Posts Tagged ‘community’

Trinity Sunday

June 3, 2023

Trinity – 2023
Matthew 28:16-20
Marian Free

In the name of God, creative, generative force, loving, sacrificial being, empowering and energising breath. Amen.

A little while I saw a meme that featured Jesus and the disciples. The first frame, pictured Jesus preparing the disciples for his ascension. Jesus was saying: “Don’t make this too complicated”. In the next frame, after Jesus has ascended the disciples see a group of people coming over the hill. “Oh no”, they say, “here come the theologians!” The creator of the cartoon was implying that theologians complicate simple tenets of faith by analysing and explaining them.

It is easy to imagine that we would be better off without those academics who make meaning out of scriptures, who turn apparently simple texts into complex ideas. The fact is, that without theologians, we would be confronted with a multitude of conflicting ideas and no arbitrators to determine which interpretation was more accurate or more reflective of the teaching of Jesus and its reception by the first believers.

The early church provides two cases in point – the Incarnation and the Trinity – both of which proved controversial in the first few centuries. In the gospels, Jesus is depicted as both human and divine, but there is no detailed argument as to how this works in practice. The most direct claims are those of Jesus in John’s gospel in which Jesus consistently claims that he and the Father are one. In the Synoptics, there are no direct claims that Jesus and the Father are one (Mt. 11:27 being an exception), but in those gospels Jesus shown to have power over demons, over the natural elements and over life itself – powers previously associated only with God. It seems obvious that the gospel writers took for granted. that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, but they provide no explicit statement to this effect, and give no explanation as to how such a thing could be. It was left to the early church to determine what this meant and how it could be explained. The result was a number of theories about the nature of Jesus and fierce arguments between various bishops and theologians.

Similarly with the Trinity. God as Creator/or Father, Son/Christ/Lord and Spirit is referred to unselfconsciously throughout Paul’s letters and to some extent in the Gospels, but nowhere is there any explanation as to how God can be both three AND one. There is no biblical description of the way in which the three persons of God relate to each other. A Trinitarian God was such a departure from the strict monotheism of Judaism, that there was no language to accommodate a new way of thinking about this same God. The first believers took for granted that God was in some way three persons in one God, but they did not have the appropriate language to defend that belief. It was left to later scholars to find language that honoured the equal value of each member of the Trinity and to describe the relationship between the three – language that often takes away from the relaxed way in which the early community accepted and related to a Trinitarian God.

Interestingly, though the Pauline letters use the language of God, Lord, Christ, and Spirit interchangeably, and though Paul coined prayer: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit, the Trinitarian formula with which we are most familiar “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” occurs only in Matthew’s gospel. This is in no small part because the gospels were trying to tell the story of Jesus and to record his teaching – rather than to make meaning. of his life, death, and resurrection.

That said, the conclusion to Matthew’s gospel tells us two things – one, that by the 80s, Trinitarian language was being used as a matter of course and two, that the language of Trinity was an essential component of the baptismal liturgy. In other words, at least by the time Matthew was written, the idea of a three-fold God had solidified into a formula – a formula that was accepted even by this most Jewish of the gospel writers. At the same time this formula was used (without explanation) as an essential part of the liturgy that welcomed new believers into the community.

It seems that the early church did not have to reflect on the nature of the Trinity or on the relationship between the members of the Trinity. Early believers appear to have taken three-fold nature of God for granted – without seeing any contradiction between that belief and their existing belief that God was one.

Perhaps the best attempt to make sense of a three-fold God is the Athanasian Creed, which can be found in the back of your Prayer Book, and which used to be said on Trinity Sunday. “So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.)

The Trinitary is first and foremost relational and communal. The persons of the Trinity are non-competitive, inclusive. No one person of the Trinity has priority and no one person of the Trinity is dispensable, but all work together in unity.

