Giving our all

We pray at the end of our Eucharistic services to send us out as a "living sacrifice" into the world. I wonder what you think a sacrifice is in your life. We can think of anything that may be a sacrifice but most of us think of something that would in reality only inconvenience ourselves. To make a sacrifice is to make sacred that which you do. Quite often it may mean a giving up of something or at least entail some sort of real hardship for and in our lives. However, I suspect that it would not be as great a sacrifice that Abraham was preparing to make (Gen. 22.1-14), although in some circumstances it may entail an equal amount of heartache. Looking at the Jewish sources of interpretation of this passage, the Akedah test, (and there are many) there is a suggestion of inner paradox being played out (see Zornberg for example). How much do we give to God and how much do we give to ourselves? We often want to protect what we give rather than give to God as a sacrifice. We do not actually sacrifice but rather appease our own sense of worth in what we do.

We are often eager to complain about the sacrifices that we do make when looked at on a greater scale. The sacrifice we brag about is nothing more than an inconvenience in our lives. Abraham walked in the way of God, much as Christ did in a later age, and in doing so he is portrayed as the Father of the faith, not only Jewish but also ultimately the Christian faith. Yet, looking at the Jewish sources of interpretation there is an interesting back story to this passage. The possibility is that in walking in the steps of God and celebrating  God's presence while spreading the "good news" of God's presence in his life he neglected the simplicity of sacrifice after his son was born. He gave his all towards being a father and relinquished his giving of all to God. It is this that requires God to test Abraham. This is a dimension of Abraham's journey both inwardly and outwardly as he celebrates the presence of his son. Does the mere movement towards family suggest that ultimately we are moving away from God and forgetting to live up to God's requirement to sacrifice? Perhaps, this is where we are living in the current age. We do not see the purpose of "sacrificing" our time in praise and thanksgiving to God when we have family and lives to live. The modern turn allows us time for those things that encourage our happiness which in turns allows us to turn a blind eye to the injustices of the world. This extends to the term of "sacrificial" giving and other "sacrificial" things we do. The modern state has allowed us to sit back and relax in terms of our own personal sacrifices, which in turn has allowed us to sit back and relax in terms of the requirements of God.

We forget the sacrifice and continue to ignore the purpose.

In this we are often governed by a Law of Tradition. The reasoning goes somewhat like this, "We have always ... and that is the way we will continue to do ...". You can fill in the spaces with whatsoever you like that covers any form of sacrifice. Unless we hear otherwise tradition is tantamount to having come from God. We can always find an excuse for not doing what sacrifice asks us to do and this is always easier than actually making the committed sacrifice. In this Paul has it right in Romans (6: 12-13) if we are to label ourselves as followers of Christ. Christ sacrificed himself for us and we are obligated by faith to do likewise as we follow in God's way of love. All love demands sacrifice to a greater degree than we allow. Any family knows that in order for the family to grow certain things have to be let go, we term this a sacrifice but often it is know more than disallowing certain luxuries. However, on occasion it is a large sacrifice of everything that is normal for the household. In coming to terms with the enormity of the sacrifice we come to understand the harsh reality of sacrifice and can no longer consider the simple things we give up as a sacrifice. If we begin to really understand what it means to sacrifice in a simple thing like family, can we who dwell in Christ and accept the hospitality of Christ, not sacrifice for God. It is easy to say that we will become a living sacrifice at the end of each service in which we receive the hospitality of God at the communion table, a reminder of a greater sacrifice then we are able to give, but not so easily translated into our common Christian life. This is applicable to all of us not just a few. A real sacrifice means something that is more than uncomfortable or prosaic, it means that it will hurt us and we do not want to let that happen in our comfortable lives and thus we turn from God.

Change brings division

No matter how we look at the world around us there are a couple of certainties other than death and taxes. The most prominent one is the prospect of change in our comfortable spaces. No matter who we are the very thought of change makes us shiver and become somewhat afraid. It does not matter whether the change is one that is sponsored by ourselves, such as a change in direction, home, living arrangement, career, etc or comes to us from an outside source COVID 19, restructure of work environment, new laws, etc. The very mention of the word creates division and this was understood by Christ as he spoke of the future to his disciples (Matt. 10.34-39). As Christians who have died to Christ (Rom 6.3-5) we must expect significant change in our lives, not only when we accept Christ but also when we continue with Christ in our lives.

