This thread is the second in a series that came about after finding that the majority of the people I engage with are of the opinion that the answer to the question: "Church, what is it good for?" come back with the response: “Absolutely nothing!”
The first part of this series reminded us that Jesus' once and for all atoning act on the cross and the shedding of His blood in that event is made of ALL humanity. Forgiveness and reconciliation with the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are but an act of faith away. Remember Romans 3.24-25:
“And ALL are justified freely by His (God’s) grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith...”
Salvation is universally given, but before my universalist friends start cheering there's that reality that it needs to be received by 'by faith in Christ' and this means reconciliation with God. Now, despite those who will reach for their rubbers to erase bits (or words) they don't like. No matter how much some will claim that the words of the Bible were added to, removed or otherwise modified by people with their own agendas (the great redactionist caveat): The reality is that what we have is Canon (kanon - the yardstick or measure) and what we have is what we've got and what we should work with!
I will just get my soapbox out and say that there are a few things that drive me to distraction.:
i. 'sin' - is the word we use to denote something that contravenes God's law, will and desire for us. Though some will wise to erase the word for some old tosh about 'God just wanting us to be happy' and calling upon us to 'reread the Bible through the lens of love and approval for all'
ii. The Old Testament is not a bunch of 'stone-age (mysogynistic) old blokes' who had no understanding of the societal values, actions and behaviours such as we encounter today'. The reality is that they knew it, experienced it (and more) and acted to be countercultural. The problem with today's Church is that too many of its member want to create a popularise, permissive, weak and wishy washy, Christ denying, body.
iii. We are not here to create God in our own image or to approve of the gods of this age in order that we might create some syncretic abomination. We are here to be like the early Christians, ethnically Christian, obviously countercultural, and truly discipled and disciplined.
iv. I see, in the Christian faith I am part of, a Church that lives to make God's love known, embracing ALL people as a totally inclusive body making real the 'nothing you've been, seen. done, or will do can separate us from the love of God'.
v. I believe in a Church that is called to meet those doing it wrong ('caught in sin') and to restore them gently (righteous anger is rarely righteous) taking care that in doing so we don't enter into doing it wrong (yep, that's 'sinning') and so deny the love of God towards others or within us.
It is all so blinking obvious! Isn't it? This is 'Being Christian 101'.
So when we find someone 'caught in a sin', isn't this what we should be doing as Church:
Engage with them and dialogue, never losing sight that the person before us is the 'image of the invisible God made visible', and seek to sense the heartbeat of God and His presence (will, rule, love, demands and actions) and get in step with it. We find the mission Dei and sign up to be part of it, for undoing so our incarnate nature brings God into the person's presence in flesh just as God brought that self-same presence into relationship with a fallen world. After all, a fallen world is just the same fallen person, like the one in front of us on a much larger scale.
A good rule is know you own limitations - I know I can generally only deal with the world a person at a time!
How do we do it? Better still, "How should we do it?"
I know only of one sin which is 'unforgivable' (Matt 12:31-32 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.").
As I read this I find myself wondering if this means that everything else we do has to be considered to be forgivable. I mentioned this to some Christians last year (Happy New Year!) and they told me that murders, people-traffickers, fornicators, adulterers, paedophiles, homosexuals, bisexuals, rich people, poor people, liars, thieves, alcoholics, Remainers, Leavers, drug-dealers, and (add your own area of antagonism and curse them and continue). Doesn't this leave us with a cruel and wicked God?
Does He really act like this? Is He really this cruel and heartless?
I don't think so. So the answer to the question, "Whose sin is greater?" The same one Jesus is asked in John 9. The people believed that illness, poverty and the like were the result of sin. I once attended a Pentecostal church where were told to confess of sins that they might prosper. The most power sin known to humanity, the one that apparently rendered God impotent to act or to bless was the: 'Unremembered, or unknown, unconfessed sin.'
What a week and useless, uncaring and unable to act God some people have created for themselves.
So to answer the question, "Whose sin is greater?" I think the answer is obvious (but will probably get me loads of email and conversations started (hallelujah, how I love conversations) in that it surely has to be: No one's!
And if Judas hadn't decided to take things into his own hands, you know, I am certain that there was forgiveness and acceptance available to him for the hands of the risen Christ. But that wouldn't have served the cause of the person who prompted him to steal the car and deny the Christ now, would it?
Pax
NOTE. I'm sorry to those who have written to me saying something along the lines of, "You naughty mysoginst. God is not a 'He',"
Please remember that I an an exceedingly old goat who happens to feel discomfort when God is referred to as 'S/He' or as 'He, He, She or It' or whatever you like to use. Each to their own (and no I'm not being a mysogynist, but are you not perhaps enjoying your views from the comfort of your position as a mysandrist?
