40FP(12): James 2.14-26

This is a text I refer to, more or less explicitly, on a regular basis (from the NRSV this time)

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?
15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?
17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith without works is barren?
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Why is this a favourite passage?
The short answer is that it is a key text preventing ‘faith’ from turning into an idol. A faith which does not bear fruit in good work is a meaningless faith – practice gives the words their sense, to use Wittgenstein’s pithy aphorism. So often religious debate gets tangled up in words when ultimately it is not the words that are important. Nor, ultimately, is it a question of beliefs about matters of fact – even the demons believe! – but only of beliefs which guide our actions. A belief which has no consequence for how we live is completely irrelevant, it is simply decoration upon our mental furniture. Verse 24 is a particularly entertaining one to quote when in discussion with extreme Protestants! (It is why Luther wanted this taken out of the Bible, and called it an ‘Epistle of Straw’.)

40FP(11): Luke 10.25-37

Text from the New Living Translation

25 One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
27 The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”
29 The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Jesus replied with a story: “A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road.
31 “By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by.
32 A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.
33 “Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.
34 Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him.
35 The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’
36 “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked.
37 The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

Why is this a favourite passage?
It’s quite a familiar passage, but what I want to draw out are two points.

The first is to note that Jesus doesn’t challenge the grammar of the request, rather he accepts it and builds on it. In other words, Jesus accepts that salvation is a doing (or, it necessarily involves a doing) and the notion of ‘belief’ isn’t raised. Jesus could have said, in response to the initial question, something like ‘believe in me as your personal Lord and Saviour’ – but he doesn’t, and I find that both significant and reassuring.

The second point to emphasise is that the story isn’t really about reaching beyond ethnic boundaries, it’s about abandoning religious boundaries. The Priest and the Temple Assistant are both following the regulations for their conduct, because if they were to help the wounded man then they would then be rendered unclean and unfit for their religious duties. Whereas the Samaritan – off the scale in terms of being religiously ‘unrighteous’ – is the one who actually does the Father’s will by showing mercy and compassion.

So: a key text for me.

40FP(10): Galatians 3.26-28

More manifesto material:

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Why is this a favourite passage?
Well, the theme of ‘children of God’ is a major one for me, and will be reflected here in due course, but the key to this passage for me comes in two things: first, the identity of a Christian is found through their faith and baptism (leaving aside the link between those things for another day). Secondly, this identity supersedes all other identities; here, in particular, it is made explicit that this new identity overcomes previous divisions based upon gender, race and economic status. Christians are called to form a new community, based around our faith and baptism. To place a criterion of identity above that of baptism is, effectively, to excommunicate. This is just one of the reasons why I have great trouble with much of the homophobic criticism coming out of places like GAFCON – their entire activity is premised on a rejection of baptised brothers and sisters – they assume their conclusion before the intra-family dialogue can begin. Similarly, the rejection of mainstream baptismal practices by a small minority of churches (eg in favour of some sort of mental-assent theory of faith) destroys the foundation of Christian unity. It is also where my acceptance of just-war theory has undergone the biggest modification since I started writing this blog – I’m not sure it is ever legitimate (in Christian terms) for one Christian to kill another. The ramifications of that I’m still exploring!

For those who have faith in Christ, who have been baptised into the Body, their sense of identity as Christians trumps all other claims. This is radically important.

40FP(9): 1 Kings 2.1-3

A simple text today:

1 When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son.
2 “I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. “So be strong, show yourself a man,
3 and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go.”

Why is this a favourite passage?
Well, I think they count as ‘famous last words’, even though many people will be unfamiliar with them. It’s a story that grips my imagination, all the more since my own father died and there weren’t any ‘last words’! It maintains the theme of doing God’s will, and summarises the OT link between obedience and prosperity. It’s just a wonderful passage.

40FP(8): John 6.66-68

I’ll return to John 6 later in the sequence – possibly more than once – but we had these this morning, and I’m slipping behind due to pressure of work! (I hope to return to Stark tomorrow as well)

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 You do not want to leave too, do you? Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Why is this a favourite passage?