In speaking about change we seem to accept the enormous change that Christ brings because we have died but wish to negate that change when it effects our more mundane lives. It is as if we believe that what ever spiritual or faith change is undertaken our secular and normal lives must remain unaffected. This is clearly not the answer as the Gospel passage indicates. Christ lets us know, in no uncertain terms, that the traditional place of comfort, the family, cannot remain the same when we take up the cross and follow Christ. If our safe place, our traditional place of comfort and security is no longer a safe haven to retreat to then how can we expect the world to be a safe place amidst change. The disruption that has occurred to our lives and the changes that must happen as we move forward into the unknown future must for us become a force that allows us to increase our resilience in the face of the inconsequential upheavals that we face on a daily basis. Just think of the changes in the life of Hagar and Ishmael faced in the wilderness when cast out by Abraham at the behest of Sarah (Gen. 21:14-21). The indication here is that no matter how cast out from our family we are God has a greater purpose that shows us a path along which we must strive.

We change our diet as we mature otherwise we do not grow

Any young person faces the challenges of change in the  formative years of their adulthood. In leaving home they must strive to find their place in an ever changing society and yes sometimes the challenges in this process of change are significant. At other times we shelter them from the raw experiences of life so that they can find safety in the bosom of their family but... It is a big but for even the family cannot shelter us in the long term. Just as we cannot expect in naivety that what we have always experienced will always remain the same. Christ calls us deliberately into something that changes away from our comforts so that we too can change our own way of thinking to bring the Good news into those areas which are not ministered to as a result of our neglect. We often have to find a new way to express ourselves, away from that which is comfortable, how else can we spread God's love if we do not enter into new places. Remaining within the comfort of what we know and understand places us into the sheltered space. Yes, occasionally we have to place ourselves in that space but we cannot remain there or we will stagnate and die. A pond that does not refresh itself with a stream of water is likely to stagnate and die. If a herd of animals remained in one place they would stagnate and starve. We will not get the same ongoing sustenance if we remain in one way of thought and it is quite often the case that we also stagnate and die.

Even when we want to be fed we automatically want what we have had before or what we believe is life sustaining for ourselves. Once again we fall into a trap because if we are to grow we need to seek out new richness in the food that is provided. Like a child or a baby we require so much more than our initial serving. Baby food cannot sustain our growth into adulthood and so the diet is changed can we expect any less with our faith journey. Christ calls us to grow into God's presence and life this is not something that can be done if we only have the food that sustained the beginning of growth. Any farmer knows that crops have to be nourished and as they grow they get different feed. This automatically means change, something we need not be afraid of or hostile to but rather open and encouraging so that we can get a fresh vision of God's path.

History a blast from the past or a morbid concern with political correctness

In recent weeks I have been extremely interested in peoples wish to almost exterminate the past because it upsets current political agendas. Most people should know that history is written by the "winners", if we must label, not by those who "lost". This means that everything that is regarded as of importance from a historical point of view must be seen through the eyes of those who wrote it. The moment we start to tear down this monument or deface that one is the moment we re-write what we believe to be "history". This has very little to do with this person's rights or the other person's rights this is to do with peoples power and ability to write history in accordance with their viewpoint. The very act of saying we should re-name this or that is an act based on power and not necessary an act of "right".

John Dalberg writing about historical acts of power in a letter to Archbishop Creighton suggested that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" which is a well known saying but what is more interesting is that he immediately writes "Great men are almost always bad men". I suspect that he is ultimately correct and no matter how we would like to regard the people we celebrate from our histories many of them are probably bad, especially with regard to modern sensibilities. Does that mean that every era must re-arrange the sculptural and historical naming landscape of the country? Just because our modern sensibilities suggest that this person was a crook and should not be memorialised just because our generation does not like what they did or were? The sculptures and art works, the naming of parks and gardens were undertaken by a previous generation who felt the need to memorialise those people as a result of history's reflection of their contribution towards a country's development, not necessarily for who they were.

Is this righting wrongs or re-creating history for power's sake?

