Archive for the ‘Humanity’ Category

Why baptism?

January 8, 2022

The Baptism of Jesus – 2022
Luke 3:15-22
Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us to be the people we were created to be. Amen.

I believe that I have mentioned previously that Jesus’ baptism was problematic for the gospel writers. Matthew and Luke both provide additions/alterations to Mark’s text in order to try to explain why Jesus – who was sinless – would need baptism for the forgiveness of sins and both Luke and John go to the trouble of distancing Jesus and John the Baptist .

One of the problems for us, as for the gospel writers is, that with the exception of the account of Jesus in the Temple, recorded only by Luke, we have no details from the time of Jesus’ birth until he bursts on the scene in connection with John the Baptist. Later, non-canonical, writers tried to fill in the gap. They provided us with extraordinary (if not always edifying) stories of Jesus’ childhood in writings like Proto-James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in order to demonstrate that the trajectory hinted at in Jesus’ birth, continued throughout his childhood – that the divinity that became evident in Jesus’ ministry was obvious from his childhood. For example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas depicts the child Jesus as someone who not only heals and raises from the dead, but who also strikes down (dead) those who disagree with or provoke him!

Such stories only serve to emphasise the difficulty of Jesus suddenly appearing as an adult and beginning his public ministry after his baptism “of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” by John the Baptist. Why, we wonder, would Jesus need forgiveness? Of what would he need to repent? These are questioned that taxed Matthew, Luke and John and which continue to puzzle us.

In Luke’s account, Jesus only appears after questions have been raised as to whether or not John is the anointed one, and after John has been imprisoned. In this way, Jesus is neatly removed from John (perhaps to dispel any idea that Jesus was John’s disciple or a part of the movement surrounding John the Baptist). Jesus has been baptised (we are not told by whom) and is praying when the Spirit descends on him in a bodily form like a dove. Luke omits the dramatic tearing of the heavens that characterise Mark and Matthew though the words from heaven are the same as in Mark: “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased .” These words are a composite quote from the Old Testament: Psalm 2:7 in which a voice from heaven was seen as a reference to messianic sonship; three references from the Book of Genesis in which “beloved son” occurs in relation to the binding of Isaac (Gen 22:2,12,16); and Isaiah 42:1, the beginning of the first Servant Song in which God says: “with you I am well pleased”. The presence of the Spirit and the words from heaven announce – at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry – his relationship with God and God’s affirmation of his status and mission.

But why baptism? In particular, why baptism for the “forgiveness of sins”? John Kavanagh SJ provides a compelling explanation. He reminds us that Jesus came, not just to reveal God to us, but to reveal to us what it really means to be human. In order to do this, Kavanagh argues Jesus had to fully identify with the human condition including its tendency to sin. Kavanagh states that: “We misunderstand this because we misunderstand our humanity as well as our sin .” He continues: “Not only is he (Jesus) truly God. He is truly human. And he is truly human precisely because he does not sin. All of our sin is nothing other than the rejection of the truth of our humanity.”

This is the critical point and one which is overlooked. “All of our sin is nothing other than the rejection of the truth of our humanity” – our God-created, God-given humanity. Only taking on the human form – with all its frailty, its propensity to go its own way – only by fully identifying with humankind, is Jesus able to “reverse our sinful rejection of our creatureliness”; to redeem and restore humanity to what it was created to be.

You see, even though we know that we are created by God in the image of God too many of us reject or resist our humanity. We don’t like our bodies, our actions, or our thoughts. We build up barriers between ourselves and others (even God) to protect ourselves from exposure or hurt. We continually split ourselves in two – that which we like (the good?) and that which we do not like (the bad?). We separate our human nature from our divine nature and in so doing we not only become riven in two, but worse, we demonstrate our complete lack of faith in our creator who, having made humankind in God’s own image, looked at what God had made and declared that: “indeed, it was very good” (Gen 1:31). Our rejection of ourselves is our rejection of God – of our God given humanity. Our rejection of our humanity leads to our rejection of our divinity and this, Kavanagh argues is sin. In identifying with our “sin” – that is in fully taking on our humanity – in “repenting” (and not rejecting) -and by being baptised, Jesus in his own person reunites our divided humanity and restores our divinity.
So much damage has been done to the Christian faith by our failure to understand the true nature of sin and therefor the true nature of our redemption. If only we could allow ourselves to see ourselves as God sees us and allow God through Jesus to make us whole, then perhaps we would all hear the words from heaven: “You are my beloved child, with you I am well-pleased.”

Jesus has done the hard work, we need only to apply to ourselves the results of his repentance and baptism.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Humanity, Jesus' baptism, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Why baptism?

Is God masquerading as a human being or is Jesus fully human?

February 20, 2021

Lent 1 – 2021

Mark 1:9-15

Marian Free

In the name of God Earth-Maker, Pain-Bearer, Life-Giver. Amen.

I am aware that a number of people struggle with the idea that Jesus is fully human. That is not really surprising. It is an extraordinarily difficult concept to get one’s head around and yet the belief that Jesus is fully human and fully divine is at the centre of our faith – as we confess each week in the Nicene Creed. 