Verse 66: I find this an incredibly poignant verse. People who had been following Jesus, who had seen the signs he has performed, now abandon the way because the teaching had become too hard to absorb – the teaching about the Eucharist (on which more another time, but see here).
Verse 67: more poignancy, and here it is essential that we hold on to the humanity of Jesus, rather than simply reading it as a divine challenge, otherwise the implicit loneliness is lost (the loneliness will come, but not yet).
Verse 68: those who remain, who have accepted the teaching and entered into the life, recognise Jesus for who he is and what he conveys. This is one of several basic Christian confessions in Scripture, but in my view, one of the best.

Living the language of love (a sermon)

Have you decided to give something up for Lent? Imagine giving up chocolate – then going to a meal with someone – and then the after dinner mints get passed around – and the host says “go on, just one, doesn’t make much difference….” Your host is Satan!! At least, that’s the conclusion I draw from this morning’s gospel (Mk 8.31-end)

What we have here is an example of social pressure – and this is Satan, for this is what Jesus is resisting. Consider that Satan is the accuser, the prosecuting lawyer in a court case; he is also described as being the prince of this world, you could say that he holds sway over the court of public opinion. And sometimes the pressures of public opinion can be severe – if you stick out then the finger will point at you; it can be much safer to go with the flow and keep your head down. Jesus criticises Peter for confusing the things of God and the things of man – it is the latter where the Satan holds sway.

Social pressure has ways of disguising itself, and is often couched in the language of ‘should’ and ‘ought’ (and even ‘you should be ashamed of yourself’). I want to suggest that we need to exercise a Godly suspicion when this language is used. Sometimes what is being recommended with a should or an ought is of God – eg, ‘you should pray more’ – but sometimes it isn’t. I’d like to propose a way of discriminating between when the ‘shoulds’ are good, and when they are otherwise. The simple question is: can the ‘should’ thought be rephrased in terms of the great commandments?

The first and greatest commandment is to love God, to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind and all our strength. This comes first and is the most important command. I see it as intimately bound up with vocation, the sense of who we are before God and who God is calling us to become.

And the second command is alike, namely this: we must love our neighbours as ourselves; in other words we are called to share the love of god with each other, to look after each other and care for each other, to nurture each other and forgive each other – so that all might enjoy the life that God intends for us.

Let me give you two examples which may make things clearer. Imagine a musician, say a teenager, being exhorted to practice his instrument by his parents. Perhaps it was an expensive instrument and the parents say ‘we’ve spent so much on your music lessons you should be doing more with it’. Contrast this with the thought: ‘I have a gift from God and it fills me with joy to play my instrument – I am more myself when I am playing than when I’m not’. Both forms of language might lead to the teenager playing the instrument, but only one is inspired by love.

On the latest U2 album there is a marvellous song which contains the words (it’s effectively a song of praise addressed to God) “I was born to sing for you”. When Bono is singing that he is expressing his vocation, he is being the person God has called him to be. My point is that if we can’t rephrase the ‘should’ into something which inspires and enables life then it is just social pressure and is Satanic.

A second example: imagine a middle daughter who has taken on the principal burden of caring for an elderly aunt despite having other siblings equally connected. And the request comes in to go and visit to do her shopping. Is this a ‘should’? “You ought to go and do it because if you don’t nobody else will”? Or is it actually “I love my aunt Nellie, I enjoy seeing her and I don’t want her to experience hardship.” If we can rephrase the ‘ought’ into something that allows us to experience the joy of loving someone else, the joy of caring for someone else, enabling them to life and to flourish – then it is godly; but if not, it is just social pressure, and, worse, it opens up scope for being abused.

So this is the challenge: to rephrase ‘should’ and ‘ought’ into the language of love. In part it is about examining our motivations: am I pursuing this course of action because it is loving, or am I simply giving in to being pestered? or to gain approval? or because I’m afraid of disapproval? The core questions we must explore are: is this enabling me to become the person that God is loving me into being? Is this enabling me to share the love of God with someone that I love? and, if we’re really saintly – can the boundaries of my loving be broken down just a little bit more so that I can love more widely than I have done as yet…?

Which brings us back to Jesus on the road to Jerusalem. I love this little verse ‘he spoke plainly about this.’ It’s a strange thing to have in a written text which has just said pretty clearly what Jesus was saying. The passage only makes sense if you think of it as something spoken and written down; think of Peter sharing his memories with Mark and emphasising ‘he spoke plainly about this’.

