A Budde Right moment

Wow. A long while since one Anglican/Episcopalian bishop lit up the world's media (both mainstream and social), but Bishop Marian Budde, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, did that last week with her direct address to President Trump at the end of her sermon in a customary post-inauguration service in the Washington National Cathedral.

The whole sermon is available here (and obviously the whole is context for the final part, along with events of the day or two beforehand, including a flurry of executive orders signed by President Trump immediately after he was sworn into office).

The words that have become famous (for those supporting +Budde and her plea to the President) and infamous and objectionable for many (whether passionate supporters of Trump, or enthusiastic enemies of progressive Christianity, or simply agin women preaching) are these:

"Unity is relatively easy to pray for on occasions of solemnity. It’s a lot harder to realize when we’re dealing with real differences in the public arena. But without unity, we are building our nation’s house on sand.

With a commitment to unity that incorporates diversity and transcends disagreement, and the solid foundations of dignity, honesty, and humility that such unity requires, we can do our part, in our time, to help realize the ideals and the dream of America."

"Let me make one final plea, Mr President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families who fear for their lives.

And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in our poultry farms and meat-packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals – they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples.

Have mercy, Mr President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. Help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were once strangers in this land.

May God grant us all the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world."

Like many people making comments, I have been enthusiastically for Bishop Budde. I think she was right to respond to the urgency of the hour - in the light of presidential executive orders about gender (there will henceforth only be two genders in the USA) and illegal immigrants, to (1) observe to the President that people affected by such orders were fearful (2) to ask for the President to be merciful to such people. 

Claims that what she said was (politically) partisan and not honouring the intended bi-partisan nature of the service do not wash with me. +Budde's sermon focused on the unity of the USA. Alarmed by the executive orders, +Budde understood that to be salt of the earth meant avoiding the blandness of saying nothing about people's fears. People are people, not pawns in ideological wars. If a Christian leader is not going to speak out when able to, when will it happen? If a disposition to speak up for marginalized communities is "partisan" then disciples of Jesus are and should be partisan! In fact, +Budde struck no particular "party policy" position; she made no claim as to what mercy might mean in respect of Trump's implementation of his policy positions; but she knew that Trump has some understanding of mercy - after all, part of his executive orders was to pardon a whole bunch of people.*

Of course some have taken umbrage at a woman - any woman, whatever title -speaking; President Trump has called her a "so called bishop" but I assume that was not prompted by his understanding of Leo's famous Bull about Anglican orders!; others have looked up her record as a "progressive" theologian and dismissed her plea for mercy not only as partisan but also as the usual drippy wet stuff progressives say; one Republican politician called for her to be deported (she is an American citizen by birth); etc. All this is ad hominem and does not deal with the substance of her appeal which was that this powerful ruler might consider finding the kindest route to achieve what he wants to achieve.

What has both surprised me and disturbed me is that in the midst of such comments Christians, Protestant and Catholic have poured opprobrium upon her - seemingly oblivious to the Christ-like, Christ-disposed substance to her concern: that a powerful ruler might show mercy to the marginalized. Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:3; Matthew 9:13; Luke 6:20; etc anyone? These past few days have demonstrated that global Christianity (not just American Christianity) is horribly rent in at least two parts. Is this the Christianity of Jesus or another phenomenon? 

John Sandemann ("Obadiah"), writing from Sydney, Australia, seeing some criticism of +Budde, makes this helpful observation:

"But it struck Obadiah that Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, who, while in the progressive mainstream of The Episcopal Church, has shown more grace to conservatives than her more extreme colleagues, did NOT hammer home her progressive views. She did not ask people to become progressives. Instead, she simply called for mercy towards immigrants and LGBTQIA persons, especially children. That Obadiah thinks was smart."

For some other good commentary read this or this. 

