on buying needless items (including Teslas and books from Amazon!), maybe from buying anything apart from food etc., and maybe have a bit more to give to those really struggling.
"Wisdom shouts aloud in the street,
Her voice trumps [!] the tumult of the market:
How long will you cling to cynicism and folly?
How long will you dull your minds with foolishness?"
(Proverbs 1:30-23, Rami Shapiro translation)
As Rabbi Shapiro interprets it: "Your mind is sickened by the disease of want. You imagine there is something you lack, and the lack is killing you." I think that's one of the best accounts of temptation I've come across lately. Happy miserable Lent everyone!
We know of the presence of evil/the evil one, not only through Scripture but also through experience. At least, if a believer of any persuasion has experience of the Holy Spirit, he or she will know of it. As Paul said, ‘We are not ignorant of the devices [of Satan]’ in warning people not to succumb to them.
ReplyDeleteThis post is so insightful, +Peter. Thank you.
ReplyDelete"Moreover, Jesus will be the suffering servant of God [...] rather than the triumphant, magically powered, populist servant of Satan."
Which made me think of "choose this day whom you will serve"
Especially after watching this discussion with Russel Moore and David French:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JOk_ImVYn8
Just visited Wharenui Harikoa - the "crocheted marae- at the Canterbury Museum (temporarily relocated to COCA gallery). It was multisensory, intensely colourful, and powerful. Surprisingly peaceful and regteshing. My kids, 9 and 11, found it interesting and engaging too. Liturgical spaces dreamt anew!
ReplyDeleteThanks Mark, you inspired me to see what I could find online and there's a page with a video showing the crochet marae and the couple talking about their project. Lovely. For anyone else who is too far away to visit the link is...
Deletehttps://www.canterburymuseum.com/visit/whats-on/wharenui-harikoa
I had always thought the purpose of museum was to be a repository of cultural artefacts of the past, not a display place for contemporary art, for which art galleries exist (and the nearby Christchurch Art Gallery has huge empty rooms crying out to be filled). To say nothing of the strange cultural appropriation of covering a wharenui with such western appurtenances as chemically dyed wool - things which never existed in traditional Maoritanga. But if cultural appropriation is OK now, why not do the proper thing and kit the house out with TVs and armchairs?
ReplyDeleteBesides the pop-up museum not knowing the difference between preserving old culture and displaying whimsical modern art (where were all the plastic tikis?, I asked myself), I couldn't help noticing that the mission of this museum included promoting Polynesian polytheism. A notice on the wall in the room containing the crocheted meeting house encouraged visitors to write out their prayers which the pop-up museum said would be presented on some occasion (somehow) to a Maori star-god. Is this official policy of the museum? Liturgical spaces dreamt anew, said Mark. You spoke more truly than you knew!
I looked in vain for other signs in the museum inviting visitors to write out their prayers to the Holy Trinity. Peter, does the Anglican Diocese have any views on the official use of the museum for the promotion of Polynesian polytheism?
(As for other religions on display there, at one point I thought I saw a golden idol but on closer inspection it turned out to be Ivan Mauger's motorcycle. Perhaps the same thing.)
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
None of that bothers me in the slightest, William. It's colourful, fun, exuberant and joyous! Who cares that this extremely creative couple are using dyed wool and crochet hooks? It hardly qualifies as "cultural appropriation" as I understand the term! He's a builder who also crochets and wears crochet. Why not? In the video at the page link I'll provide, he's even wearing a crochet vest that looks like a flouro safety-vest! Cool.
DeleteThey're a delightful antidote to all the dismal stuff currently going on in the world!
Scroll down for a lively video presentation via "Marae":
https://www.lissyandrudi.com/
But that was my point too, Liz. I'm not in the slightest bothered either by what people do with art installations - which is what this is. But why is it in a museum rather than a modern art gallery? I had always thought the purpose of a museum was to curate and explain artefacts from the past. (This is also the reason I hate historical anachronisms and falsehoods in purportedly historical films, whether 'Braveheart ' or 'Amadeus' or the ridiculous 'Gladiator II'. As a onetime teacher of Classics and History, I know how little most people actually know about the past, and how people derive their ideas from Hollywood, not from actual sources. )
ReplyDeleteI would also add that I use the expression "cultural appropriation" with a high degree of irony because "cultural appropriation" is what the human race has been doing from the very beginning and, for the most part, a good thing it is too. Japanese wear western clothing and I eat rice with chopsticks. Cultures are not hermetic bubbles - unless people live on very remote islands for 500 or so years. Which is why a political experiment called "biculturalism" is a confused idea from the start, and will likely become more confused as the proportion of New Zealanders of Chinese, East Asian and Indian heritage increases. Cultures are dynamic and pervasive, and they embrace bad things as well as good: slavery, cannibalism and inter-tribal warfare, for example.