The significance of Jesus full humanity is clearly illustrated in two lines from this morning’s gospel. “And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.” Something external – the Spirit of God – drove Jesus the human into the wilderness. There his true mettle was tested. Without food, water, shelter or even human contact would he succumb to the temptation to take short cuts or would he trust in God to see him through? Would he complain and wish himself at home (as did the Israelites did in the desert) or would he have faith that God would sustain him? Would he try to take control of the situation or would he allow himself to be completely vulnerable?

It is precisely because Jesus is human that the wilderness experience has any value. In the absence of any physical comfort Jesus learns that he is able to rely on God for nourishment. Without human companionship, Jesus discovers that God’s presence has followed him into the barrenness of the desert. It is as a human being that Jesus faces the privations of the desert. It is as a human being that he deals with hunger and loneliness and the voices that taunt him. It is as a human being that Jesus confronts Satan.  

If Jesus is simply God – all of this becomes meaningless. The wilderness would not be a test because God would not be impacted by hunger, fear or loneliness. Forty days would be as nothing to God who created time and space and Satan would be no match because God is strongly than Satan and it is impossible for God to be tempted. 

The whole point of the Incarnation, of God’s coming to earth among us, is that God chooses to fully share our human existence, to become one of us. It is only by fully inhabiting the human condition that Jesus is able to redeem the human condition. Jesus can save humanity from itself precisely by being human, by demonstrating in his own (human) life that our human nature is not an impediment to our divinity. Through the human Jesus, we are reminded that are we created in the image of God and we can be restored to our original place in creation. 

It is only because he is human that Jesus is able to reverse the damage done to our relationship with God inflicted by that first human – Adam. Adam was disobedient, Jesus was obedient. Adam desired to be as God. Jesus resisted the temptation to compete with God. Adam sought control; Jesus chose submission. Jesus demonstrated that we, as human beings, do not have to be determined by Adam’s misstep, but that we can choose a different way of being, a different way of relating to God. He demonstrated in his own life that it is possible to transcend the limitations of being human. 

Examples of Jesus’ humanity abound in Mark’s gospel. Jesus eats and drinks and sleeps. He is compassionate (1:41) angry and sad (3:5, 11:14,15). He expresses amazement (6:6). He becomes tired (4:38) and needs to find time and space for himself (6:30f). He sighs and groans (7:34, 8:12) and becomes annoyed (10:14). He gets frustrated and impatient with his disciples (4:40, 8:21, 8:31) to the extent of calling Peter ‘Satan’. He becomes indignant when the disciples send the children away (10:14). His miracles do not always work the first time (8:22-26) and he does not display foreknowledge (he doesn’t know who touches him). He allows the Syrophoenician woman to challenge him and to change his mind. He is disappointed in, critical of (7:9f, 8:15) and rude to the Pharisees (7). 

In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was distressed and agitated, he confessed to being deeply grieved and prayed that God might spare him (14:33f). He experienced betrayal at the hands of two of his inner circle and finally, he was arrested, beaten and crucified. Jesus died, really died – if he did not then the resurrection means nothing.

I put it to you that if Jesus is simply God masquerading as a human being then our faith becomes a nonsense. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to believe in a God who just pretends to be one of us, who is play-acting sharing our experience and who does not really know what it is to be one of us. Because if God is just pretending, Jesus’ torment in the garden becomes a farce, as does his agony and confusion on the cross, not to mention his frustration, his exhaustion and his grief. If Jesus is God impersonating us his death means nothing. 

The reality is that God does not and did not need to go through the drama of coming to earth if God did not believe that by sharing our experience God could somehow enrich that experience, remind us of our true nature and awaken the divinity that resides within each one of us. God, being God could simply have waved his hands and reversed everything that had gone wrong since creation. God, being God, could simply have bent us to God’s will. From the beginning of time, God has not enforced God’s will, but has allowed us to choose our own way. 

The whole point of the salvation event is God’s identification with God’s creation. God in Jesus became one of us to show us creation at its very best and to remind us of what we were intended to be. As the orthodox would say: “Jesus became fully human so that we might become fully divine.” Can we honour that intention this Lent?

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Humanity, Identity of Jesus, Lent, Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Is God masquerading as a human being or is Jesus fully human?

Embracing our true humanity

January 9, 2021

Baptism of our Lord – 2021

Mark 1:4-11

Marian Free

In the name of Jesus our Saviour – fully human and fully divine. Amen.

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only son of God, 

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten not made,

of one being with the Father,

through him all things were made.

For us and our salvation,

he came down from heaven

was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, and the virgin Mary 

and became fully human.”

The Nicean Creed, which we recite Sunday after Sunday, and which is the statement of faith for all orthodox churches, was born out of turmoil. In the fourth century there were many who considered themselves to be Christians but there was considerable disagreement as to exactly what this meant. Jesus had not spelled out creeds or doctrines, neither had he established any form of organisation for any church that might form to worship him. This left the ground wide open for interpretation – as even the New Testament testifies[1]. There were at this time disputes over the dating of Easter and the consecration of bishops, but the most significant and divisive issue related to the nature of Jesus. The gospels, in fact, the New Testament is silent on this point, meaning that a number of different opinions arose – Jesus was divine and only appeared to be human, Jesus was human but became divine at the resurrection and so on. As there was no central form of governance for the church there was no mechanism for resolving the question. Individual bishops held authority in the regions for which they were responsible, and their opinions usually held sway in the Dioceses. As a result, there was no universally held belief.