Let's ask Jesus Christ Superstar - for I think there are many influences to be found in it.
There's probably no more controversial New Testament character than Judas. This is a quick and dirty assessment of the man in the light of comments made, sermons heard and questions asked as the traditional position whereby he is vilified and derided gives way to something so very different.
The trend today has become a collision of excusing, justifying, or pardoning Judas. Not only that but we find some accusing Jesus of setting Judas up whilst others or raise Judas to the status of co-redemptor (because salvation by way of the cross could not have happened without him).
There's no doubt that Easter Sunday can't happen without Judas popping up and betraying Jesus, but can we join together with the cast of Jesus Christ Superstar and take up the strains of 'Poor old Judas' with any integrity?
The show puts these words into Judas' mouth:
"My God, I saw him
He looked three-quarters dead and he was so bad
I had to turn my head
You beat him so hard that he was bent and lame and I know who everybody's
Going to blame
I don't believe he knows
I acted for our good
I'd save him all the suffering if I could
Don't believe
Our good save him
If I could
Christ!
I know you can't hear me
But I only did what you wanted me to
Christ!
I'd sell out the nation for I have been saddled with the murder of you
I have been spattered with innocent blood
I should be dragged through the slime and the mud
My mind is darkness now
My god I am sick
I've been used and you knew
All the time
God I'll never ever know why you chose me for your crime
For your foul bloody crime
You have murdered me!"
The words above raise many questions. Do we have before us a man who is vilified for 'acting for the good of Jesus' followers'? Does Judas become betrayal personified for 'doing what Jesus wanted him to to do'. Should we be pointing the finger of blame at Jesus because He chose Judas to do the crime!
I think there is value to hear the song itself and so throughout this piece you'll find the songs. Have a listen if you can:
Even today Judas’s very name appears in everyday language as an accusation of duplicitous action and gross, wicked and painful betrayal. It appears in our conversations, in print and in the media.
Only a few days ago the television presenter Lorraine Kelly was branded 'a Judas' after she admitted that she was not supporting England but Iceland in the World Cup.
As someone who works in education helping people tounderstand the dynamics and realities of the Shoah (the Holocaust) I have read much propaganda designed to cause people to regard, and treat, Jews as undesirable vermin who were betraying the German nation just as Judas the Jew had betrayed Jesus. It didn't stop with Germany, for wherever Jews were to be found they were presented as a problem than needed solving, The 'solution' being their extermination!
Judas is neither friend for Jew or Gentile it seems. In fact for centuries the Jews suffered because of his actions. But is a scapegoat or is this no more than the man deserves?
Let’s have a look at the man to see what we can make of him and his situation . . .
What do we know about Judas?
1. He was the ‘money man’ for the band of brothers that were Jesus and His followers (John 12).
2. He was apparently dodgy. After Judas’ response to the wasting of expensive nard John 12 continues: “Judas said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.”
3a. From Matthew 26 // Mark 14 we know it was Judas himself who made the approach to the Jewish authorities with the intention of turning Jesus over to them: “Then one of the twelve, whose name was Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.”
3b. Luke 22 adds some proper perspective as to the fact that it was not God who influence, selected, or tasked Judas with the act of betrayal but satan:
"Now the festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was near. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to put Jesus to death, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve; he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers of the temple police about how he might betray him to them. They were greatly pleased and agreed to give him money. So he consented and began to look for an opportunity to betray him to them when no crowd was present."
4a. We know that (in John 18) Judas led the people who arrested Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane to Him:
"Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?”
They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Jesus said to them, “I am he.”
Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.
When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.”
4b. Another accountof Judas' encounter with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane can be found in Luke 22:
" . . . there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”"
5a. So Jesus is taken away and Judas attempts to return the 'blood money' after which he goes and hangs himself:
"Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself."
5b. The Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1) tells us that having been left hanging (which makes sense because to touch a dead body is to make oneself unclean), Judas' body decomposes and his guts spill out into the field which becomes known as Akeldama:
“Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
Plenty of material to help us think about Judas.
Radio 4 had a bishop speaking about Judas recently. In the interview he voiced his sympathy for the man and the 'lousy press' he gets. "After all, nobody likes him, do they?"
Increasingly it seems that people are harbouring the thought that Judas was set up by Jesus. If this is the case then this raises questions about everything that Jesus is and is claimed to be. In fact if this was true then Jesus is most definitely not the Messiah but is indeed 'a very naughty boy!' But I don't think the life of Brian can hold anyway here as there's no evidence to support this position. Conspiracy theorists would say this only strengthens their case!
I think we have a man who has acted from within himself for a number reasons (I've come up with five). Have a look and decide which of them add sto the picture you might construct of the man and his actions:
i. Was it the money?