But I am surprised that you are not bothered by the museum's promotion of Maori polytheism, encouraging people to write out prayers which will be 'presented' to a Maori star-god. Is this flirting with paganism? Or is this just another silly piece of pantomime for children who would find a real wharenui boring? Let's be honest: life in pre-modern (in fact, hunter-gatherer, Stone Age) cultures was what Thomas Hobbes said it was: nasty, brutish short.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
What and Christianity is not riddled with paganism, and Stone Age tendencies William? Come on, be a bit more thoughtful!
DeleteRegards, Thomas
I'm happy to share my personal thoughts William, FWIW and humbly, as I've no qualifications or personal connections to lend weight to my perspective.
Delete(i) why is it in a museum rather than a modern art gallery?
My thinking: museums offer photos of traditional wharenui, and exhibits of some of the elements from wharenui such as traditional carvings. Visitors can see for themselves how the crochet wharenui relates to traditional wharenui. They can learn about the importance to Māori of relationship and connection.. with their ancestors and with their immediate community. The crochet wharenui extends this concept of relationship and connectedness to everyone and not just Māori!
(ii) "biculturalism"
In Te Ara [1] I've just read: "Writer and academic Ranginui Walker (Whakatōhea) wrote, ‘To survive in the political economy, Māori are impelled to learn and to function in two cultures. Therefore Māori are, by definition, bicultural.’" It's enriching for two cultures to learn from one another; we Pākehā will be impoverished if we don't engage in good faith with Māori (recognising that we can learn from them too). This will inevitably reveal some "bad" in our own culture; we need to get off our high horse and approach this constructively and with goodwill. I think that *together* we're actually better at discernment. Note this article also references changes made by the NZ Anglican Church in the 1980s.
[1] https://teara.govt.nz/en/biculturalism/page-2#1
(iii) "Maori polytheism"
You're surprised because.. I come from a conservative evangelical background? Sure, my Dad quite possibly would've asked me the same thing. My thoughts: a) I want to live in a liberal democracy embracing religious pluralism, not a theocracy. b) There are Māori Anglicans today who still practise certain traditional rites (e.g. returning the first fish caught to Tangaroa). c) Each of us are free to make our own personal decision on whether to write a prayer or not d) In the NT, Christians were permitted to eat food that had been offered to idols but we're also counselled not to offend our brother, right? So my decision in such a situation wouldn't be solely based on my own conviction, it would also be made with consideration about who I'm with and their convictions.
*
I'm not "bothered", William. Instead I choose to appreciate this extraordinary couple who are intentionally sharing love and joy with everyone they can, reaching out through a beautifully inclusive and embracing creative experience. As Christians I think we could learn a thing or two from them, learn from their warm humanity and joy.
I agree with Liz's points above especially about museums. It was fun and eye opening to enter the wharenui. I was somewhat dragged along by my family thinking it would be kitch and superficial. It wasn't. It was beautifully curated - a dark, evocative space in which the colourful wool and shapes were appropriately foregrounded and luminous. That's at least one of the advantages of having museum involvement - it was beautifully curated. And yes that could have happened next door at the Gallery, and that would have been fine too. But space is important - the environment is the third teacher (as my wife often reminded me). Having it placed in a museum space, where one could then wander and take in more historical carvings and traditional materials, invited other sorts of connections and thoughts. I'd also like to take it in within the space of the Transitional Cathedral, for example. That would bring forward other sorts of associations which might be surprising and interesting. Yes, I wrote a prayer, though at no point felt compelled, either internally or externally, to worship any gods outside my own pantheon.
ReplyDeleteMark and Liz: if you are writing prayers to Maori gods, I have nothing more to say to you other than you read the Ten Commandments, How about a few sacrifices to Baal while you're at it? Unbelievable. No wonder NZ Anglicanism is in its death throes.
ReplyDeletePax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Dear William, I don't hold such a black-and-white view on this matter as you do. I also don't find it anywhere near as consequential as say, the idolatry of wealth and power by certain actors in the States.. and the importance of resisting cruelty and callousness inflicted on vulnerable people. +Peter mentions fractious churches and that's something to really think about. People long for love, joy, kindness, *safe* spaces, and acceptance; their enthusiasm for the crochet wharenui makes this abundantly clear. We have to ask ourselves.. if churches are not perceived as "safe" and kind, what are we (individually and collectively) going to do about it? I believe there's a need for repentance and for a change-of-heart in the church - for me personally that must begin with me.
DeleteHi William
ReplyDeleteI ask that you be fair to commenters here e.g. by reading what they write carefully. At no point above have either Mark or Liz said or implied that they personally have written prayer to Maori gods.