In 325CE, the major protagonists were Arius who insisted that Jesus was a created being and therefore did not exist from the beginning[2] and Athanasius who insisted that Jesus coexisted with God[3]. Their disagreement regarding the nature of Jesus impacted churches throughout the Empire.

Emperor Constantine, who, in response to a dream, fought and won the battle of Milvian Bridge in the name of the Christian God wanted to unite his Empire under this same God. He was troubled however, by the fact that the church itself was divided and did not create a suitable umbrella for the unification of the Empire. He called the bishops together at Nicea and insisted that they come to an agreement with regard to the nature of Jesus[4].

Legend has it that Constantine locked the bishops in to the hall and that one person was killed during the heated debate. Whatever the truth, in the end the Council sided with Athanasius’ view against that of Arius and drew up a statement of belief (Creed) that made it absolutely clear that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. 

Jesus’ baptism is one of the New Testament conundrums that face anyone trying to come to a conclusion regarding his true nature. Why would someone who is fully divine need to be baptised “for the repentance of sin”? It is a question that troubled even the gospel writers – Matthew has John the Baptist question Jesus’ need to be baptised and John fails to mention that Jesus is baptised. However, Jesus’ baptism is at the heart of the matter. Kavanagh points out (in agreement with Athanasius) that in order for humanity to be saved, Jesus – fully divine – had to be one with us in every sense[5]. In order to reclaim us, God had to fully identify with the human condition, to be one of us in every respect – including our propensity to sin. Only by being identical to us and yet entirely obedient to God, could Jesus redeem us from ourselves. Only by embracing the human condition could Jesus show us how to be fully divine.

Kavanagh actually says that it is the precisely fact that Jesus does not sin, that makes him fully human. Sin, he argues is our refusal to accept our humanity – our desire, like that of Adam to be God. Jesus’ full acceptance of our humanness reverses that trajectory and opens the way for us to become the people God created us to be.

For us, baptism is a different kind of reversal. It is an acceptance of our flawed humanity and an expression of our desire to be restored to our full humanity, which carries with it our full divinity. 

Though not explicitly stated, the gospels are full of hints that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. For him to be either one or the other would not have led to the redemption of the human condition. We are beneficiaries of the wisdom of the fourth bishops who wrangled their way to an agreed statement of faith. Sunday by Sunday, let us say the Creed with conviction and affirm as truth that Jesus who is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God” did indeed “become fully human.”

[1] See for example the disputes recorded in Romans and Galatians.

[2] If Jesus came from God, he could not have pre-existed with God.

[3] If Jesus was not fully human, he could not save us.

[4] For one version of events see https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/nicea/

[5] Kavanagh, John, SJ. https://liturgy.slu.edu/BapLordB011021/theword_kavanaugh.html

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Humanity, Jesus' baptism, Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Embracing our true humanity

Thirsting for God’s word

July 20, 2013

Pentecost 9

Amos 8:1-12

Marian Free 

Loving God, give us such a thirst for your word that we may read, learn and inwardly digest it and so share it with others. Amen.

I wonder how well you know your Bibles – the word of God. There are some things that you will know well and others that you may not know at all. For example, I am sure that if I asked you how many gospels there were you would all say “four” and that if I asked you to name Jesus’ disciples that you would be able to name at least three. Similarly, I am guessing that you could tell me the first line of the 23rd Psalm and that most of you would know where to look for the story of Daniel in the lion’s den. How would you go though if I asked you to explain why the four gospels differ from each other? How many of Jesus’ parables would you be able to repeat? Do you know in which book of the Bible you would find Satan in the court of heaven? In which book of the New Testament would you find the Golden Rule? And where in the Old Testament would you find the expressions: “How the mighty have fallen” or “keep me as the apple of your eye”[1]?

Many of the churches in this Diocese are participating in an audit that has been developed to measure the health of the church. A key finding of “The Natural Church Life Survey” is that across the Diocese, our knowledge of the bible is very poor. The central document of our faith, the book which records our stories and tells us how God has been a part of human history, is, for many of us, a book which remains largely unknown.

This is a pity for a number of reasons, most of all because the Bible is God’s love letter to humanity. We discover in its pages the story of creation’s propensity to turn away from God and the story of God’s patience which, over and over again, overlooks all our failings and shortcomings and continually restores us. The bible is filled with words of wisdom and comfort to encourage and sustain us – to give us guideposts along the way and to tell us something of the love and presence of God.

Just to give you a few of my favourite examples: Psalm 56:8 tells us that God keeps all our tears in a bottle. Isaiah and Revelation insist that God will wipe away all our tears (Is 25:8, Rev 21:4). In John’s gospel Jesus says: “I have come that you might have life and have it in abundance” (10:10. Elsewhere he says that all the hairs on our head are counted (Luke 12:7). God’s love continues to be poured out on us no matter how little we have done to deserve it.

The list is endless. From the proclamation in Genesis that God created humankind and it was very good, to the promises of heaven in Revelation, the Bible constantly affirms our worth in God’s eyes and God’s love for us – no matter how far we stray or how much we let God down.

On the other hand, the bible is a very human book and its pages expose the very worst of human nature. Between its covers you will find accounts of fratricide, genocide, infanticide, murder, adultery, rape and betrayal. There is no escape in our holy book from the reality of human existence and its potential for and propensity to sin. There is no glossing over or white washing the behaviour of even our most revered biblical heroes – with the exception of Jesus, they are all as flawed as we are.