The God whom we are called to worship in not a lonely, isolated, all-powerful despot, but a loving community whose roles are both distinct and indistinguishable. The God whom we worship is not a distant and indifferent power but a fellowship that is so concerned with our well-being that God’s very self shared our humanity becoming one of us and one with us. The God whom we worship is not static and unchanging, but dynamic and innovative, dancing through time and space – before time and beyond time.

The God whom we worship invites us into the dance, into communion with Godself and promises to be with us always, to the end of the age.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Matthew, Trinity | Comments Off on Trinity Sunday

It still doesn’t depend on us

May 9, 2015

Easter 6 – 2015

John 15:9-17

Marian Free

In the name of God – Lover, Friend, Enlivener. Amen.

Today will be the third time in three weeks that I have had cause to preach on John 15:9-17 – at the service to dedicate the windows, on ANZAC Day and now today. That tells you at least three things. One is that our scriptures are often put to uses for which they were not originally intended, a second is that they are to some degree pliable (that is they can withstand more than one interpretation) and a third is that our biblical texts contain so much depth and complexity that they can be viewed from a wide variety of angles and through an array of different lenses and so continue to reveal new and rich insights. This is certainly the case with John’s Gospel. Apparently simple, transparent texts contain layers of detail that only become obvious when we make the effort to really familiarize ourselves with them.

Take John 15:1-17 for example. Jesus declares himself to be the true vine – an image that he expands on in two ways. In the first few verses (those we heard last week) he elaborates on the image by comparing himself with the vine – the source of life for the branches. That seems straightforward enough until the reader begins to explore questions such as: to whom is Jesus referring when he speaks of the branches and whom does he mean by the branches that have withered? What does sort of fruit are the branches to bear? Does he mean doing good works or does he, as the reading suggests mean discipleship? If bearing fruit is discipleship what does that look like? [1]

Jesus expands on the question of discipleship in his second explanation of the vine. Discipleship according to this image is evidenced by self-sacrificial love for one another – love that like fruit flows from a believer’s abiding in him. This discussion is no less complex than the first. Here, Jesus turns his attention to the theme of love but he confuses the issue by adding instructions about keeping his commandment, about servanthood (slavery) versus friendship, about being sent and about answered requests.

In a ten minute sound bite, such as a sermon, it impossible to follow and elaborate on all of these different threads much as I would like to! I alert you to them so that you are aware that I am skimming the surface of and not plumbing the depths of Jesus’ analogy.

When John 15:9-17 is read on ANZAC Day, it is usual for the preacher to focus on just one of the verses: “Greater love has no one than this, that they lay down their life for their friends” (John 15:13). In that context of ANZAC Day, it is appropriate think of all those who, in times of conflict, have risked or given their lives so that others might live and it is comforting to understand that their lives were given not only for a good cause, but in response to the highest Christian ideal.

Jesus setting was not that of wartime, nor do I imagine that he spoke these words with that particular context in mind. In trying to come to grips with the text today it is important to ask: “What is the context that Jesus is addressing? To whom was he speaking? and What did he mean by that line?

A number of factors make it clear that Jesus is talking to believers,those who are already disciples. In the first instance, the setting in the gospel is Jesus’ last meal with the disciples – presumably the twelve minus Judas who has already gone out, but certainly an inner circle of followers. Secondly, Jesus is addressing those who abide in him – those who have not already withered and died. Thirdly, he calls the listeners “servants” a term that implies they are his disciples or followers. Jesus is speaking to his followers in the context of saying farewell to them and preparing them to be the church in his absence.

This is an essential detail in terms of working out the meaning for us today. Jesus is NOT encouraging us to do good works. The fruit we are called to bear is that of discipleship and discipleship is to be demonstrated in self-sacrificial love – not for the nation, not for those in need, but for our fellow church members, those with whom we meet week by week, those whom we take for granted and those whom we let get under our skin, those who agree with us on issues such as music and furnishing and those who want to turn everything upside down, those who encourage us and those who let us down, those whom we have known for years and those whom we have only known for hours. In one sense it is a much more homely love (less noble) than dying for another in battle and yet in another sense it is a much more difficult love because it means that issues that arise need to be properly addressed, differences recognised and dealt with and rifts mended. It entails recognising when to hold one’s ground and when to give way, when to be firm and when to be gentle. In one sense this sort of love is incredibly difficult, in another it is the easiest love in the world, because above all it not our love – it is God’s love, God’s love expressed through Jesus to us.