The foundations of many countries are based on the dark deeds of the past. Those deeds are written in the histories for the winners dragging up their tales does not negate their foundational stories in a country. If we have a power do do anything it is the power to admit the views of difference and listen with respect to those that have been harmed. No amount of restitution will dissolve the issues raised by past events but rather raise antagonisms and rifts within communities. Healing and forgiveness of the past is not undertaken by removing memorials that reflect different generations thinking. Most people would probably know that a person is celebrated from the past but not wish to delve into the minutiae of their lives to cast blame. The more dirt we dig up the more it casts a sallow light on our own activities reminding us that, ultimately, we are propounding our own history rather than that written elsewhere. Perhaps, we should expunge all reference to slavery or abuse or dictatorship from the records of a country just because we can. This does not mean that it did not occur but is that what we are celebrating when we erect a monument to someone or are we erecting the monument to celebrate an imperfect life that had meaning to the development of the country, however mean and bad by present day standards? Indeed, the French poet Jean Cocteau has written "What is history after all? History is facts that become lies in the end. Legends are lies which become history in the end."

Perhaps, we need a little more sensitivity about how we handle the monuments of the past and seek reconciliation with our own past as much as with those we offend. In moving forward into our future we need to remind ourselves of our past both smeared and bright for it is the past that brought us here today but it is how we hold ourselves going forward that heralds the future. Do we go forward seeking to build or seeking to destroy? If we seek to destroy, then we must take care, for then our future may not be as bright as we think as our own histories may also be expunged in a time to come. If we seek to build, then we need to acknowledge the wrongs of the past, as we look back, but reconcile ourselves to our fellow citizens whatever view they hold to build a better future.

Where are the sent?

The understanding of disciples is that they are but followers of the teacher or the teachings of someone else. In the Gospels the word disciple and apostle are often mingled together and tradition has suggested to us that twelve disciples became apostles and they are now the only apostles or rather  The Apostles. If we thought about it we could probably all have a go at naming them and if we were really clever we would go to our Gospels and read the names there (Matt. 10.2-4). The interesting thing about this passage is that they are actually called twelve disciples, not apostles. However, if we are to be pedantic it is in the following verse (Matt 10.5) that they become apostles as they are sent out into the world to begin the journey of bringing love, hospitality and care into the world. So are there any apostles in the world today or are we just disciples or people striving to become disciples?

Are there only 12 apostles or are new ones sent each day?

If we were to take a bit of a skewed look at what we call and who we call disciples and apostles the reality is that there are, strictly speaking, many apostles in the world and many disciples who may become apostles. However, we do not recognise them but reserve the exalted class of "Apostle" to the twelve. It is perhaps an inheritance from history that we have refrained from using this word apostle in an everyday manner. In reality we are all sent out into the world from our baptism onward, there is nothing special about being an apostle other than the fact that we have been sent into the world to bring love, hospitality and care to those who are in difficulty. We are still importantly disciples following God's teaching demonstrated by Christ on how to bring God's grace into the hearts of others. The first step towards any form of civilisation is the bond of companionship and love. The quickest form towards community is to ensure hospitality which is a given within the culture of the Middle East. If we look at the first reading in Genesis (Gen 18:1-15) where Abraham offers hospitality to three strangers. This is the point we can relate to in our own journeys as disciples but as disciples we become those who are sent or apostles as soon as we begin the process of showing love and compassion to the world around us. Particularly when we open our arms to embrace those that we despise in an emulation of Christ upon the cross. Christ sent his disciples and that turned them into apostles (those who were sent).

In deed the basis of the disciples sending is a basis in compassion and hospitality, that is love. Once they were on the road it was compassion for others that Christ sent them to undertake. In today's world it is often difficult to undertake this when so many of our "services" have been overtaken by the state and as a result have become political footballs. Things such as homelessness, poverty, mental illness, the stateless and refugee are all places where the Christian ideal of compassion and love make a difference. If we are to become those who are sent, for we are sent out into the world at our baptism / confirmation and at the end of each Eucharistic service, we need to remind ourselves that we are not just disciples but are indeed apostles of God. Being sent by God means that we need to uphold all the ideals of disciples of Christ and God's unending love. The moment we step outside the doors of our own homes we become the messengers of hope. Messengers who bring the grace of God into the lives of those we interact with on a daily basis. It is our hospitality and love which generate the possibility of companionship and civilisation in our places of life. COVID 19 as a disruptive force in the world has broken many of those bonds of civilisation in places around the world but has also stirred up the image of love that God provides. More recently the total disruption of life itself through an increasingly prejudicial outlook to the presence of the other has negated Christ's gift of reconciliation (Romans 5). An increasing Christian apathy towards injustice in the world and our understanding of the apostle, or one who is sent, disturbs the genuineness of God's gift and our ability to offer love without recompense as we ourselves struggle with our own biases and discriminatory behaviour. This suggests that being sent is no longer a thing and we do not believe the prayer we pray at the end of the Eucharist. Yet, by the grace of God we are still sent into the world and it is our own behaviours that need to be re-assessed if we are to claim our own apostleship to God. For we are the sent and need to stand up to that calling not just as disciples but as God's apostles in this age. It is not recognition but the ability to initiate community and civilisation with love and empathy a narrow difficult path that brings change into our corporate lives.