John paints a picture of a man stealing from the community's moneybag. Now though this betrayal gave him money, I don't think money was the primary motive for the act. Thinking about it logically, if the whole situation was about to explode and the following Jesus was about to go down the drain, money would give Judas the means to ride off into the sunset and start over elsewhere. It was a cheery on the cake, not the prime mover for the action.
ii. Was he 'disgruntled'?
One of the biggest causes of 'whistleblowing' is discontent. The person doesn't feel valued, dislikes their boss (or some other person), disagrees with the policies, or feels aggrieved over some real or perceived wrong action. In this case it makes sense to point the finger at the 'wrong action/policy' of not becoming a guerrilla force. Jesus had the people's hearts and minds, all He needed do was add a bit of spice and the rabble would have raised up and acted against their occupiers.
But Jesus' was no rabble rouser and this could easily have frustrated the Zealots amongst the disciples. Could it be that we owe more to Simon the Zealot and his song in supporting the modern attitude towards Judas as he asks this question of Jesus?
Reading the lyrics brings into our consciousness some really powerful thoughts indeed. Here we have a man who wants that little bit more:
"There must be over fifty thousand screaming love and more for you.
And everyone of fifty thousand would do whatever you asked them to.
Keep them yelling their devotion, but add a touch of hate at Rome.
You will rise to a greater power. We will win ourselves a home.
You'll get the power and the glory
For ever and ever and ever . . ."
But that little bit more was not what Jesus had come for. He came to reconcile humanity to God and to present a new way of thinking and living; a way which had no need of swords.
iii. Had it 'All gone sour'?
The song 'Heaven on their minds' is probably one of the most influential songs we have with regard to making a positive and supportive case in favour of Judas. Once you've heard it sung you're part way to agreeing that He's merely being human and telling Jesus how things really are. The bloke's not all bad, he's just trying to get Jesus to listen and change track before it's all too late.
He become aware that Jesus and those following Him disciples are on the road to destruction and no matter what he tries to do they aren't listening to (his) reason. They've sold out to the 'heaven' message and so, frustrated, we find him on the stage putting his side of the story with this song:
These words of this song resonate so much with the opinions of many regarding who have engaged with me over the years with regard to Judas being a desperate man trying to save Jesus and his comrades. The last stanza tie a neat bow of the package of justification for Judas' actions:
"Listen, Jesus, to the warning I give.
Please remember that I want us to live.
But it's sad to see our chances weakening with every hour.
All your followers are blind.
Too much heaven on their minds.
It was beautiful, but now it's sour.
Yes it's all gone sour."
Sour grapes, fear and a large dose of disillusionment . Do these lead Judas to the Temple as he tries to pull the plug on it all before it all crashes down and they find Jesus (and themselves) themselves put to death? Did he think the authorities he was about to conspire with would act to stop the Jesus roadshow before it was too late?
Sounds reasonable to me, but perhaps the man just didn't read or understand his audience well enough. They weren't looking to stop Jesus, they wanted to kill Him! This would most assuredly scare those who followed Him and sang His praises. Those who hung on His every word would soon stop from carrying on His message if they were in fear of being singled out as a follower.
An lecture I listened to a few years back raised the question, "Did Judas' actions come out of a desire to get back to being part of a select few rather than one of the crowd?" Something to ponder isn't it?
The Temple authorities wanted 'church' done the way it always was - with them running the show! They wanted the power and authority it had 'always' had and were keen to keep the plebs in their place. After all, could it be that they wanted God (and themselves) worshipped their way, not Jesus'?
iv. Judas was merely a frightened man.
I find lots of value in the thought that when Judas betrayed Jesus he was merely being a frail, frightened, vulnerable and perhaps a little deranged bloke.
If we look at the world's history we soon realise that Judas did was nothing more than had been done before and has most certainly been done since. Some have given their names to the act of treachery. Many have acted out of personal gain over the years, others because of their devotion to a curse or ideal, others because they were disgruntled employees:
Brutus stabs Caesar because he is disgruntled with the man. He is more concerned with the flourishing and the concept of the Republic than the life of one man - even though he is a god!
Guy Fawkes, the man who wanted to blow up parliament, was apparently 'turned in' by means of a letter by one of his co-conspirators to a friend as the magnitude of their intended actions hit home.
Like Judas, the Norwegian Vidkun Quisling is another man whose act of betrayal against his nation in favour of the Nazi regime has made his name synonymous with the act of betrayal.
Benedict Arnold, tired of others getting the credit for his achievements turns them over to the enemy (who in this case were the British). I've heard his name used in anger when I worked in the US.
We all have our whistle blowers and zealots - not always do they do what they do for the right reasons or in the right way. Was Judas merely another of these?
v. A bit of a scheming wotsit?
So let's think about it.