In the story – and it is something I’m sure Peter would have remembered painfully clearly – Peter is voicing social disapproval, but why is he doing this? Because to be killed by the authorities would, in worldly terms, show that Jesus was not from God – “cursed be he who hangs from the tree” (Deut). It would have been against Scripture!! We need to be aware that sometimes even the Bible can be used for worldly purposes, as it was, for example, when it was used by the Southern states to defend the institution of slavery. We need to read the Bible with the Holy Spirit by our side, and remember that the Holy Spirit is the defence counsel in the law case, he is there to defend us and we can leave the arguments about social pressure to him. If we are following God then the Spirit will be with us, and we don’t have to worry about defending ourselves in terms of public opinion.

Which must have been a comfort to Christ at this time, when he was preparing to take up his cross – and what does the cross symbolise, this tree upon which he was hung that, in Paul’s words, allowed Christ to become a curse for us? What does it mean for us to take up our cross? It means that, if we follow those two commands, if we abandon the language of ‘should’ and ‘ought’ and start to live the language of love; if we allow the love of God to shape us and enable us to share that love in the world – then we will come into conflict with the world. We will become light shining in the darkness and those that cling to the darkness will resist. Then, the form that the resistance to us takes, when we are pursuing the will of God in our lives, that is the shape of our cross. And we must each take up our own cross in this life.

Sometimes clinging to the darkness can seem the most righteous thing: it is what we should be doing, it is what we ought to be doing. From our reading, “the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law”, these were not rabidly evil people, as if, were we only to look clearly, we’d see the horns sprouting out of their heads. They were people like us; perhaps I should say they were people just like me, put into a position of religious authority and given responsibility for keeping the system going. I don’t doubt that, at least for most of them, they felt that in opposing Jesus they were doing the right thing; “it is expedient that one man should die for the people”.

Yet Jesus had this specific vocation, this claim upon him from the Father, which he never allowed to break. That is why he was without sin – sin is simply anything which breaks our relationship with the father, anything which disrupts our obedience to the first commandment – and Jesus never allowed that relationship to be broken. Jesus was true to his vocation to the bitter end. He could have gained the whole world, but the world would not have been enough. In the same way, each time that we give in to social pressure we lose a little bit of our souls – and what does it profit us if we gain the whole world but lose our own souls?

Jesus came to set us free, to become children of God. What this means is that we allow God to take charge of our lives, that we live as his children, as heirs of God and fellow-heirs with Christ. Then, if we walk in his path, we take up our cross and follow him – then we can share in his ultimate victory, and enjoy a risen life with Him.

40FP(7): 1 Samuel 3.1-10

1 Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord under Eli. The word of the Lord was rare in those days; visions were not widespread.
2 At that time Eli, whose eyesight had begun to grow dim so that he could not see, was lying down in his room;
3 the lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was.
4 Then the Lord called, ‘Samuel! Samuel!’* and he said, ‘Here I am!’
5 and ran to Eli, and said, ‘Here I am, for you called me.’ But he said, ‘I did not call; lie down again.’ So he went and lay down.
6 The Lord called again, ‘Samuel!’ Samuel got up and went to Eli, and said, ‘Here I am, for you called me.’ But he said, ‘I did not call, my son; lie down again.’
7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, and the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him.
8 The Lord called Samuel again, a third time. And he got up and went to Eli, and said, ‘Here I am, for you called me.’ Then Eli perceived that the Lord was calling the boy.
9 Therefore Eli said to Samuel, ‘Go, lie down; and if he calls you, you shall say, “Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening.” ’ So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10 Now the Lord came and stood there, calling as before, ‘Samuel! Samuel!’ And Samuel said, ‘Speak, for your servant is listening.’

Why is this a favourite passage?
Does it need spelling out?

40FP(6): Hosea 4.1-6

This needs to be from the RSV translation:

1 Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel; for the Lord has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or loyalty, and no knowledge of God in the land.
2 Swearing, lying, and murder, and stealing and adultery break out; bloodshed follows bloodshed.
3 Therefore the land mourns, and all who live in it languish; together with the wild animals and the birds of the air, even the fish of the sea are perishing.
4 Yet let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you is my contention, O priest.
5 You shall stumble by day; the prophet also shall stumble with you by night, and I will destroy your mother.
6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

Why is this a favourite passage?

