Can people change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can people change?

Answer: I hope so. Change is desperately needed! 

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

First, the "plus":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is this year's thinking:

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

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

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

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

- Matthew: 

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

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

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

- Luke: 

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

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

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

- John: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God at Work in our World

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

Courtesy of The Other Cheek, this testimony:

Then courtesy of a clergy colleague:

Have a great Holy Week!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider:

A. John/Mark parallels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: John/Luke parallels

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

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

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

C: John/Matthew parallel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sweet smell of the perfume filled the whole house.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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