A correspondent (personal to me) this week makes this important observation about what underlies +Budde's sermon (and many instances in Christian history of people faithful to the kingdom vision of Jesus and to the universal unity of all things which Paul preached):

"... an offer from God of a "Beloved Community." In it, those formerly oppressed  would be freed from assaults on their dignity. Likewise those formerly complicit in oppression would be healed of the moral injury that their abuse of force had brought on them. ... Bishop Budde .... her comment to the new president is at least beside the tradition above. ... She is explaining that the unity of America depends in part on mercy and invites him to stand in that unity with her. The holism of her vision of America as God sees it and her inclusion of herself and her listener in that whole are what lift her remarks above mere partisanship and toward divine prophecy."

That is, in a world of polarization of societies, if not division of the same, and of divisions in humanity, if not brutal wars between humans, Christians of all stripes and persuasions, reading the whole of Scripture, with an understanding of God's purpose for all of history, to bring redemption (NT) to creation (OT), to secure a new creation of grace (NT) from the old creation of law (OT), tend to speak for social harmony, for unity among human beings, for dignity and respect for all and not for some. The Bible is a vision for a "Beloved Community" and not for a beleagured society with winners and losers. This commitment to unity, including a pathway of mercy to secure it, is a charism of the Christian faith. +Budde (whether or not on some things past and present has said things which place her on the spectrum of theology deemed "progressive") in her sermon was thoroughly Christian. 

Well, that is more than enough from me. You will have your own thoughts. Save for one final note:

Perhaps we could all agree that preaching - a sometimes questioned aspect of worship - remains a very powerful possibility for saying something which speaks to the world and not just to the congregation physically present before the preacher.

The sermon is not yet dead. Long live preaching!

*Clearly immigration, controlling borders and the like is a complex matter for the USA, noting how successive administrations have largely failed to control illegal migration into the States (including Trump's first administration), and also noting how many parts of US society seemingly collude with illegal immigation by gladly employing such immigrants. Ditto, gender-based policies are also complex matters (e.g. how does a society affirm basic human rights of a transgender person while also affirming other rights such as a sportswoman's right to compete in a "fair" sports field). The point of +Budde's sermon was not to challenge the right of Trump and his administration to change policy settings on such complex matters. It was to ask that the implementation of changed policy might be conducted mercifully.

New Year Reflections: Humanity ("We're complicated"), Ceasefire, Improved summer here in Chch

If last week's post, in part at least, was about the complexity of theology because, well, God is complicated (at least, complicated for us to understand who God is, what God is up to, etc), then this week's post begins with the complexity of humanity. 

A section of a comment from Mark to last week's post is worth repeating here:

"One of the big errors, I think, in understanding human beings is to assume that there is a generic, singular "type" - that we are fundamentally rational, or fundamentally relational, or fundamentally emotion-based etc. While all of these are true, it is also obvious that beyond what we have common there is also a great diversity of ways of being. Religions who stress our unity and equality (especially strong with the monotheistic religions) often have the challenge of accounting for our great diversity too (polytheistic religions are perhaps better at allowing and even celebrating this, as they allow and celebrate it in their doctrine of God).

Too much diversity and we lose a sense of our (and God's) unity and wholeness; too much too much unity and we lose a an appreciation of the myriad forms in which human and divine being appears.

There are many models for understanding human diversity-in-unity. By this stage in my life I've tried many of them out on myself and clients! The one that keeps proving it's worth for me, as a basic foundation, is the Myers-Briggs typology based on the pioneering insights of Carl Jung. ..."

We are a diverse bunch - I have seen that in various interactions through this holiday season. But each of us as individuals, wherever we might be located on some scheme of human diversity, is a complex being. We are rational and emotional, we have a history, a present and a future (each of which might be charted on a spectrum from painful to pleasant), we are (with a nod to last week's post) full of desire and may or may not be planning appropriate means of fulfilling those desires (or ignoring them due to other priorities such as meeting the desires of others), and we have capacity both to bore others and to surprise them.