The reading from Amos today is one of those bleak passages which discourage many from reading the Bible and the Old Testament in particular. This is one of the reasons that it is important to know our Bibles. We have to remember the context in which such accounts were written. In the time of Amos, the people of Israel had abandoned God, they were oppressing the poor and engaging in dubious and dishonest trading practices. Amos is expressing God’s frustration and sorrow at such a situation and God’s distress that the people no longer pay any attention to God’s word. God’s anguish is such that he threatens to withdraw the word from them in order that they should hunger and thirst for it, that they should long to know God again.

So we do an injustice to the text if we don’t take the trouble to understand its historical context, but we also judge it unfairly if we do not read it in the light of the whole book. If we persist to the end of the book of Amos, we see a different story – God does not remain angry, but relents:

9: 13 The time is surely coming, says the LORD,

when the one who ploughs shall overtake the one who reaps,

and the treader of grapes the one who sows the seed;

the mountains shall drip sweet wine,

and all the hills shall flow with it.

14             I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel,

and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them;

they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,

and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.

15             I will plant them upon their land,

and they shall never again be plucked up

out of the land that I have given them,             says the LORD your God.

The book of Amos was written in and for times very different from our own, but it can still speak to us. We are living in an increasingly multi-cultural and secular society which means that it is our responsibility to keep the word of God alive – to ensure that it is known not only to us but to generations to come. We may not experience a famine of “hearing the words of the Lord”, but the world at large does. It has less and less opportunity to engage with God and with God’s word. For that reason, it is incumbent on us to know and to share what and why we believe, to know our story so well that we can tell it to others, to be so enthusiastic that others will thirst to hear more.

I would like to end today with a challenge for you to begin to read the bible for yourself. Don’t set your target too high, begin with something that is manageable. Decide for example to read the bible for just five minutes a day or to read your way through one book of the bible. Develop your curiosity, ask questions: “What does the bible say about ….” Where can I find the parable of the Good Samaritan? What verse or what Psalm would I suggest to a friend who was going through a difficult time? Where would I find passages that talk about God’s limitless love? Give it a go and see what you can discover.

Let us be those who so know God’s word that we are able to make it known, those who so thirst for the word of God that we are ourselves equipped to slake the thirst of others and so familiar with the word, that it is like our second nature.

[1] The differences in the gospels relate to the writer’s intent, the community for which they were written and to other reasons which I can’t go into here. In the Book of Job, Satan plays an important role in the heavenly court. The Golden Rule is found in Luke and Matthew (6:31, 7:12). ‘How the mighty have fallen” is part of David’s Lament for Saul and David in 2 Samuel 2:19,27 and “keep me as the apple of your eye” comes from Psalm 17:8.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Amos, Apostles, Humanity | 1 Comment »

Body beautiful

March 16, 2013

Lent 5

John 12:1-10

Marian Free

In the name of God who formed us and called us God’s own. Amen.

There is a beautiful Japanese movie called “Departures”. It tells the tale of a cellist whose orchestra disbands and of his subsequent struggle to find work. Daigo has no qualifications or talents apart from his music and he becomes increasingly desperate to earn an income. Eventually he returns to his hometown and answers a job advertisement for a company called “Departures”. He is shocked and dismayed to discover that the company is not a travel agency as he had expected, but the Japanese equivalent of a funeral company. In Japan, a Nokanashi or undertaker is the most despised of professions. Those who practice the art of preparing people for cremation are shunned by society and excluded from all social activities. Daigo has no choice, so he takes the job but tells no one – not even his wife.

His first days on the job are shocking. The company are called to a home in which the occupant has been dead for sometime and the sight and the smells are more than Daigo can bear. He is called out at all hours which makes his secret hard to keep. Over time however, he begins to appreciate the privilege and responsibility of preparing the bodies for cremation and caring for the families of the deceased. With the family in the room, the Nokanashi gently wash and dress the dead and lay them out in a bed with beautiful white linen before placing them in a coffin and taking them away. (Like many aspects of Japanese life – tea making, flower arranging – preparing a body after death is highly ritualised and full of grace. It is beautiful to watch.)

While Daigo is learning to love his work, his wife becomes increasingly suspicious of his activity. Finally he has to tell her about the job and to confront her anger and dismay for by association she shares the taint that the job brings with it. However, when Daigo’s estranged Father dies, Mika accompanies Daigo as he attends to his Father’s body. When she sees for herself the care and respect that is given to the dead, and the love and compassion that is shown to the family and understands that despite societal attitudes the job is not something that contaminates the encoffenier, she too appreciates how important the job is. Instead of despising her husband’s decision and feeling anxious for herself and their child, she embraces and supports his choice.

Departures is a lovely, gentle and respectful movie, which has the effect of de-mystifying death and giving us a different appreciation of the human body.

Different cultures have different attitudes to death. People of the Muslim faith believe that a person should be buried as soon after death as possible. The body is wrapped in cloth rather than placed in a coffin and it is laid in the ground such that it is facing Mecca. In Ireland and perhaps other parts of Great Britain a body may be kept in an open coffin in the family home for long enough for family and friends to come and pay their respects. Some ancient cultures had elaborate processes of mummification and the wealthy could build expensive tombs like the pyramids which could be filled with food and possessions to accompany them on their journey to the next life. I could go on, the Indians (or some of them) have the tradition of the funeral pyre and many Chinese burn money for the deceased to spend in the next life.