I first discovered this text when I was an undergraduate, attending a lecture on Hosea, and I still use the Bible that I had that day where I marked the page ‘eco’! It has become a text laden with personal meaning for me, which sums up my vocation, in so far as I can perceive it accurately.

Verses 1&2: in Scripture, so far as I can tell, there is a direct link between believing in God and behaving well – the two are different descriptions of the same thing, the life of righteousness. This is the context for the Psalmist saying ‘The fool says in his heart there is no God’ – he goes on to explain what is meant by this when he says that there is nobody who does good, no not one. To believe in God simply IS to be righteous; conversely where there is a lack of righteousness – swearing, lying, adultery etc – then the real knowledge of God is absent.
Verse 3: this failure of relationship, this breaking apart from God, manifests itself in global symptoms of disorder, especially ecological ones, building upon the human violence of the previous verse. This is how I see the ecological crisis we are living in (and where I have something in common with the more barking fundamentalist elements of pre-trib rapture in the US) in that I see the world as being in God’s hands and not in ours. We are not able to put everything right with the world – but if we turn back to God, then God will put it right (the symptoms will be relieved).
Verse 4: the root of the problem lies with the religious class; they have failed in their duty to share the living faith, and have become distracted with the perks of the job (spelled out later on in Hosea 4). “With you is my contention O priest” – a totally different translation to the NIV and one that captures this intent. What the ‘right’ translation is I shall leave to those better qualified; from my point of view, though, this was the text as I originally discovered it, and it is this translation which sunk its claws into me.
Verses 5&6: the priestly class will share in the bad consequences that follow from falling away from God and living unrighteously. In particular they will be rejected as priests – presumably by God, but also, as I read it, by the people themselves. The people will turn away from the worldly priesthood, and will seek the living God wherever they can find him. This is how I interpret the decline in church attendance; Western Christianity in general, the Church of England in particular, has lost its way, has forgotten what it is here for, has been suborned by the worldly state, domesticated and castrated, kept on as a cute housepet that’s useful for ornamental functions.

Woe to you O Christian!

Woe to you who seek the living God! – for you shall find Him!

40FP(5): John 5.39-40

This came up in Morning Prayer today.

“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

Why is this a favourite passage?

This is Jesus in argument with the Pharisees and other religious authorities (the ‘Jews’ in John) and I love these verses because it is an explicit statement by Jesus of the purpose of Scripture – that they point to Jesus himself, and that Jesus himself, as the living Word, is the source of life. The Scriptures only give life in so far as they mediate Him. This was the burden of my last Learning Supper talk when I argued that through Scripture there is an ongoing evolution in how “the Word of God” was understood, moving through at least five stages: i) prophetic inspiration; ii) the Law; iii) Scripture; iv) the Gospel (kerygma) and ultimately v) Jesus himself. So long as we keep Jesus as the summit we can interpret the others aright. When we distort that hierarchy, eg through pushing iii) to the top of the tree, then we end up missing the point. That is what Jesus is criticising: mistaking the finger for the moon.

A relevant quote from John Stott that I love:
Interviewer – You didn’t mention the Bible, which would surprise some people.
John Stott – I did, actually, but you didn’t notice it. I said Christ and the biblical witness to Christ. But the really distinctive emphasis is on Christ. I want to shift conviction from a book, if you like, to a person. As Jesus himself said, the Scriptures bear witness to me. Their main function is to witness to Christ.

40FP(4): Matthew 7.21

Continuing the theme of ‘doing’ from yesterday, a single verse from the Sermon on the Mount – which we will return to several times in this sequence!

“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven.”

Why is this a favourite passage?

I love this verse because it stands over against the exclusivist emphasis that sometimes dominates Christian thinking, especially the ones which quote ‘there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved’ – which might qualify as a least favourite verse! Jesus is explicit that the naming is not the essential thing; it is the doing which is essential. I believe that it is possible to do the will of God using all sorts of different religious languages – the different forms of Christian language, but also Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. To say otherwise is, to my mind, to recklessly restrict God’s gracious activity and borders on saying that there is a realm of creation from which God is absent. Which is bonkers.

Of course, if you want to know precisely what doing the will of the Father entails, please see the previous passage in this sequence!!