1. The crowd love Jesus and the Romans and the Religious people hate Him.
2. The Temple authorities seize Jesus and give Him a tough time which causes unrest.
3. The Romans get a bit heavy-handed and blood starts to flow, which brings an armed response.
4. The struggle begins and Jesus is left to preach peace and cheek-turning after He's been rescued.
Now this is pure fiction (which in academic circles we call conjecture) but it is no less valid a consideration (is it?). Could be that this was a real and present motive behind the act of betrayal?
Looking at things with this as a player has some merit for it brings about action and a desired outcome out of the passivity that Jesus is preaching.
So could Judas have been forgiven?
I have to say, "Yes, I think He could, but I don't think he was!"
My reason for this is:
If we take the stories of two of the men, Judas and Simon Peter, involved in the Passion narrative we find these two men both caught up in the act of publicly denying Jesus.
Judas to the Temple authorities, to the people he gathered and led to the garden of Gethsemane and to those people gathered there with Jesus.
Simon Peter to the people gathered around outside the place where Jesus has been dragged off to after having been seized.
I don't know whether you've ever thought about it but I reckon there's more than a fleeting chance that Judas and Simon Peter were both in that same place. Could it be that this is where Judas, seeing Jesus so sorely abused, feels the remorse that takes him back to the authorities to return the money?
Let's add Peter's story to the mix using the words of Matthew 26 // Luke 22*:
"Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you mean.” And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied it with an oath: “I do not know the man.” After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly."
Now both Judas and Simon Peter showed remorse for their actions. Both men understood what they had done in denying Jesus but one of them, Judas, rather than repent - which means turning away from his actions - instead removed himself from any act of restoration by taking his own life. This, in my book, is the ultimate rejection of God for it rejects and chance of redemption.
In John 21 we find Simon Peter in the company of Jesus and just as John denied Jesus three time, thrice does Jesus as of him a question:
"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.”
In this act the denial is noted, challenged and restoration is made real in Simon Peter's being and it in this moment that Simon Peter becomes someone, and something, new. This is the moment when forgiveness and pardon are handed to the man and I feel more than a little confident that had he not removed himself from the world this would have been the reality for Judas too. But Judas took matters into his own hands rather than repent and throw himself to the mercy of God.
It is important that we have a think about the words of Mark 14 which tell us Jesus knew He was about to be betrayed:
"And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?” He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”"
But knowing and commissioning are different things.
If you knew something going to happen, when it occurs you cannot be considered guilty or complicit in the event unless you commissioned it. Can you?
So here it is as I see it:
Judas is indeed guilty of betraying Jesus. I don't think he did it for the money but because he was disgruntled, scared, frustrated and disillusioned. The money is a subsidiary issue in my book; a sweetener rather than a reason to betray Jesus.
It would seem reasonable to assume that what Judas might have hoped for was merely to stop the bus before it crashed and they all got burned. But there was also the potential that in doing this there was the chance that the blue touch paper would bit lit igniting the zealots and starting the fireworks.
Jesus is the victim here with Judas and Simon Peter's acts of betrayal. That Jesus 'knew' about both Peter's denial and Judas' betrayal beforehand does not make Him complicit in their actions. There is no way anything in this story can place the responsibility for either act at Jesus' feet for He neither commissioned the acts nor acted to avoid them!
Jesus knew the day was coming when He would be put to death. He asked whether the cup might pass from Him and understanding that it couldn't, He accepted it and willingly took up His cross and our sins that through His once and for all atoning death we might be reconciled to the God (the Godhead - Father Son and Holy Spirit). By this one single act He pronounced us 'justified' (that is not guilty).
That Judas is 'damned for all time' is the result of his sidestepping encountering God, repenting and seeking forgiveness by choosing death at by own hand. Had he come to the foot of the cross rather than to the end of a length of rope I think forgiveness would have been his..
He's not a patsy. Neither is he the 'fall guy' (unless we are reflecting on the means of his death).
He gets bad press (but that goes with the act) but regardless of his motive, the act was considered, offered, delivered and paid for in full all by the man himself with no obvious dialogue with God.
To feel sorry for the man is only natural, after all he's perhaps one of the biggest 'if only's' in history. If only he'd stopped, prayed, dialogued, repented, etc. then he'd have made it through to the day when, like Peter, he could have been met, engaged with and forgiven.
But he didn't and so he wasn't and that's the end of it which means (in a nutshell):
Simon Peter ends up forgiven and Judas doesn't: It's about choices!
Judas betrays Jesus by his own hand and thinking: It's about actions!
It's sad that Judas gets so caught up in his own actions - Folly is always sad!
And a thought: Who does it serve to make Judas the scapegoat?
(have a think about this and let me know what conclusion you come to. I have mine)
* Luke 22:
"Then they seized Jesus and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance. And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly."
