Comments: King and God and sacrifice...

He lays down not “what” to believe and to do but “how” to live and “why”

I think I have a list of "what" which is why I continue to attend but have somewhat pulled back from full participation, and the problem of "what" has always been the problem.

Posted by Pluralist at Monday, 5 January 2009 at 9:40am GMT

"Jesus seeks to deconstruct our familair notions of divinity. He brings no set of dognmas for unthinking assent; no comprehensive list of unchallengeable moral precepts. He comes instead with a fund of simple stories and a natural critique of all that passes for human behaviour. He lays down not 'what' to believe and to do but 'how' to live and 'why' it matters".
- Bishop David Walker -

How good to see yet another Anglican Bishop (cf
Bishop Geoffrey Rowell) offering a refreshingly different 'take' on the Epiphany story; where Jesus comes - not to 'lay down the Law' but to offer a different focus for how God's rule ought to be understood.

In our present conflicts within the Church, which seem to focus mainly on literalist & legalistic interpretations of the Scriptures, here is hope of another way - of advocating togetherness based on our common humanity - rather than divisiveness based on our perceived differences.

Saint Francis is said to have met with a Sultan to discuss the possibility of a peaceful way of settling differences. His disarming sincerity won over the confidence of the Sultan, who shared a meal with him and allowed Francis to speak about the peace of Christ, whose example he followed.

Religious fanaticism never gained a disciple for Christ, whose pattern of outreach is sadly needed today - based, not on legalistic puritanism, but rather on an 'attitude of gratitude' to the God who reconciles himself to all who will be reconciled. Such an attitude enables us to honour the integrity of the other, without the need to consider ourselves superior. Francis called his followers 'Little Brothers' (Friars minor).

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 5 January 2009 at 10:17am GMT

"It’s a notion so challenging to conventional wisdom that, from catholic Eucharistic theology to the concept of substitutionary atonement beloved of the more firm Protestants, many Christians have sought to restore the natural order rather than root themselves in the one who gives himself not simply for us but to us."

"Epiphany is startling.'

This, surely, is the point. The Incarnation overturns all our understanding of how things are. God is a human being? Power is to be found in weakness, True Kingship is not be found in force? Power, pace Mao, does not come from the barrel of a gun? Self sacrificing love is better than standing for some great principle, indeed, it is the ONLY great principle? God doesn't care how well you live by some set of rules, but about how much you love others? It isn't all about me? We have practiced the religion of the Empire for so long, we forget its radicality. We define "countercultural" to mean opposition to what we don't like. Crossan speaks of the titles of Jesus being the titles of the Roman Emperor, and how it was a subversive act for Christians to call Jesus, not Ceasar, Son of God and Saviour of the World. We sometimes forget that this applies equally to Elizabeth II, George Bush, Marx, Lenin, and any other earthly leader. They didn't use those terms to reject Roman Imperial rule, they used them to reject ALL earthly rule. And not as a matter of revolution, either, but as simply a matter of faith. SomeOne has power over me, but He isn't some Roman Emperor, nor some elected leader, nor a member of some People's Democratic Soviet whatdoyacall, And his Kingdom is not an earthly Kingdom. That doesn't mean He's just an alternative to whatever political system we currently think is God Given. It means the Kingdom is utterly unlike any political system we know, and the worldview of the citizens of the Kingdom is not at all that of the rest of the world. It is a worldview where people are valued because they are people, not because of how obedient they are or how virtuous, or of what they do, but simply because they are God's creatures, a world where the worst serial killing child molestor is as loved by God as I am, because to God "all hearts are open, no secrets are hid", where, as the ABpofC said in his Advent message, no principle is greater than love of neighbour, no principle is good if ignores human suffering.

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 5 January 2009 at 1:22pm GMT

"Religious fanaticism never gained a disciple for Christ"

But it has gained a heck of a lot of church people.

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 5 January 2009 at 2:42pm GMT

OK Father Ron Smith (and indeed David Walker) - can we organise this then? Would you agree with the inclusion of the likes of James Martineau, broad Church and anti-denominational Unitarian, being part of this universal Church of which he dreamed and which was never possible.

Posted by Pluralist at Monday, 5 January 2009 at 5:17pm GMT

What a wonderful meditation---thanks!

Posted by JCF at Monday, 5 January 2009 at 6:58pm GMT

Just a quibble about the reference to 'catholic' eucharistic theology. I presume David is referring to the notion of the priest re-offering Christ to the Father, which does indeed seem to parallel penal substitution theory; but the 'best' (read 'my preferred') catholic take on the Eucharist is that the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally receiving life from the Father (eternally being begotten) and the Son does not cling to this life as something personally possessed, but instead eternally returns the life lovingly (Phil 2.5 ff.). Jesus' life and death not only accomplish this living and dying-to-self, but they also reveal that self-giving is eternally what it's all about. In the Eucharist we're invited to enter into this eternal movement, to do the same in our lives, not just as individuals but especially as a community, in communion with Christ -- acommunio effected not so much by our desire for him as by his desire for us, as we find ourselves drawn by love to love, sharing in the very life of the Trinity by the subversively simple signs of sharing simple bread and wine.