There are perhaps two chief means by which we regularly reflect on the complexity of humanity: 

- gossip (focused on the quirks and quarrels of friends, family, acquaintances, workmates, neighbours, etc) and 

- news (focused on the triumphs and tribulations of people we mostly do not know directly but feel we know because their lives are lived in our heads (politicians, film stars, sports stars, other celebrities). 

Recent weeks of news have of course been dominated by the politician/TV star/golf star (at least on his own golf courses!)/celebrity Donald Trump and his entourage of prospective leaders of his about to be inaugurated empire - their appearances before hearings to determine their fitness for office have been, well, interesting. From the perspective of the complexity of being human, it is intriguing how well known sinners prior to nomination for office take on a certain saintliness in their own minds and in the minds of their supporters. Much as we might deride this phenomenon when viewed on YouTube/X/etc, do we not all do a bit of this "transformative view" of ourselves from time to time (or, indeed, all the time)?

Another aspect of the complexity of humanity is that few if any people are unable to do at least one good thing in their lives. And, speaking of Trump, my reading of this week's news about the Gaza-Israel ceasefire is that while credit goes to Biden and Blinken for laying the groundwork for the current deal - some months back, but not at that time actually achieving a deal - it has been the involvement of Trump which has enabled a deal to be clinched. 

Even as the ceasefire unfolds (and as I write this, the news is of three Israeli hostages being released from Gaza), it seems that one might reasonably assess that the ceasefire is merely a cessation of hostilities and not an actual breaking out of peace. 

Humanity is complicated; each of us are complex beings; whether we invest hopes in a new president or prime minister or monarch, or seek for genuine peace and justice in human communities (our own families? the neighbourhood? Sudan? Ukraine? Gaza/West Bank/Israel?), we are nearly always guilty of underestimating that complex people create complex situations for which simple solutions are mostly unachievable. (As an aside, isn't a strong part of the attractiveness of Trump for American voters and global supporters that he offers simple solutions for every problem. And, as a further aside, isn't there an illustration of the complexity of humanity in how four years of his presidency, 2016-2020, has seemingly created no voters' remorse!).

So, where is the God of Jesus Christ present in our world through the Holy Spirit in our complexity?

Certainly there is some complicatedness about answering that question. This morning, looking at X/Twitter - there is a bunch of Christians in Washington this week with a very simple answer to the question (summarising, Donald Trump is God's anointed saviour of America and the world) and there is a vast number of Christians elsewhere in America and the world deeply anxious for a Trumpian future and even more deeply disturbed at the state of (some) American theology! Whatever God is up to in the world at this time, Trump is an ordinary human sinner not an extraordinary vessel of God's grace.

My own answer to the question is this: 

1. God is doing all kinds of things in the world all the time using all kinds of people. It is not promised to us that any one of us or any one order of the church (not even prophets!) will have discernment as to what is happening. It is possible that with the hindsight of historical reflection we will have some discernment. It is also possible that there will be moments of insight granted to us "this IS God at work in the world" - especially when we see that wonderful sign of the kingdom when people commit their lives to Christ the King of Kings!

2. We can answer the question by being people open to God working in us and through us: being faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, loving neighbours, makers of peace, workers of justice and living holy lives.

If you are wondering where the weather issue from the subject line comes into this post, let me conclude by saying that, like humanity, weather is complicated. The dismal weather of last week's post has given way to pleasant, stock standard Christchurch summer weather. Praise the Lord!

But it may be about to change ... :)

New Year Reflections: 2025 off to a rocky, tragic and (here in Chch) miserable start

Let's get the least difficult matter out of the way - cold, miserable January weather in Christchurch (and other parts of NZ) - not the summer we wanted but the farmers get needed rain ... and, segueing to much, much more difficult matters, we are not in a tragic situation such as Los Angeles is experiencing through these days ... nor are we at war. I am not aware that any conflicts on 31 December 2024 have ceased with the turn of the new year. 

Then, thinking of a rocky start to the year, there is Trump wanting more American territory, seemingly oblivious to the ethical logic of his rhetoric: that Putin may as well seek Ukraine as Trump Greenland ... or Canada.