// Where you see '//' this indicates that the story or account appear in more than one of the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke. Synoptic means 'same/similar' view).
It's a nice shorthand way of saying, "Can be found in two or more of the synoptics"
So here we are at the beginning of another Lent and the challenges that lie before us are perhaps tempered by the failures that lies behind us or diminished by our triumphs. Each of us create a patchwork quilt of our lives - some of the patches bring joy, others tears and others still, regret.
Some will take us back to the times when we have blessed God and those around us, others will bring back the pain of failure and separation; from God, from those around us, from those special people in our lives.
Today as Lent's forty days call us to examine our lives, what will we find and who will we have become at the end of this road?
Will the cross be on our shoulders or in a ditch?
Lord, how can we stand in your presence?
Our sins lie behind us and the accuser stands before us.
People, clamour round to hear the words and add their scorn;
Where blessing should be found, there is but contempt.
Those who would call themselves Church become one with those who cried out; "Crucify HIm, crucify Him!"
The homeless are passed by (on the other side of the road);
The hungry go unfed (perhaps it wasn't our ministry);
The poor, will always be with us (and 'we' have so little, what can 'we' do?)
The 'straight' are crooked and the 'gay' are sad,
The woman up the road with four children - none of them have a Dad,
The man who cries out about what should be done - continues to do nothing!
Today - in the ashes of the same palm crosses waved in triumph - is found our failings.
Today - in the ruins of our lives thus far - is found the reminder that we too are dust.
Today - a day of hope, not sorrow - for there is one who speaks for us.
Today - as the path to the cross become clear - there is forgiveness.
"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." Ephesians 4:31-32 (RSV)
‘I DEMAND an apology!’ Those words invoke all kinds of different emotions, all of them unpleasant. Of course as Christians, if we have done something wrong, we have to say we are sorry and admit we were wrong because Jesus sets the highest possible value on relationship.
But suppose we weren’t in the wrong; so we feel they should be the one to apologise. We wait, sometimes for years, but they avoid us – and the relationship is lost. In that case, an apology may be as simple as saying ‘I’m so sorry if you were upset.’ That isn’t taking the blame, or being untruthful, it simply shows understanding and compassion for someone else’s feelings and it’s often enough to restore the relationship.
Is there is a broken relationship in your life? It might be mended by an email or card today. Be warned though, it doesn’t always work, but at least after you’ve tried, forgiveness is then their problem, not yours!
Or perhaps you were close to someone once but you drifted away – the busyness of life or a house move separated you. They might have found the loss of friendship more difficult to cope with than you have. How about contacting them today, saying, ‘I’m sorry I haven’t been in touch for so long; how are things going?’?
Another challenge might be to apologise on behalf of someone else. I was in a supermarket once when an older woman shouted very rudely at a teenager who, by mistake, had jumped the queue. I smiled at the girl and whispered, ‘So sorry that we oldies get so grumpy sometimes.’ I’ll never forget the way she smiled back!
Here we are at the First Sunday of Lent - and oddly, for those who don't know it, Sundays are not actually part of Lent because Sunday is a 'mini Easter' and so it is always a celebration. So the ashes and the taking up of things (and the subsequent laying down also) are put to one side for 24 hrs - but of course the cross we carry isn't!
And what of our readings?
All too often we forget that part of our daily worship is to be found in the Psalms and so why not have us start there as we are reminded of Him in whom we put our trust and the cry to be taught the paths of righteousness, that way of the cross, is clear for us, and for those with whom we deal; for surely we deal in the same way with others as God deals with us (don't we?). For, 'All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth.'
Psalm 25.1-9
To you, O Lord, I lift up my soul; O my God, in you I trust; let me not be put to shame; let not my enemies triumph over me. Let none who look to you be put to shame, but let the treacherous be shamed and frustrated. Make me to know your ways, O Lord, and teach me your paths. Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you have I hoped all the day long. Remember, Lord, your compassion and love, for they are from everlasting. Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions, but think on me in your goodness, O Lord, according to your steadfast love. Gracious and upright is the Lord; therefore shall he teach sinners in the way. He will guide the humble in doing right and teach his way to the lowly. All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth to those who keep his covenant and his testimonies.
So here we are, stepping out on this first Sunday in Lent looking to walk in mercy and truth and what do we find from the readings? Will they offer us more of the same or will they, as sometimes is the case, cause us to wonder where the link is?
Well we have Noah as the focus of our Old Testament reading - the looking back at God having taken things into His own hands and the promise that He will never take direct, hands on, action against the wicked. That's what the rainbow says, "It's hands off from me, I'll send you signposts, and prophecies and people who will stand with you, but you have control of it all!'
And herein lies the answer to the question, 'Why does a God of love let bad things happen?' and the reason for for asking the question, 'Why do you people keep doing bad things?'