NZ Anglicanism may or may not be in its death throes (it seems to me that stats (e.g. census ones) are dire; but lived reality of congregational life in many places is not dire - or, where it is dire, it is no more dire than the situation of other churches: that is, NZ Christianity is in a vulnerable place full stop. And this is not because of encroachments of liberalism within churches but because of attractions of secularization pressing against churches: cycling and coffee on Sunday mornings proving less stressful than contretemps over music styles in fractious churches ...
Gosh, I didn't realize writing some warm sentiments to the exhibition creators had endangered the health of the Anglican Church! I trust we are more robust than that!
ReplyDeleteMark writes: "Yes, I wrote a prayer, though at no point felt compelled, either internally or externally, to worship any gods outside my own pantheon." Then he says what he wrote was "some warm sentiments to the exhibition creators". So which was it? (And what Christian has a 'pantheon', which means 'all the gods'?)
ReplyDeleteLiz seems to think a public body - which the Canterbury Museum is - should be in the business of promoting Maori polytheism. I can't find this in any of the legislation that founded the institution. Why isn't there a crocheted mosque as well?
I suggest the challenges to NZ Christianity are a little more severe than the benign attractions of coffee and cycling on Sunday morning. Our grandparents had bicycles and coffee as well. Rather it is the great civilisational issue that lies at the heart of the western crisis. Overall, westerners have stopped having babies and they have stopped passing on their religion to them. That is why mainline/oldline churches are dying off at 3% or more per year, a trend that will accelerate as parishioners age.
Only a clear-sighted, spiritually and intellectually confident kind of pro-natalist Christian religion - the sort scorned as 'sectarian' - is going to survive in such a world.
Prayers to non-existent Maori gods is a silly but dangerous pantomime. It is those who know how to share the Gospel with the young Chinese and Indian populations in New Zealand who will have a future.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Dear William,
ReplyDeleteMark, it appears to me, wrote something delightfully ambiguous, humourous and tongue in cheek.
Good luck with a “sectarian” approach: sure it will survive but do you really wish to be like, say, the Exclusive Brehtren, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons?
I am keen on not only surviving but thriving. The former is possible the latter is in miracle territory in secular NZ … but I am a man of faith. God is doing things in our churches (Anglican, Catholic, etc) and what is happening is consistent with many churches having clear-sight, spiritual and intellectual confidence [I have no idea what you mean by “pro-natalist”? Pro rearing children? If so, children are being born to Christian families across many churches …] but not particularly heading down a sectarian-like path. The highway for Catholicism here is what most parishes and schools are doing - not what the Latin Mass groups are doing.
Dear William,
ReplyDeleteI heartily agree:
"...the challenges to NZ Christianity are a little more severe than the benign attractions of coffee and cycling on Sunday morning...it is the great civilisational issue that lies at the heart of the western crisis....Only a clear-sighted, spiritually and intellectually confident kind of pro-natalist Christian religion...is going to survive in such a world."
Inspired by both Peter and Liz's endeavors, I am currently working on my own blog (gulp!) that I hope will add another voice to meeting the above concerns and challenges.
I will be sure to invite everyone to the launch: no prayers to other gods (kind of).
Mark
I'm so looking forward to seeing your blog, Mark!
ReplyDeleteWish I could visit Christchurch now. In addition to the crochet wharenui, a yarn bombing group called Yarnarchy (!) are adding to the joy and colour. The salamander at the bottom of this page (link below) is magnificent! You can click through the slideshow for more pics of the yarn bombing, happy stuff :)
Love and Wool in the City.....
https://www.canterburymuseum.com/visit/whats-on/love-and-wool-in-the-city
Oh lovely! Thanks Liz...still writing content and sorting out basics. Probably a long way away! I'm trying to aim it at people who are curious but don't have a lot of familiarity, but maybe only you and I will read it!
DeleteOn the prayer comment: to be explicit, one (small) aspect of the exhibition, was to collect and offer prayers to a star constellation, also considered (depending on one's interpretation) an ancestor, manifestation of divine presence, or personal spiritual, angelic, or divine being ("Māori god"). The theological status of such a constellation/ancestor/divine being is, in our contemporary age, subject to much thought and discussion, especially by Māori Christian theologians. At the museum, and now, I had/have no wish to enter into this field and discussion, as important as it is, firstly for Māori Christians, though I note within orthodox Christianity there is a well established tradition of personifying and praising creation (e.g. Francis's canticle to Brother Sun, Sister Moon, Sister Death etc). I simply wrote an expression of gratitude and greeting to the creators of the "house of joy": "peace".
ReplyDelete