But I do like the joke on the internet: that Australia has announced that it has offered New Zealand to Trump as territory he might like to acquire :). It would be one way to get the longed for free trade agreement with the USA!

New Year reflections: by this I don't mean reflections on world events (though they form context for thinking about the perenniel question, What is the Good News in our day?). I do mean: thinking about the Good News, with Anglican hues, with reference to some reading I have managed to do during the holiday season.

So a bit of reading Barth's Church Dogmatics led to some enquiry into De Lubac's mid 20th century controversy with Dominican Thomists over nature/supernature (a controversy I do not fully understand, in part because it includes "This is what Aquinas meant" v "No, that is not what he meant" ping-pong!) which moved into some internet enquiries yielding some interesting articles/chapters, including the nugget of information that Garrigou-Lagrange (erstwhile chief Thomistic antagonist of De Lubac's) was a supporter of Vichy France (because it represented opposition to "modernism"). Naturally this got me thinking along the following lines ... (in no particular order of merit):

- What is it about conservative theology, whether in the early to mid 20th century in Europe or in the early 21st century in America/Europe, which leads to associated support for fascist or fascist-tending politicians?

- In different words, why are some theologians careful to question "modernism" in any given human era but seemingly careless about whom they unquestioningly welcome as allies against "modernism"?

- Can we ever be fully rational about how God works in the world? The nature/supernature controversy is (in my understanding) an issue about how God as God makes connection with creation (whether nature is "the whole of creation" or focused on nature as "humanity"), the supernatural with the natural, with the conjoined issue of whether natural desire for God exists "naturally" and if so, is God obligated to fulfil it (which impinges on God's sovereign freedom)?, or, desire for God is implanted by God through the creation of us ... briefly, there is a mystery about God's work in the world and, just may be, it cannot be explained by a combo of Aristotle's and Aquinas' propositions? Or, can it be? My own lean is towards De Lubac's suspicion of a wholly rational explanation for God's work in the world.

- Why, across a number of bits and bobs of writings about these matters was it hard if not impossible to find a fairly straightforward christological approach to the nature/supernature dilemms? That is, a Christian approach to bridging any assumed gap between nature and supernature should invoke the Incarnation (the Word became flesh) as the specific, concrete instance in which the gap is bridged and, further, recalling Pauline "in Christ" theology, is not our desire for God fulfilled by our being "in Christ" - within the very life of the One in whom all things in heaven and on earth are fulfilled?

- Conversely, just as anti-modernist politicians can be engaged in order to support a specific theological agenda, so can the Christian faith be invoked to support a certain line of political or socio-political thought (the current instance being the acknowledgement by various global pundits that Christianity has profound influence on our aspiration for "the good life" in the here and now). But, much as we Christians, feeling beleagured in secularised modern life, may relish such endorsement, is there not an ever constant need to focus on truth rather than utility? Does God exist? Is this existent God the God revealed in and through Jesus Christ? What does this God say to us and expect of us?

- De Lubac has a fascinating passage (as cited in something I read) which in his context was about (in my language) Catholic propositional theologians but which I reckon could apply to evangelical propositional theologians:

De Lubac "Disappearance of the Sense of the Sacred." pp. 233-4, (in Theology in History, trans. Anne Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1996), cited in Randall S. Rosenberg, The Givenness of Desire: Concrete Subjectivity and the Natural Desire to See God (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), p. 28.

- Reflecting on such a critique of a "We've got it all sewn up theology", De Lubac was mindful, as other theologians have been, as I hope I am, that the God we adore and attempt to serve, the God in whom we believe ultimate blessing is to be found, is the God of Jesus Christ - the God who in great complexity, diversity and not always rationally reconcilable disclosures is revealed through the Old Testament, the four Gospels, the Pauline and other epistles - but whom may be understood simply (if profoundly and unable to be exhausted mystery) as Love.