In Jesus’ time it appears that the dead were anointed with spices before being wrapped in cloth and entombed. The women among Jesus’ friends discovered that the tomb was empty because they had been going to anoint Jesus’ body which, when taken from the cross, had been hurriedly dealt with because of the approach of the Sabbath. According to John, Nicodemus provided about 100 lbs of spices for that task. In today’s gospel however, Jesus is not yet dead so the anointing tells us something different.

There are four different accounts of the woman who anoints Jesus. John’s account has a number of unique features – the timing is very specific, the characters in the story – Martha, Mary, Lazarus and Judas are all named and the woman (Mary) wipes Jesus’ feet with her hair. Jesus is with friends which makes Mary’s action less shocking and inappropriate. While the timing in John’s gospel is precise – six days before Passover – other aspects of time are confused in this period of Jesus’ life. For example, John alludes to this event before he reports the raising of Lazarus and in this passage we read: “Leave her alone, she kept it for the day of my burial.” As Jesus is not yet dead, that he should be anointed for burial is confusing. Alternately, if Mary was going to keep the ointment for Jesus’ death, why is she using it now?

These questions cannot be resolved but the stories tell us about a respect and care for the body which Western Christianity (based, in part, on a misinterpretation of Paul’s use of the word “flesh”) seems to have lost. Many of us have, deep in our psyche, a belief that our physical bodies are something of a hindrance, that they have uncontrollable urges which are shameful and have to be subdued and tamed. Not quite so extreme is our concern with normal bodily functions. We deodorise our sweat, listerine our breath, shave off hair that grows where we do not want it. Our hatred of (or ambivalence towards) the body is demonstrated today by extreme dieting or an obsession with body building or sculpting. Bodies are so dangerous or so unpleasant that many people in our culture have a difficulty with touch.

The reverence, extravagance and intimacy with which Mary handles Jesus’ body and Jesus’ willing acceptance of her ministrations tell a different story. Neither of them are embarrassed or ashamed of their bodies, they have no fear of what another might see or feel, no self-consciousness about touch. Their physical presence is a very real part of who they are. Jesus’ feet may have been rough and calloused from all the walking, Mary’s hair may not have been recently washed. Neither will have spent time with the beauty therapist to ensure that they looked and smelt their best for this moment. They were two friends who accepted each other and each other’s bodies just as they were.

Whatever this account tells us about the foreboding of Jesus’ death, the avarice in Judas’ nature or the careless abandon of Mary’s love, it is also a telling insight into the value of our physical selves. God gave us physical bodies to house our emotion, our intellect and even our souls and God took on that human body for himself when he entered our existence. Our bodies may not be all that we wish and they may express needs that we are not always happy to admit or indulge but in the end they are God’s creation and the body God chose to inhabit. They are not to be despised and subdued but celebrated and enjoyed. They are not to be bullied and re-shaped, but treasured and cared for. They are not a burden or embarrassment, but a gift from God our creator who thought that they were a suitable vessel for God’s very self. Our bodies are a precious gift. There is no need to deny them affection and touch, reverence and respect. If the human body was good enough for God, surely it is good enough for us.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Humanity, John's Gospel | Comments Off on Body beautiful

The teenage years – the adolescent Jesus

December 29, 2012

Christmas 1

Luke 2:41-52

Marian Free

 

In the name of God, who nurtures and encourages us, and who sets us free to make our own way in the world. Amen.

We all know that a parent bird literally forces a fledgling out of the nest so that it learns how to fly. If it is not pushed, it may never stretch its wings and become independent. It will be unable to survive unless the parent birds plan to lay no more eggs and feed the baby bird forever.

One of the things that I learnt as a parent was this – that good parenting, or at least reasonably good parenting, involves the costly task of letting go. That is, if we do the task of parenting well, what we are doing is preparing our children not to be parented. We engage in the task of ensuring that our children do not need us. The role into which we put so much energy and love is one that if done well inevitably leads to hurt, loss and separation. Our task, difficult as it may seem, is to prepare our children for independence – to love them so much that instead of holding on to them we set them free.

There are at least four stages of separation before our children actually leave the nest.

Each of these stages can create pain, stress and disharmony within the family as the relationships between parent and child are forced to change and adapt to the shifting situations. At least in recent history, it appears that unlike birds, we do not have an in-built trait which is automatically triggered when our children reach a particular stage of development. Our instinct is often to maintain control rather than to let go. Wehave to struggle with the process of our offspring’s growing maturity. Most of us find it difficult to be totally gracious about our children’s growing independence – or at least about the unsettling way in which their quest to separate themselves disrupts what has been a comfortable family life.

All separation is painful. Not only is the process of birth agonizing in a physical sense, but a mother also has to accept that the child, which was an integral part of her, can now exist – at least breathe and eat – independently. She is still needed, but she has to adapt to being needed in a different way. After two years, a child begins to exert pressure to be further identified as an independent individual. The so-called “terrible twos” are simply part of the process as a child makes the journey from dependence to independence. For many families this is a difficult time as parents try to find the balance between giving the child an opportunity to express themselves and at the same time creating boundaries so that the child learns the limits and gains a sense of security.