Trinitarian life

This is the Sunday that many preachers dread as it is a pitfall for those who want to try and explain the Trinity without dropping themselves into heresy. The latter is not really much regarded today but is still an ever present worry when confronted with this very complex and conflicted subject of our faith and its practice. In fact this base understanding of God within our faith is the thing that divides and creates challenges with other religions as they say How can you worship One God and yet you speak about Three? Surely, you are worshipping three Gods and are not truly monotheistic. Yet, if we think deeply about this we can see that plurality is an underlying trait within any singularity. Now, isn't that a real thought, how can this be?

Let us take a very straightforward and simple issue. My question is: What is One? Just think for a minute within the sphere of mathematics. Yes, I am aware that most people do not like thinking mathematically. One is a very unusual number as it is fully dependent on the understanding of its relation to and distinct from all other numbers. Let's put it another way one can only be as a result of a relationship with the other. It does not matter how you explain it the very fact that you have one means that there must be an other. In the case of Christian faith we suggest that the one can only be as a result of relationship, which we describe for the sake of description, as being Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28.19b). I say for the sake of description because we cannot fully describe God and our best analogy formulated at the early councils of the Church is this analogy. Yet, in this day and age we have to be ever mindful that the formulation to describe God in this manner is time dependent. What do I mean by this. Well, whilst we have all grown up and familiar with the analogy it is one that is governed by the discussions of people who only knew Greek philosophy thrown in to a Middle Eastern world view to describe something that is unfathomable. The question raised here is can we with modern philosophy and a modern world view describe the unfathomable in any better way and have we tried or are we sufficiently complacent to rest on our ancestors thoughts on the matter? This actually means that we have to set aside our previous thinking and start from the beginning. Now, that is a tough challenge.

Don't take me wrong, I fully endorse a Trinitarian viewpoint as the obvious outcome of such a view is the understanding that relationship above everything else is important when describing God as it puts on display the understanding of God as love. But, and there is always a but, must the mechanics of our understanding rest on the fragility and easily misunderstood formulations of our ancestors in faith. Should we not begin our understanding of God in the relationship of three as a continuance of God's love. This is in preference to the inherent division that we find in splitting into three identifiable parts as opposed to the coming together of the three identifiable parts into one. Our history is so tangled in division that we fail to see the unity that is crafted within the unity of the three. On this Sunday, each year, there is a consistent pattern of trying to explain the Trinity in terms of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or else fail dismally to tackle the issue. In doing this I suggest that we are consistently attempting to bring division into the understanding of G*d through our own bumbling efforts at analogous representations of deep Greek philosophical concepts describing G*d. It is not perhaps surprising that Radical Orthodox theologians of today are attempting to come to grips with this question from an entirely new perspective. Just some of the re-thinking is connecting current philosophical and scientific understandings within our faith understanding. No matter how we frame our own discourse on G*d if we are to think of one G*d then we must think in terms of relationships rather than an onerous and overbearing patriarchal Father who somehow combines with the Son and the Spirit.

Do we need the analogies of the past to describe relationship in love?

Our relational understanding of G*d must place us beyond both ancient formations of a singular G*d discoursed in terms of archaic philosophical thought. Yes, we praise and worship a G*d who can be conceived of as being relational in three without allowing us to divide that three into individuality. This means that we worship G*d who shows us how relationship is formed through the understanding of the three. A relationship that is based on love and the sharing of power/authority through communication. Something that we all need to embrace and understand as people who follow Christ in the way of G*d and love. This leads us into Trinitarian life lived in harmony and not dissension, lived in striving for peace not division, lived in communication not in ambiguity.