The Old Testament Good Samaritans

It is not often these days that I find a Bible story which I don’t remember reading before, and even less often that I find one which is clearly linked to a well known parable of Jesus. But I have just discovered, as if for the first time, 2 Chronicles 28:5-15, thanks to a post about this from Michael Barber. In this passage the people of Samaria, in response to a message from the prophet Oded, released some captive Jews (that is, Judeans), provided for them, put some of them on donkeys, and escorted them to a place of safety in Jericho. The parallels with the parable of the Good Samaritan are very obvious when you look for them.

Oded’s prophetic message is that the people of Samaria (actually at that time the northern kingdom Israelites, not the mixed people who later became known as Samaritans) should not oppress people from other nations. But the message which Jesus brings out of his parable is surely similar to the one which the Chronicler wanted to bring out by including this incident, that God is working even in other nations and that they should not be despised as entirely evil.

So, even though Michael is a Roman Catholic and gives clear reasons why I am not, his blog is great!

Another take on the Ascension

I wrote about the Ascension on Ascension Day, last Thursday. But it was no surprise to me that my own church seems to have completely ignored the Ascension this year – no special services on Thursday, no mention on the following Sunday, except possibly at the one of three services which I did not attend.

However, many churches marked the Ascension yesterday, and several bloggers who are also pastors of some kind have blogged their sermons. I won’t link to these as I don’t usually read sermons posted on blogs.

But I did read Maggi Dawn’s short homily, with its charming story about the Ascension, which well illustrates her point:

It’s a common mistake in Sunday School theology to make the Ascension sound like the moment when earth and heaven are separated from each other… as if Jesus looks back at the messy earth, post resurrection, and says, “job done, I’m out of here.” A view of the Ascension that separates God from us, heaven from earth, is a woeful theology, and misses the balletic beauty and completeness of the Easter season. … it was only by leaving the earth that Jesus could become permanently present with all of us. … the disciples stood there gaping at the sky hoping he would come back, when what they need to do was go and wait in the Upper Room like he’d told them, so that he could send them his Spirit.

Has your church decided to die, or to live?

John Meunier quotes from yet another bishop, this time a Methodist one – a first for me, as we don’t have Methodist bishops here in the UK. Bishop Will Willimon writes about revitalising older churches, and includes this interesting diagnosis:

If your church is in decline and not growing, it is because your congregation has decided to die rather than to live (alas, there is no in between when it comes to churches).  The majority of our churches are not growing, thus we have a huge challenge before us.  Still, our major challenge is not to find good resources for helping a church grow and live into the future; our challenge is to have pastors and churches who want to do what is necessary to live into Christ’s future.

This ties up with what I have seen in the UK, in various denominations. Too many churches are attended and led mostly by people who are quite happy for their church to decline. They recognise that they are personally getting older and will eventually die, and their expectation is that their church will decline with them and also eventually die. They have no vision for the church being revitalised and no will to make any of the changes that might be necessary for this to happen. Indeed they resist change of any kind. They welcome new members, including younger ones, but only if these people conform to the way things have always been done.

And, from what I have seen, the same can also be true of specific groups and ministries within churches.

Is there any hope for a church in this condition? Well, nothing is impossible with God, and he could revive such a church with his Holy Spirit. A new pastor with a strong vision just might be able to get a church like that going again, by stirring up any remaining embers of true spiritual life, but is more likely to break himself or herself in frustrated efforts to beat a dead horse into motion.

But, I tend to think, in most cases like that God’s blessing simply leaves the church: “Ichabod”, the glory has departed. And the wisest thing for Christians who want to see life in the church as a whole is to let that congregation decline and die in peace, and start a new work in a new place, with new people who are open to God’s work in its ever new ways.

Who are the real Lesbians?

Paul the apostle must have met some Lesbians when his ship stopped briefly at Mitylene, Acts 20:14. For Mitylene was and still is the main town of the island of Lesbos, whose inhabitants have been known since ancient times as Lesbians (Λέσβιος, Lesbios). And these islanders are not amused that their name has been hijacked by the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece as a description of homosexual women. Indeed they are so incensed that, as the BBC reports, they are taking legal action against that community to stop them using the word “lesbian”. Their spokesman

claims that international dominance of the word in its sexual context violates the human rights of the islanders, and disgraces them around the world.

The problem with their claim is that this same word, at least in its feminine form (λεσβιάς, lesbias), has very probably (I’m sure some of my readers can confirm this) also been used since ancient times in this sexual sense, referring originally to the allegedly lesbian poetess Sappho. So I can’t see the islanders’ lawsuit being successful, at least outside their native Greece.

A Lambeth riddle

Ruth Gledhill has had the interesting experience of interviewing both Bishop Gene Robinson and Bishop Greg Venables in the last few days. Her interview with Bishop Gene is available on YouTube; sadly the one with Bishop Greg is as yet not, or not linked to. But she does break the unexpected news that Venables, as well as Robinson, will attend the Lambeth Conference. As Venables has been invited, although perhaps not expected, he will be an official delegate. But Robinson will not be. Also, his “bridegroom” Mark will be in Canterbury only for the first few days of the conference, so it will not be as much of a “honeymoon” for them as I once suggested.

Ruth then gets poetic with her thoughts on the two bishops at Lambeth, including these lines:

He uninvited and he not disinvited will both be tried and found wanting.
They’ll hang either side of the leader who tried to unite them and failed at the asking.