If this stage is negotiated successfully there may be a time of relative tranquility until the child reaches adolescence. Then, once again, the child will test the limits, make demands for independence and disrupt the pattern of relationships which have been developed and which have allowed the family unit to operate smoothly. Unlike the terrible twos, this is a stage which may extend over a number of years and which may force the final stage to come sooner rather than later. Teenagers often have no understanding of and certainly no sympathy for their parent’s concerns. They know that they will be safe at their friend’s party. They are sure that no harm will come to them if they go out with their friends and so on. On the other hand, parents often do not readily accept that their child is responsible or that their child is capable of making sensible decisions and looking after themselves. Parents know what can happen and take some time to accept that their child is ready for the world.

Finally, the young person is ready to step out on their own, to make their way. Tears at weddings reflect pride, but also a recognition that the person into whom so much was poured can now go it alone. All the love, all the nurture that the parent has provided have led to their child going off on their own.

Today’s gospel has many parts, of which one is Jesus’ adolescence. In this episode the twelve year old Jesus is demonstrating his growing awareness of who he is, he is asserting his independence, separating from his birth family and shifting his allegiance to another cause. In other words he is being a typical adolescent. Jesus has been brought by his parents to Jerusalem – as he has been for the past eleven years. As a twelve year old he has presumably been given some independence which he uses to make up his own mind that he does not need to leave at the same time as the rest of the family. His parents, who have trusted him to be responsible are, not surprisingly, filled with anxiety when they realize he is not with the return party and they begin an anxious search for him.

When they finally discover him, Jesus behaves like a normal adolescent. He cannot understand why they should have been so worried. He knew that he was perfectly safe and capable of looking after himself! Jesus’ response to his mother’s question is one of surprise: “Why were you looking for me?” He dismisses his parent’s anxiety, and as other adolescents have done since, accuses them of ignorance: “Didn’t you know?” This is a typical twelve year old who believes that he is all grown up and who thinks that his parents (who are stupid) should have caught up with that fact.

It is very easy to read the story of Jesus in the Temple in a pious way, but it is just as valid to see this account as further evidence of Jesus’ humanity.

Certainly, the author of Luke uses the account to make a transition from the story of Jesus’ birth to the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. He is also making the Temple a central character as he does at both the beginning and end of the Gospel, he is introducing the reader to Jesus’ superior wisdom, suggesting Jesus’ strong ties to God the Father, making links with the birth narrative (Mary treasured all these things in her heart) and with Simeon’s prediction (a sword will pierce your own heart). None of these must be allowed to paper over the picture of Jesus’ behaving as any other teenage boy asserting his independence, trying to break free of the parental shackles and seeking to be treated as an adult.

It is clear that “in the memory of the Lukan community, Jesus appeared not only as the son of the divine Father, but also in complete humanity, as a maturing boy[1].”

God as Jesus fully identified with our human situation in order that God might redeem our humanity and restore our divinity. In our own quest for divinity, we need not reject our humanity, but embrace it and, with God’s help make what we can of it.

[1] Bovon, Francois. (Trans Christine M. Thomas). Luke 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 113.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Christmas, Humanity, Identity of Jesus, Temple | Comments Off on The teenage years – the adolescent Jesus

The vulnerability of God

December 24, 2012

Christmas Eve 2012

Marian Free

 

In the name of God who gave up all power and authority to create and then to re-create us. Amen.

I often think that the infant in the cradle, “wrapped in cloths”, distracts us from the reality of the situation. We are drawn to the baby as we are drawn to all babies and our hearts are filled with love and a longing to wrap our arms around the child. In the depictions of the Nativity, we see a loving family, comfortably gathered and surrounded by the shepherds and wise men who come to worship.

What we don’t always see is the raw, naked vulnerability of the child – the child who is God and who at this point in time is completely powerless to control his destiny and who is utterly dependent on those around him – on Mary and Joseph, on Herod and the political circumstances of the  country which he finds himself.

Thinking of God as a defenceless child can be startling and a little confusing. It goes against our expectations and forces us to see God from an entirely different perspective. A vulnerable, powerless God does not conform to our concept of a God who is omnipotent and all-powerful, who directs and determines, who judges and condemns. To think of God as a helpless baby challenges everything we might have thought about God. And yet, from the inception of Christianity this is one of the images of God – a God without power, a God unable to intervene and God unable to force God’s will on anyone.

In fact, from the very beginning of the Judeo-Christian faith, the image of God is of a God who instead of keeping all authority to himself, chooses to give that power to humankind. In the Garden of Eden, God the creator gave humanity the freedom to choose. God who could have determined the future of humankind, ceded that power to human beings who used that power to choose to compete with, rather than serve God.

When it all went horribly wrong God chose, not to force humankind to change, but to trust humankind to change themselves. In order to do that, God put himself in our hands and risked everything in the hope that we would rise to the occasion, in the hope that our response to the infant Jesus and to the man, would serve to bring salvation to the world.

God still depends on us to get it right, trusts us to return the world to the idyllic state of the garden. God is still powerless unless we co-operate. The vulnerable God in the cradle depends on the people around him for his survival. The powerless God depends on us to change the world.

The powerlessness of God is demonstrated in the vulnerable and suffering of our own time. Until we accept the vulnerability of the baby, the helplessness of the child in the manger, we will not recognise our responsibility to be those who empower God’s saving work in the world. We will not change the situation of

–       the children of Syria and throughout the Middle East who are dependent on warring parties sitting down at the negotiating table and committing to a lasting peace.