Genesis 9.8-17
Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him,As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you,and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark.I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.’God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations:I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds,I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.’God said to Noah, ‘This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.
And the two passages below. The Gospel talking of the start of Jesus' ministry and God's affirmation of Him as He sets out on the road to the Cross - that most active and engaged path of truth, love and mercy - and the succinct summing up of it from words of 1 Peter 3:
'For Christ also suffered for sins once for all,
the righteous for the unrighteous,
in order to bring you to God.'
Add to this the words:
'And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you
not as a removal of dirt from the body,
but as an appeal to God for a good conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ'
And 'Bingo!' it all becomes clear and the jigsaw coming together gives us a picture of a God who seeks us to be a people who will not need Him to intervene (because He can't - He's made that promise in Genesis 9 that He won't and He ALWAYS keeps His promises.
That picture of a people who will not ask why God isn't acting because they are!
A picture that see us making a stand and ensuring that the wrong are stopped in their tracks.
So are we going to be people who complain that God never acts or are we going to be His hands and feet; His arm of love that embrace; His voice that speaks healing and forgiveness into the world and more specifically those around us? Are we willing to take up our own cross and start down the paths of truth, love, reconciliation and denial of self? (Let's pray):
The Collect
Almighty God, whose Son Jesus Christ fasted forty days in the wilderness, and was tempted as we are, yet without sin: give us grace to discipline ourselves in obedience to your Spirit; and, as you know our weakness, so may we know your power to save; through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
1 Peter 3.18-22
For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you - not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.
Mark 1.9-15
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptised by John in the Jordan.And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’ And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him. Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God,and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’
Post Communion Prayer
Lord God, you have renewed us with the living bread from heaven; by it you nourish our faith, increase our hope, and strengthen our love: teach us always to hunger for him who is the true and living bread, and enable us to live by every word that proceeds from out of your mouth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The penultimate scene of 'Mr Magorium's Magic Emporium' show 'Mahoney' the character who has taken up the reigns from Magorium proclaiming their belief in a piece of wood (described as a 'Congereve Cube' and from this everything changes from shades of grey and depressing black into the most vibrant and glorious colours.
The cube races around the shop as if telling all the hitherto inanimate toys, books and games that there's something magical coming - much like John the Baptist preparing the way for something spectacular - and as the Mahony character reaches out (a yadah / towdah (it's a Hebrews thing folks) moment) everything is transformed.
I too have belief in a piece of wood as the object by which life was both extinguished and gifted for eternity! It is through the belief that has been set into being in, through and by the person who hung upon it, that I have seen grey lives transformed into something full of colour and beauty.
This Christmas we need to take the opportunity to herald people into the Christmas presence of the God made man: Jesus the Christ child.
We need to take the opportunity to share God's love because it's there to be shared: This is how the peace He brings gets off the shelves and into the life's of those around us.
We need to stop selling fear of hell and a promise of heaven (although heaven and eternity are, I am assured, real) and start building relationships, blessing what God is already doing, with Him and us and in so doing put to death religion and start celebrating relationship (for that is what Christianity is - it's not a religion for religion is (as Marx told us) 'Humanity's greatest rebellion against God!
Let us put aside rules and regulations and conditions and instead bring joyful obedience because of the relationship we have with Jesus and the desire to be like Him.
It's simple really innit?
Which are you going to leave people with this Christmas?
"Now that's a very good question," I thought to myself as I struggled to find a reasonable answer and, reasonable or not, I gave one anyway - and this is how it goes:
"In my book Christians are people who, recognising the distance between them and God, are rather grateful that Jesus popped in and did the 'cross thing' because that (the 'cross thing') plays an important part in removing the distance and reconciling us to God. Not only that but Jesus (whose job title in this role is 'The Christ*') having died pops over to hell (which because we use the term 'descends' must, I guess, be located in a downwards direction) and kindly points out to the bloke what runs the place (hereinafter refereed to satan (not Stan as my spellchecker sometimes suggests) that the only real power he has is death because this is the penalty for his (satan's) only product 'sin' and, having died and come back as alive, means that He (Jesus) has broken the only power he (satan) had. Then, having come back from the dead he (Jesus) points out that when he broke death He did it for everyone - not en masse but in a one-for-one, real-time, act - so all you need to do is recognise who He is and What He did and (thanking Him) take a 'get out of sin free' card from Him (Jesus) and satan is stymied."
In a shorter form it goes like this:
“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."
John 3.16
So it's all very simple:
God and us were meant mates but became separated from each other because of sin
Jesus death on the cross breaks the power of sin (death) and restores the relationship between us and God
Accepting that Jesus, the Christ, has done all this and deciding to take the ticket from Him and live in the reality of forgiveness, eternal life and . . .