In the end then, love has little to do with us and everything to do with God. Our primary responsibility is to abide in the vine, to abide in Jesus and in Jesus’ love for us such that Jesus’ self-sacrificial, life-giving love flows through us, filling us, fulfilling our every need and freeing us such that we cannot help but to give that love freely and abundantly to others. We are called, each and every one of us to be in a relationship with God, a relationship with Jesus that is so all-embracing, so intimate that it is as if we are branches that are fed and nurtured and empowered by the life-giving love of the vine that produces the fruit of discipleship which is our love for each other.

Imagine a church community that truly and completely bound itself to God as branches in a vine, a church in which God’s love was abundantly and transparently clear. Who would not want to belong to such a church? Who would not want the love that its members showed to one another?

If we live in God’s love, God’s love will live in us and that love will be manifest to the world. It is my belief that in this community we know and live God’s love. Can know and live it better? Are we willing to know and live it better? If not why not?

[1] That is not taking into account the questions as to whether chapters 15-17 are original to the gospel and/or original to Jesus. Nor does it refer to the issue of Old Testament precedents.

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on It still doesn’t depend on us

Living Dangerously

February 28, 2015

Lent 2 – 2015

Mark 8:31-38

Marian Free

 

In the name of God who invites us to take risks, to live dangerously and to have fun. Amen.

Over the past week or so I have been reading an interesting book entitled: “Why Men Hate Church” by David Murrow. The book addresses the obvious – the fact that in most Christian denominations women outnumber men, often by a considerable number (something which is not entirely accounted for by the reality that, on the whole, men die at a younger age than women). Admittedly I have only had a cursory look at the book[1], but from what I have gleaned it is something of a “Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus” sort of thesis. Murrow argues that men and women think differently, act differently and want different things. He suggests that even though until recently men dominated the leadership of the church; for the last 1300 – 1400 years, the church has been increasing feminised. Murrow contends that around the year 700 the church lost its edge. At that time, he claims, the church gave up the emphasis on struggle and sacrifice and replaced it with a call to passivity and weakness. The image of Jesus changed from someone who was strong and courageous to someone who was meek and submissive. This in turn, he suggests, has led vast numbers of men and some women to feel at best uncomfortable and at worst unwelcome in many churches.

Assuming Murrow’s thesis to be true, we can of course document exceptions to the rule. As ill-conceived as they were, the crusades provided an opportunity for displays of courage and self-sacrifice, as no doubt did the two world wars. Throughout the ages, Saints such as Joan of Arc, missionaries such as Graham Staines and his sons Phillip and Timothy, clergy such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bishops such as Oscar Romero have been willing to take greats risks and lay down their lives for the faith.

By and large though, the institutional church has settled down, become a part of the surrounding landscape and played it safe. It could not be argued that we at St Augustine’s live dangerously or that we take risks that might cost us our place in the community, let alone cost us our lives. Murrow suggests that this is one of the reasons why some people do not come to church – they don’t want to be safe. They want to be dangerous. Risk-takers, fun-lovers and builders he claims, do not find enough in our liturgy or our community life that is challenging or that takes them to the edge and so they stay away.

I am not at all sure that I agree with Murrow’s overall argument (among other things he is writing from a North American perspective) but his book does provide some food for thought and leads to a number of questions. Have we created a kind of mono-culture which leaves some people feeling as though there is no place for them in the church? More importantly it forces us to ask – what are we really about? Have we forgotten that the gospel is all about living dangerously, not about building a secure and comfortable place in which we can now (and forever) feel at home? Worshipping in our beautiful churches, using a liturgy with roots that are ancient, gathering with our friends week by week, have we lost sight of the fact that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head and that the early disciples were called away from all that was familiar and secure to a life in which almost nothing was certain except for uncertainty and risk. In our efforts to be part of the world around us, do we allow injustices to go unchallenged? In other words, are we really living gospel lives?