Yes, sacrifice is turned on its head, as David suggests, but I think there are threads of authenticity in the best of our tradition.


Posted by Joe at Monday, 5 January 2009 at 7:18pm GMT

I sort of agree with this piece. It's true and wonderful (etc.) that Christianity, foundationally Jewish, reaches out to (relatively) despised Gentiles.


(a) those 'magi' were (or not actually 'were', since their participation is presumably fictional) Zoroastrians, and Zoroastrianism seems actually to have influenced Judaism (because Zoroastrian Persians 'liberated' Jews from Babylon [though actually a lot of Jews remained IN Babylonia]), and Zoroastrianism was monotheistic before Judaism was);

(b) this 'pluralism' stops far short of saying: 'pluralism really is OK'. Instead it says: join us and all is forgiven. Different thing entirely and - sometimes - not very nice. The better thing is to say: there are all these commonalities and AT THE END OF THE DAY/TIME Jesus will sort it all out. That way, one can simultaneously say: (a) all (reputable) religions are admirable and tenable; (b) Christianity is the best (even as Jews/Muslims/Hindus, etc. maintain their religion is the best).

This formulation and only this formulation preserves religious harmony.

Posted by john at Monday, 5 January 2009 at 8:12pm GMT

Joe, I would only add that the idea of the "resacrifice" of Christ is a misunderstanding. Our Eucharist is sacrificial because it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, just as that first Bread and Wine did, so our sacrifice is "grafted on" so to speak. It isn't a repetition, it is the same sacrifice. We eat the same Bread and drink the same Wine as they did in the Upper Room, and that all Christians across time have eaten and drunk. When you receive, you truly are compassed about by a great cloud of witnesses. Have you ever seen the rather saccharine Victorian, I think, picture called "A Place of Meeting"?

And John, I just finished saying on another thread, far far more verbosely, what you said! I totally agree! I just wish I could be so frugal with my words!

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 6 January 2009 at 12:37am GMT

"In the Eucharist we're invited to enter into this eternal movement, to do the same in our lives, not just as individuals but especially as a community, in communion with Christ -- a communion effected not so much by our desire for him as by HIS DESIRE FOR US, as we find ourselves drawn by love to love, sharing in the very life of the Trinity by the subversively simple signs of sharing simple bread and wine.' - Joe -

Joe, what a lovely and poetic way of putting the efficacy of our Eucharistic participation with the eternally-giving Christ in our daily (weekly)offering of ourselves to him and to one another.

And as for Pluralist's question: "Can we include (whomever)', to my mind, we can never exclude - anyone. When Jesus said "They'll know you're my disciples by your LOVE", I guess he really meant that. And if that means I am a 'universalist', perhaps that what the word 'catholic' really means. Jesus also said: "Come to me all...."

Kalo Epiphania!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 6 January 2009 at 9:52am GMT

A splendid sermon!

The one thing that keeps me with this obscurantist religion and its insufferable followers is the very radical subversion at the very heart of it all.

In the Incarnation, and in His life, His suffering, death, and resurrection, Christ takes all our concepts of success, even moral success, and discards them. Christ takes the whole grim arithmetic of success and failure, victory and defeat, strength and weakness, by which the world has always worked, and throws it in the trash.

Of course the wise and the powerful should travel far to see that child born in poverty with a price on His head. He more than anyone, turned the world upside down.

Posted by counterlight at Tuesday, 6 January 2009 at 1:49pm GMT

Yes the incarnation, and Jesus showing forth, rather put both the progressive parts and the believer parts, right into being a progressive believer in the current century.

Not a customary deity then, notable for an all too typical males first males only blood lust, delighting in flattering submissions and fawnings and yes too many sacrifices to ennumerate. Rather, another sort of deity, amost incomprehensible as deity when weighed solely on customary cultural and religious terms.

How many stories did Jesus tell in the NT, saying the last shall be first and the first shall be last?

So far as the magi are concerned, fictional they may indeed be; yet I am not at all ready to shelve my score of Amahl and the Night Visitors and let it gather nothing but dust as the pages yellow.

Posted by drdanfee at Tuesday, 6 January 2009 at 9:25pm GMT


Thanks. Missed other thread. Happy New Year to you and your partner - and indeed to all here,


Posted by john at Wednesday, 7 January 2009 at 12:01am GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.