- In 2025, whatever rockiness, tragedy and miserable-summerness befalls us, the Good News of Jesus Christ is that God is Love, we are loved by Love itself and the best life - the Augustinian rest for our restlessness, the Thomistic beatitude we seek - is yet to be but always present in Jesus Christ, risen from the dead.

Christmas Reflections (Scripture)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

This will be my last post for 2024 and the next post will be circa mid January 2025 so the little grey blogging cells have a chance at a recharge. I have updated this post a little to reflect concerns raised in the comments about inaccurate, even heretical thinking. I have used italics to indicate the updates

Continuing one theme this year past (and other years), What is going on in the gospels?, especially as we try to make sense of the differences between the gospels, and the significant difference between the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel, I have a few thoughts about "Christmas" and the gospels.

For instance, if we think about what is essential to all four gospels and what is not, then we see that across all four gospels it seems essential to the shared core gospel narrative, that John the Baptist features, there are miracles, there is teaching by Jesus, there is recognition of Jesus being the Son of God, there is building conflict between Jesus and Jerusalem-based religious authorities, one part of this conflict involves an incident in the Temple in which Jesus' upsets economic activity there, a plan is hatched to do away with Jesus, Judas is drawn into the plan, Jesus is betrayed, arrested, placed on trial, Peter denies knowing Jesus, Jesus is committed to being crucified, he is crucified, dead, buried by Joseph of Arimathea, and rises again on the day after the Sabbath which follows the day of crucifixion.

What is not essential is a narrative about the conception, birth and infancy of Jesus: Mark has none, nor does John.

What unites the gospel writers is that Jesus has an origin: Mark locates Jesus' origin in the prophetic scriptures of ancient Israel, and comfortably reports him described as "the Son of David." Behind the Markan Jesus is Israel's history fuelled prophecies, that a new David would come to Israel. Matthew locates Jesus' origin in genealogical terms (descended from Abraham) and spiritual action (conceived by the Holy Spirit), with numerous prophecies fulfilled in his birth, infancy and adult mission. Luke locates Jesus' origin in spiritual action-come-angelic announcement (conceived by the Holy Spirit, connected to a miracle overcoming barrenness in a relative who will be the mother of John the Baptist), connects him genealogically further back than Abraham, to Adam the son of God, while also locating Jesus into the prophetic tradition of Israel, his active role in Israel's life fulfilling ancient prophecies about the restoration of Israel.

John whizzes past David, Abraham and Adam to locate Jesus' origin in the very being of God: Jesus is the Word through whom the world is created, the Word become human flesh, the revelator of God who comes into the world from the very heart of God.

If Matthew and Luke tell a narrative in which Mary is the mother of Jesus and God the Holy Spirit is the agent by whom Jesus is conceived of a human mother without a human father, then John tells a narrative which invites us into the intimacy of Jesus God's Son with God Jesus' Father. Put another way, Matthew and Luke open up the question, What does it mean that God is Jesus' Father and Jesus is God's Son?, and barely offer an answer. John takes up the question and provides a full answer to it.

Yet, not to neglect Mark, if Mark is the earliest gospel, then Mark presents the reader with Jesus doing God-in-action things: forgiving sins, healing people, delivering demons, feeding multitudes, ruling nature. Matthew and Luke also present Jesus in this way, but develop Jesus the teacher imparting wisdom, law, announcement of Good News. John takes up what all three propose and develops their proposals: In Jesus God is present in the world, through divine actions of Jesus God offers life for the world, what Jesus says and does is a full and complete revelation of God. To see Jesus is to see God; to seek God, you should meet Jesus because only in Jesus is the fullest representation of God to be found in the context of human history.

Essential to the Gospels, all four, is encounter with Jesus is the means to eternal/abundant life.

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

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

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

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

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

See further here on the Anglican Communion website.

The "money" proposals are these:

• Proposal 1 – Updating the definition of the Anglican Communion 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

An Observation in Advent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, have I missed something?

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

Trump and Johannine Literature (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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