I suspect that we all suffer from a form of collective amnesia and that for the most part we put our efforts into keeping the institution of the church alive, rather than worrying about the survival of the gospel. That said, that model has served us well for centuries. As long as the community around us was predominantly Christian, the church has served the purpose of building up the community of faith. Through worship and prayer we have supported one another through difficult times and been challenged to grow in faith and faithfulness. Our faith has enabled many of us to take risks of sorts, to trust God when we have had to make difficult decisions or to step out in faith when we had no idea what the future held for us.

Times have changed. We can no longer assume that members of our local community hold the faith or that those who do will join our worshipping community. This being the case, how can we ensure the continuity of the gospel? How, in this changing world can we share with others this amazing gift of faith?

One answer is this – if people don’t come to us, we must go to them. We must ask those who do believe in Jesus Christ why they don’t join us. Is it because our culture and practice make them feel unwelcome? For those who do not believe we must explore new ways of making conversation, new ways of letting them into our secret. If the Christian church is to survive, we must be bold and courageous. We must seek out builders, risk-takers and those who are prepared to live dangerously and we must allow them to make us feel uncomfortable for a change. We must step out of our comfort zones and do things differently for a change.

Whether we like it or not, we must change or die. Or, perhaps as today’s gospel puts it, we must die to all that we are and all that we have known so that God’s purpose can be worked out through us. Jesus didn’t call us to be safe – anything but. His call to follow is an invitation to live on the edge, to let go of the past and to begin each day as if it were our first. We are not invited to be comfortable or complacent, but to be adventurous and daring, open to change and to challenge. We are only here because twenty centuries ago there were those who were brave enough to step out of their comfort zones and leave everything behind in order to answer Jesus’ call. Their courage and willingness to take risks ensured that the gospel message, not only survived but spread throughout the world?

In the twenty-first century, do we have the courage to answer the call? What are we prepared to leave behind to enter the future God is preparing for us?

[1] If you are interested, I suggest you read it for yourselves. Murrow, David. Why Men Hate Going to Church.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Living Dangerously

Conflict resolution

September 6, 2014

Pentecost 13 – 2014

Matthew 18:10-20

Marian Free

In the name of God who models relationships that are authentic, open and honest. Amen.

No doubt there are a number of ways to look at conflict resolution. This was the topic at the Northern Region Clergy Conference led by Tim Dyer of John Mark ministries[1]. Tim began pointing out that people approach conflict in a variety of different ways that could be easily characterized by their similarities to different animals. For example some people deal with conflict head on, determined to win the battle. These are the bulls. Other people retreat into themselves and seek to avoid the conflict altogether thus leaving it unresolved. These are the turtles. Foxes are cunning and those who behave like foxes aim for compromise. They want a solution and will give way in order to get a result. Koalas are warm and cuddly. They are full of compassion for the other person in the dispute and so will often forgo their own needs and allow the other to “win”. Wise old owls are prepared to invest the time and energy required in order to find a solution that best suits all parties.

All of these approaches have something to offer because different situations demand different strategies to conflict resolution. There are times when an immediate decision is required (bull) and times when the most appropriate thing to do is to walk away (turtle). On some occasions compromise (fox) is the best way forward and on other occasions conceding ground is the best solution (koala). Most people have a preferred way of dealing with conflict – avoidance, confrontation, putting the other first. People in leadership positions can learn to operate in all of these modes though in difficult situations they might still revert to their preferred mode of operation.