–       the children of Niger, the Sudan and countless other nations who are dependent on our goodwill for food,

–       the millions of children who are victims of the AIDS epidemic who are dependent on education programmes and access to health care,

–       the children working in sweat factories and mines, who are forced into slavery and prostitution who are dependent on enough international advocacy will to set them free,

–       the children of Sandy Hook whose lives along with the 20,000 other young people killed by guns in the US are totally dependent on the will of a nation to give up a love affair with guns.

Until we are willing to change our lives, until we are willing to give us some of our comforts, until we are determined to engage our political leaders and to confront world leaders, until we in our turn become vulnerable and dependent on each other, God remains powerless to intervene in world affairs. Because God is dependent on us, God can only do what we are prepared to do in God’s name.

Next time you look in the manger, see beyond the comforting image of a well-fed, well clothed, well-loved baby and see in that child’s eyes, the eyes of God doing the only thing God knows how to do to change the world around – to give himself utterly and completely to us, hoping against hope that we will give ourselves to God and to each other.

 

 

Let us pray

Holy God,

give us grace and courage to acknowledge our contribution to the suffering in the world. Help us to become vulnerable as you became vulnerable that we may be part of the solution and not of the problem.

Powerless God,

make us aware of your presence in and around us. Help us to have the grace to open ourselves to you, that your presence may be made known through us.

Living God,

be with all who live life in the shadow of poverty and despair,

especially those in our own community whose needs often are overlooked

as we look further afield in our desire to ease the suffering of others.

Give hope to the lost and support to the powerless and make us sensitive and responsive to needs and concerns of those around us.

 

Healing God,

in Jesus, you shared the pain of the sick, you knew what it was to face death. Be with all who at this time are in need of comfort and healing. Encourage and strengthen those who are ill and recovering from surgery, support those who are dying and be with all whose task is to bring about healing.

 

Dying and rising God,

as you shared our existence, may we strive to share yours, that at our end we may             join you and all the saints for eternity.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Christmas, Humanity | Comments Off on The vulnerability of God

The God-child, the child-God

December 22, 2012

Baby Jesus

Baby Jesus

Advent 4

Hebrews 10:5-10

Marian Free

 

In the name of God, who as Jesus, became fully human in order to fully redeem human beings. Amen.

There is a television programme which I do not watch, but which I have caught glimpses of in advertisements. It is called something like: Our embarrassing bodies. From what I can glean from the promotions it is about ghastly and disfiguring afflictions and, I presume, it is about ways to deal with them. It is a reminder that the human body is a fascinating and complex organism and it has many parts, functions and characteristics that we tend to consider unspeakable, embarrassing and even disgusting.

Somehow, it is much easier to believe that baby Jesus is a real baby than it is to accept that the adult Jesus was flesh and blood like us.  It is difficult to accept that God could really inhabit a human body, to believe that Jess really did experience all the bodily functions. It would be more palatable to imagine that Jesus, even as a human being somehow occupied a different plane form the rest of us, that somehow his humanity was tempered by a body that didn’t behave in the same way as ours – that Jesus had no primal urges, that he didn’t sweat or burp or do anything that might be considered improper or unbecoming.

The problem of Jesus’ humanity is not a new one. The early church was torn apart by controversy regarding the nature of Jesus. There were some who thought Jesus was just a supremely virtuous person whom God adopted as the “Son of God”. Others believed that Jesus remained God even though he appeared to be human. Still others thought that it was only when he was resurrected from the dead that the human Jesus became God.

In the fourth century matters were brought to a head by a popular preacher from Libya called Arius who denied the divinity of Christ. His ideas were so compelling that they convinced many of the bishops of the time. The Emperor, Constantine was so dismayed by the disunity in the church that he called the Council of Nicea and demanded that the bishops come to some agreement as to what Christians believed. The result was the declaration expressed in the Nicean Creed that:“ We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father through him all things were made … he was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human”.

Jesus’ fleshly nature was already an essential component of New Testament theology – it was not an invention of the Council of Nicea. Writers as different as the apostle Paul, the writer of the gospel of John and the author of the book of Hebrews all attest to an early belief that Jesus truly inhabited human flesh, just as he was truly God on earth.

That Jesus was fully human, that he did really take on human flesh is important for a number of reasons which are different but complementary.

It was only as a human being that Jesus could work salvation for humankind. The obedience of the human Jesus’ was the only way to undo Adam’s disobedience. In the flesh, Jesus was able to redeem the flesh. By taking on human form, Jesus demonstrated that it is possible for human beings to be all that God created us to be. If Jesus as fully human can submit to God, we know it is not our flesh that prevents us from being obedient, but what we choose to do with it. Jesus’ humanity reminds us that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, human beings, inhabiting human flesh can be truly godly.

The fact that Jesus became fully human means that Jesus redeemed human flesh with all its weaknesses, its urges and its passions. Jesus’ humanity is evidence that our whole person is redeemed not just that part of us which might consider untainted and sinless. Our whole person is redeemed not just a part of it. Jesus’ being fully human demonstrates that God values our physicality as well as our divinity.

Jesus’ becoming human confirms that we cannot pay God off or placate God with sacrifices. God wants us – heart, soul and body not our deeds or our gifts. Jesus as a human being gave his whole self and showed that we should give nothing less.