. . . Relationship with God through, for and with Him (Jesus)
That's what it's all about.
Can it get any simpler?
* Christ not being Jesus' name but a description of the role He occupies in that He, as the Son, comes to this world of ours as a man (that's a reference to His sex and to the fact that He is also human) as the 'anointed one of God' - He is God's solution to all the ills of the world basically.
A conversation yesterday had as it's challenging moment the expressed view that Christian were 'weird'! Now of course I had to ask what they meant by this and in doing so the float bobbed and the person I was talking with struck - I had Ben hooked and was about to be played. Game on!
Lifting the tip of their metaphorical rod they began the fight:
'Well, just look at the way you accept everything without question and have the idea that everything the world likes is wrong. All you go on about is sin and hell and stuff. Don't you think that makes you weird?'
'Where do you get that idea from?' I asked, trying to gauge the potentially unfolding battle, so they continued,
'One of the people I know says that no one can please god and that I'm going to hell because I don't go to church or read my bible. That tell me god will judge me for everything I do and that unless I accept him I'm his enemy and will be punished. When I pointed out the things they do they told me god had forgiven then and now whatever they did was OK because of Jesus.'
'Hmmm,' said I viewing some stuff I'd recognise as Christian and wondering where to start to unpack this. 'Do I know this person?' So they told me their name and my response was simply:
'Ah I see the problem, it's not Christians who are weird, it's the person you're talking to that is!' And I proceeded to explain that within the many expression of Christian faith there were many weird people but that didn't make Christianity 'weird' or render all Christian 'weird' either. After all, look at the weird people around us, do they make society weird because if their presence or serve to show us what, or who, isn't weird?
So I explained a condensed theology of God, separation, atonement through the cross, reconciliation and living in that new reality. We talked of those who claimed forgiveness and lived as before, taking Christ to the cross on a regular basis, rather than as new creations: The world of hypocrisy where your sins condemn and mine are forgiven.
'That makes sense,' they said, 'I can see what you're saying but don't quite understand it all. Is it just about Jesus then, him dying and coming back?' My response, 'Yep, pretty much - you've got the shape, you just need to adjust your focus to find the detail. And as for the weird bit.' I added as a postscript, 'It's not Christianity or Christians that are weird! it's the person you've been talked at by that's weird - don't judge the church or Christianity or Christ by them. They're their to make the rest of us look normal!'
And with that the hook was gone and I was free and we shook hands and parted friends even though we weren't (yet) brothers - but tomorrow is another day.
I love this ministry stuff - always a challenge, a blessing and wonderful people to engage with, even though some of them are weird!
There are some words that once spoken
will break the world in two
never to be one again
Unless the blood of Christ is made real.
Some acts that once committed
turn lies to truth, truth to lies
turning the world to dust and ashes
Unless the love of God is made flesh.
Some songs that will never be heard
that will never break the chains
nor see the ministry before them breathe and fly
Unless the Spirit of God dwells in the heart.
There are some songs that once sung
turns life into living
bringing colour into the greyness
As God sings over us, with us, for us.
Acts that, although committed,
are washed away by acknowledging and simply turning away
taken from us by our standing at the foot of the cross
One of the biggest issues I have been confronted with for some time surrounds the word 'Church'.
Of course the reason for this is the British government's decisions over certain other (yawn) issues and I, for one, am perhaps not just bored to death with it all and the distractions that it brings but also in some small part just a little grateful.
Surprised? (of course you are - so let me explain)
The two 'churches' that have been most quoted as being in favour of, and wishing to, provide 'religious' services for you know what are the Quakers and the Unitarians.
So we have to perhaps first and foremost ask ourselves what these two groups are and how we should regard them - and the answer to this is:
NOT CHRISTIAN!
So what we actually have is two non-Christian groups (and the use of the word 'church' is valid here in the context of relating it means and bunch of people who hold to the same views, beliefs (for atheists, political types and others all have tenets of belief and understanding). What they are not is (think I've said this) Christian and so it is perhaps not a surprise that they wish to do as they do.
Just to refresh memories (as I have said this before too - take a looks at VtV's past):
QUAKERS Origins: England Began in: Mid-Seventeenth Century
Founder: George Fox (UK), William Penn (USA) Membership: c. 200,000 worldwide Bible: It's a good read and can yield some interesting and quite motivational stuff, but it's no more special than any other book out there. It most certainly isn't the inspired Word of God and although it might be found within a Quaker setting, it would only be one of many other books that might inspire or motivate and be merely equal to the rest.
Beliefs: To use their own words, "Quakers do not share a fixed set of beliefs."
They are essentially another brand of (universalist) Unitarians who meet together and have a 'shared understanding' but no common or unifying creed, concept of God and like the Unitarians find Pagans (of which there seems to be a lot of) rubbing shoulders with atheists and other philosophical and religious thinking.