Few people (except the bulls) relish conflict, and church communities tend to be particularly conflict averse. This is because we place a premium on love and forgiveness and as a result view conflict as failure, if not sin. Unfortunately a failure to acknowledge that there is a problem does not make it go away. In fact, ignoring a problem can lead to a situation that is worse than the original discord. If conflict is avoided or denied it can simmer below the surface and finally bubble up in ways that are much more serious and therefore much more damaging than the original conflict would have been had been allowed to be aired. By continually avoiding conflict, church communities become not more united but more fractured and by failing to recognise conflict as a part of community, church families are losing an opportunity to develop ways of dealing with conflict, of building bridges and of forming honest relationships.

The reality is that rather than achieving the ideal of being loving and forgiving, church communities have a tendency to be conflict prone if for no other reason than that they bring together a diverse range of people who are expected to know and share similar beliefs. Sometimes people who are damaged or hurt come to the church seeking healing and peace, however they are unable to let go of the baggage they have brought with them and unconsciously generate tensions with their demand to be loved. The fact that church communities are made up of volunteers rather than a paid workforce can lead to a sense of obligation towards those who give generously of their time and an unwillingness to tackle behaviour that would not be accepted elsewhere. (Again the desire to be loving and forgiving hampers rather than assists our ability to deal with conflict as it arises.) More than any other community, churches are like families – with all the expectations and disappointments and frictions that living in such close quarters can engender. Sources of conflict include a failure to communicate clearly, a need to control, a dislike of change, a past conflict that has not been properly dealt with and a tendency for people to congregate in sub-groups of people with similar interests (which in turn exclude others from belonging).

Conflict is a normal aspect of group life. For that reason it is important that churches develop strategies to deal with differences rather than to pretend that they do not exist.

The Bible does not suggest faith in God leads to a life in perfect harmony with other people of faith. In fact, apart from parts of Acts in which the early church is idealized, there nowhere in the New Testament is there a picture of a community that is free from conflict or disagreement. Paul’s letters describe communities that are experiencing real tensions between members and even the gospels show us that even among the disciples there is a degree of competition between the disciples. In fact chapter 18 of Matthew begins with the disciples asking Jesus who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. The New Testament does not gloss over the difficulties faced by those trying to become the church. Instead it provides an honest account of the tensions that arise as a normal part of community life, when people bring their different needs and expectations into a group situation. If the New Testament can acknowledge the difficulties of community life and the conflicts that arise in group situations, then today church would be wise to recognise that conflict is not a sign of failure, but just one aspect of our life together. Rather than ignoring it, we should find ways to address it and to work together to bring it to some sort of resolution.

Matthew’s gospel is sometimes called a Manual for the Church. It is Matthew more than any other gospel writer who provides specific instructions for community life. This is particularly clear in today’s gospel that addresses conflict resolution in the church. There is no suggestion here that conflict be avoided or swept under the carpet as if it didn’t exist. Instead disputes are to be brought out into the open so that everyone can help to bring about a positive result. If two people disagree, they are first of all to discuss the issue with each other. If they are still unable to resolve the issue, they are encouraged to enlist the help of two or three others. If that doesn’t have the desired effect then they are to take the matter before the whole church. As a last resort a trouble-maker might have to be considered as a Gentile or tax-collector (someone who hasn’t yet fully understood the gospel).

Most people do not like conflict, but pushing it aside or burying it does not solve the issue. At best ignoring a problem leads to hypocrisy, to a façade that all is well and to relationships that are essentially dishonest and superficial. At worst avoiding an issue allows it to fester until it can no longer be contained and unspoken hurts spill over into acrimony that leads to lasting damage.

In our personal lives and in community, conflict is always best addressed rather than pushed aside. If we can learn to talk things through, to put our cases gently and firmly, to listen patiently and without prejudice then we will build robust and honest relationships that more truly demonstrate the love of God in and between us.

[1] I am heavily reliant on Tim’s content but hope I have put it in my own words. (johnmarkministries.net.au Northern Region Clergy Conference)

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Conflict resolution