As we come to the end of Advent and enter into the season of Christmas, we come face to face with the child in the manger. It is not difficult to identify the baby Jesus as a real baby.  The challenge that faces us year after year is to accept that the real child in the cradle grows into a real human being – a human being with longings and desires, weaknesses and strengths, just like us.

As Jesus became one with us, so we should strive to become one with him, and through him become agents of redemption in the world.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Advent, Christmas, Humanity, Identity of Jesus, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on The God-child, the child-God

Humanity exposed

July 14, 2012

Pentecost 7

Mark 6:14-end

Marian Free

In the name of God our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Amen.

The past few decades have revealed in vivid detail how violent the world is and how precarious, for many, is their hold on life. This week on You Tube a video was posted of a woman being executed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. On Wednesday a young man cried before the International Court as he told the story of the last time he saw his Bosnian father. Throughout the world people flee from violence to an uncertain future. In refugee camps around the world, women are routinely raped and not only by those whom they might consider their enemies. Women and children are trafficked as sex slaves even in Australia. In Syria today, Libya yesterday, autocratic rulers and their followers who are trying to hold on to power violently suppress any opposition to their rule.

Modern methods of communication mean that we receive news (especially bad news) almost immediately. Remember the video of the young protester shot in Egypt. Another person who was present took a film on their mobile phone and within minutes the world knew what had happened.

My point is this, a person would be hard pressed not to know that there are many really shocking things taking place every day and that innocent people -simply because of the countries into which they are born – are experiencing what to us is unimaginable violence and cruelty often on a daily basis.

It is not as if the world has changed, but our knowledge of the world has expanded to the point where it is impossible to ignore what goes on around us.

This is the context in which we read the account of the death of John the Baptist. Palestine of the first century was no more unstable or violent than many countries are today. Rulers like Herod, whose hold on power was to some extent dependent on the whim of Rome, were under some pressure to maintain order. Not only that, but there would be other opportunists like himself ready to take his place if the situation arose. For that reason, opposition had to be quickly dispensed. So, if someone like John was perceived as disturbing the peace then he (like say, Aung San Suu Kyi) would need to be neutralized by placing him under arrest. The execution of John  (or Aung San) would have been a more permanent solution, the death of John of Aung San might have incited their followers to cause unrest so arrest was the safer option.

Herod’s hold on power might have been precarious, but spare a thought for his wife, who like many women throughout history found herself in a situation that was extremely precarious and which – especially as her power and influence had been ill-gained – could only be maintained by devious or violent measures. If you read the second book of Chronicles you will hear the story Athaliah, Ahaziah’s mother, who set out to slaughter all the Royal household of Judah in order to gain the throne and to assure herself of some sort of security. You don’t need to go that far back to be reminded that women often had no say in their future, but were wedded off to whomever might provide greater stability for their fathers. Some of these women achieved security for themselves and for their children by means that we would consider immoral, conniving or brutal.

The position of Herod’s wife was not at all secure, and her daughter’s less so. Having abandoned her husband for Herod, – possibly lured by his greater power and wealth – she would be aware that relationships were tenuous and that there was no guarantee that she would remain in Herod’s favour. Further, having achieved Herod’s favour in a way that some considered immoral, it is understandable that she might have been all the more determined to ensure that she gained the respect of those around her. Her daughter, who is not the daughter of Herod, is equally vulnerable. No wonder then that the mother is anxious to rid herself of a man who is troubling her husband’s conscience and threatening her position. No wonder that her daughter seeks her advice and is willing to act on it.

I always find it extraordinary that the Gospels have such an extended account of such a gruesome story. Some other events are mentioned only in passing, but here we have the details of the dinner, the dance, the promise, the request and its completion. The same is true of other grusomes stories in the Bible. I think for example of the Levite’s concubine whom, we are told was cut into twelve pieces, or of the rape of Tamar, or the destruction of the tribe of Bethlehem. (Those OT stories are only the internal stories, not ones about Israel’s enemies!)  They are hardly edifying, not the sort of story that would enhance one’s faith or deepen one’s spirituality. However, they are important stories, not least because they reveal the ugliness of human nature and the depths to which some people will sink.

If nothing else, these accounts make us aware of the complexity of the human heart and help us to think about the nature of our own thoughts, our own petty jealousies, our own need to protect the roles that make us feel worthwhile and important or our desire to hurt or destroy those things or people who threaten us or who threaten our comfortable existence.

We live in a world which is becoming increasingly polarized. Religious conflict between those who hold the same faith and those of different faiths is increasing in some parts of the world. In other parts of the world there is suspicion that different faith groups are planning to “take over”.  Even before the GFC there was an increasing gap between the very rich and the very poor. Now we are starting to see a gap between those who are employed and those who are not. In such an environment, the baser side of human nature tends to be exposed as people compete for resources and power and those with resources do whatever it takes to protect them.

The ugly stories of our scriptures remind us that, while we might not like to admit it, we share with the rest of humanity a potential for evil as well as for good. Our scriptures don’t gloss over the difficult and uncomfortable, but expose both the best and the worst of human nature. This helps us to be honest and realistic with ourselves, to know of what we are capable, to recognise and confront the ugly parts of ourselves, and to identify and strengthen all that is good. It is important always to have an unblinkered view of ourselves for only then will we have the will to open about our frailty, willing to grow and change and cautious about judging the world.

Tags:
Posted in Humanity, Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Humanity exposed