Rowan Williams as Christ between the two thieves, indeed? According to Rev George Pitcher in the Daily Telegraph, linked to by John Richardson,

Dr Williams considers the See of Canterbury as not just his calling, but his cross to bear. He’ll not be driven from it short of illness or an act of God.

It may be the cross from which his body has to be taken down at the end of the Lambeth Conference, and with no guarantee of resurrection. But to which of the two thieves will he say “Today you will be with me in paradise”? There is no Anglican paradise with room for both of them.

UPDATE (6.40 pm): Ruth Gledhill has now posted her interview with Bishop Greg Venables, in written form.

Why the Ascension was necessary

Today, May Day, is also Ascension Day, in the western church calendar. The pagan and Christian festivals coincide today for the first time in nearly a century, because Easter was exceptionally early this year, and because it is always on the fortieth day after Easter (based on Acts 1:3 and counting inclusively) that the church marks the Ascension to heaven of the risen Jesus. And because this fortieth day is not a Sunday, the Ascension is often ignored by the church, perhaps marked by a poorly attended midweek service, but not taught about in a prominent way.

The Ascension is the one known incident in Jesus’ life which is not definitely reported in any of the four gospels. The mention in Luke 24:51 is both textually and contextually rather doubtful. But it is clearly narrated in Acts 1:1-11. It is also a difficult doctrine for modern Christians, because it seems to imply a rather primitive worldview that heaven, the home of God, is literally in the sky. We are used to artistic representations based on that worldview, but we find it hard to believe that they represent what really happened.

One such representation illustrates Michael Barber’s post Five Reasons the Ascension Was Necessary. In this post Michael follows up earlier seasonal posts on the Cross and the Resurrection with a similar summary of Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the Ascension. Here are his five points:

  1. The Ascension helps foster faith in Christ;
  2. It inspires hope;
  3. It impels us to grow in charity (I didn’t understand the connection here);
  4. It helps us grow in our reverence for Christ;
  5. In it Jesus enters into heaven with our humanity.

I would say that here there are three or four reasons why the Ascension was helpful, and one, the fifth, why it was necessary for the completion of our salvation. For indeed it was necessary for Jesus, the pioneer or trailblazer, and perfecter, of faith (Hebrews 12:2), to open the way for our redeemed humanity to be taken up along with his humanity into God’s presence.

Michael finishes with this quote from Aquinas:

Christ’s Passion is the cause of our ascending to heaven, properly speaking, by removing the hindrance which is sin, and also by way of merit: whereas Christ’s Ascension is the direct cause of our ascension, as by beginning it in Him who is our Head, with whom the members must be united.

But let’s not think of the Ascension as Jesus being taken from the earth into a heaven situated in the sky. Under point 5 Michael quotes Aquinas quoting Ephesians 4:8-10. This passage is perhaps the clearest biblical teaching on the meaning of the Ascension, and shows that Paul’s worldview is not the “primitive” one that Jesus went upwards to a heaven in the sky. For it teaches that Christ

ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.

Ephesians 4:10 (TNIV)

So we should not think of the risen and ascended Jesus today as having gone away to some distant heaven far above us in the sky. This is not the time referred to in Mark 2:20 and parallels, when the wedding guests will fast because the bridegroom has been taken from them. No, the outcome of the Ascension is that the risen Jesus is with us always (Matthew 28:20), wherever we go, because he fills the whole universe. This outcome is confirmed by the pouring out, ten days later at the feast of Pentecost, of the Holy Spirit, who is the agent through whom the continuing presence of Jesus is made manifest in his people.

So let’s not forget about the Ascension of Jesus, neither because it took place mid-week nor because we are embarrassed by how it has been depicted in art. Instead, let us celebrate this day as assuring us that our humanity is fully acceptable in God’s presence and that Jesus is with us always and wherever we go.

A Bishop on Woman Bishops

Recently I have been writing a lot about bishops, Anglican and otherwise, on this blog. And, sadly, most of it has been negative. But I don’t want my readers to think that I have something against bishops in principle. I will show this by for once quoting a bishop very positively.

The blogging bishop of Buckingham, Bishop Alan, writes about the background to the Church of England’s latest thoughts on how to introduce women bishops, the Manchester report, which I have already referred to. Thanks to Maggi Dawn for the link. Bishop Alan first affirms the principle of women bishops:

the practical sociology of Christian ministry has always been contextual, not absolute, reflecting the reality of the social structures around it. … Absolutising 12th century cultural assumptions, whilst cutting free from the (frankly ludicrous) anthropology of female subordination that validated them at the time, seems to me historicist weirdness, ignoring truths recovered by the sixteenth century Reformation.

He then notes how the proposed partitioning of the Church of England into pro-women bishop and anti-women bishop dioceses mirrors 20th century British government policy of partitioning colonies before independence. He points out the disastrous results of this partitioning – but I could add that the results of British decolonisation without partitioning has often been just as disastrous, as in Iraq, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Yet he is right that the church needs to learn from history:

We are still struggling with deadly institutionalised schism in the Middle East and India. Of course in Church everything is entirely different, but history is reality written for our learning, and I can’t get enthusiastic about elegant churchy versions of the kind of statesmanship that so delighted 20th Century Sir Humphreys. They got their knighthoods but they also got the big picture dangerously wrong.

3. To return to Church history, formative Anglican theologians did not attempt to build the church by cobbling together some kind of synthetic panjandrum out of the most extreme positions, to keep everyone on board politically. Rather they centred everything back on the Scriptures and the Creeds. This method worked for them, anyway. Perhaps we should try it. This is no time for Ecclesiastical Heath Robinson Engineering.

Amen!