Everyone has something (the light) of God within them and that all are equal regardless of belief, behaviour or practices.
This is one of the reasons they are pacifistic (another Unitarian characteristic), because all are right there is no need to defend or push one's views, just a need to protect those of others.
So, God is Love and the light of God shines through us all such that we need no person, creeds or books to guide us for we experience our own redemption from within and live it externally (think I've understood this correctly).
Like other groups, the key is on the outworking and so Quakers seek to make the world a better place (not a bad goal) and engage in human rights (because all choices are valid and all people are equally valid too), social justice, environmental issues, the peace movement and above all, the freedom to act and believe as one feels is right.
Conscience is all!
They don't have the Bible, they don't have the Trinity and they don't do anything that would otherwise be considered 'sacramental'.
As a bit of a parting shot, I understand that the name 'Friends' derives from John 15:14: where Jesus says:
"You are my friends if you do what I command you."
A bit of an enigma appearing here as they are doing what someone commands and yet not believing in Him, the One who sent Him, or the third member of the Trinity!
Are they Christian?
Obviously the answer is 'No'.!
I would be amazed at the number of people who assume that the Quakers (AKA Religious Society of Friends) are Christians if it were not for the fact that I also (a long time ago) used to assume the same thing!
Listening to a couple of Quakers on the Radio a while back, it appears that they were canvassing the general public regarding what opinions might be popular for the Quakers to have and were commenting on how popular being a Quaker had been last time they updated their attitudes. All very egalitarian and as damning as it might be applause-worthy (I fear)!
UNITARIANS Origins:Transylvania and Poland
Began in:16th Century
Founder: Francis David
Membership: c. 750,000
Bible: Although regarded as valuable the Bible is fallible and therefore not regarded as authoritative. Or as one book I read on the issue stated, "It needs to be read with a degree of reason, logic and a pinch of salt. At the end of the day the truth within it is dependent upon that which the reader wishes it to have!"
The Bible is just one of many sources, sacred or secular, which can be used in the services for no one book has the monopoly on religious truth.
Beliefs:
There is a strong belief that there is only one God but it is obvious that this means little in reality. In fact, it appears that views regarding God are such that he is a cosmic force, a convenient name given for natural (and supernatural) forces, a hindrance to any unified existence and an unnecessary encumbrance.
Don't think we even need to consider their views from a Credal or Christian trinitarian setting as there simply isn't one.
Jesus ranges from a freedom fighter, a pacifistic visionary and a poet and there's many other takes on Him besides.
The bottom line is that He is neither man made God or God made man, he's merely a bloke.
The Holy Spirit, like Jesus, continues the pattern in their non-trinitarian beliefs (understandable as they don't have a first member (God) either) but fares a little better than the other two (Father and Son) as the new age 'cosmic force' or as an eastern 'spiritual force'. But, at best, He's still an 'it'.
Seeing unity in all things, no matter how apparently diverse, this is a group who try to bring all things together in a way that allows for a very wide range of beliefs and doubts. All are free to believe whatever they wish in unity with others and the more diversity there is the more there is an opportunity to also find some unity.
To this end it is possible to find a degree of pluralism that many faiths are embraced and lifestyles validated. So much so that within one group it is possible to find Jews, Christians, Pagans, Atheists, Buddhist and Hindus happily co-existing.
There are no creeds or set beliefs for all, or none, are valid.
There are no ministers, for all lead themselves as they make their own journey and plot their own beliefs because, obviously, there are no exclusive or primary truths. That said, there are core values of love, respect and unity. After all, unity with all things in all things is what they're about.
Seems also that the key evidence of being a unitarian is 'making a difference'.
Their motto should be 'actions not words' as I see it and it is because of this that we see them often in caring professions and roles within society.
Basically, for a bunch who are happy to admit just about everything, they omit or deny quite a bit!
They deny just about everything that is Christian: the Trinity, Jesus' Deity, sin (just ain't there and there's no need for redemption if that's gone - so no need of Jesus).
The Bible's dodgy, flawed, fallible and equal to everything (including Viz!) and yet they still call themselves 'Christian' (which I think in this setting means 'Humane' or 'kind').
Are they Christian? I have to fall back on something Donald Guthrie once said in a lecture:
"Those who believe everything in fact find themselves believing nothing!" and it is here that the answer 'No' becomes rather obvious.
So what's the problem? The government are happy to let gatherings or groups of people to exist in the religions of their own making and let these 'churches' conduct same-sex marriages. Not only that but they wish to make it illegal for Christian churches (ie. Church of England and the Church in Wales) to conduct same.
Personally, I'm more than happy to see that upheld by law - after all it does provide a measure of security as people strive to keep the law (God's and man's).
