Comments: The heavens are opened

A brilliant homily, Simon. So good, in fact, that I'm taking the liberty of putting it up, with due ascription, on my own blog-site at kiwianglo.

Kalo Epiphania!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 9 January 2014 at 8:19pm GMT

Thank you to Simon Kershaw for his beautifully written "The heavens are opened" I will use it as a private meditation as well because it is such a truly fine homily.

Posted by Chris Smith at Thursday, 9 January 2014 at 9:29pm GMT

"The existence and mission of the Baptist is attested not just by the gospels, but also by the Jewish historian Josephus."

I was under the impression that the extant texts of Josephus are not to be trusted re *anything* related to Jesus? [OCICBW]

Posted by JCF at Friday, 10 January 2014 at 4:27am GMT

Not only a thought provoking and stimulating homily but also a beautiful work of art in the form of a detail from the Salisbury cathedral stained glass window. See how it greatly enhances the blog! Let's have more visual images on the Thinking Anglicans website for they do say that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Posted by Father David at Friday, 10 January 2014 at 9:30am GMT

Interesting. Does this amount to saying then that Jesus was wrong? The Baptist and he expected an imminent end to the known world (why the Romans, who'd be removed from oppressing, would have had reason to kill him as head of a small following) and they were wrong. Also, is not the acceptance of the ritually poor in fact linked to healing - they were healed and told to sin no more - and thus a belief in ill-health and demons. The piece here also suggests a practical view of 'resurrection', that is presence in the meal, which would have been the early Christians' ritual focus while they had decided Jesus was the one to return and were waiting for him to return. Which, of course, he didn't.

Posted by Pluralist at Friday, 10 January 2014 at 4:57pm GMT

JCF: "I was under the impression that the extant texts of Josephus are not to be trusted re *anything* related to Jesus?" ...

I'm no scholar on any of this, and have to rely on reading scholarly accounts or accounts of their accounts, but I think there is a difference in what scholars think about the mentions of Jesus in Josephus and what they think about the 'John the Baptist' passage.

It's easy to do a web search which will find pages doubting the Baptist passage -- but it's even easier to find statements such as "almost all modern scholars consider this passage to be authentic in its entirety" -- yes, not the most scholarly of references, but so far as I can see the statement does appear to be true. [Like you, OCICBW]

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Friday, 10 January 2014 at 9:52pm GMT

Pluralist: 'Jesus was wrong' -- naturally. This isn't particularly revolutionary, is it? Jesus was fully human and not omniscient. So he wouldn't have known the result of the 4.30 at Newmarket next Wednesday, say, nor that infectious diseases can be caused by micro-organisms. So, no reason to be surprised if he got things wrong too. Of course, this particular scenario is speculation heaped on speculation (my own speculation that this quote might refer to the Baptist, on top of the assumption that Jesus did read this passage on his return from the Jordan).

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Sunday, 12 January 2014 at 8:16pm GMT

Pluralist -- re the link between healing and forgiveness ... the gospels do portray this in some cases, but not in others. For example, he eats with tax gatherers who would have been ritually unclean. And some healings are not linked to demons. For example, the ten lepers in Luke 17 are just healed and told to show themselves to the priest, and there is no suggestion of any exorcism.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Sunday, 12 January 2014 at 8:21pm GMT

Pluralist comments on resurrection -- that is going further than I explicitly did. I was particularly thinking of eucharistic presence. The question of to what extent the eucharistic presence and the resurrection presence might be considered to overlap is an interesting one, but not one I was tackling!

But the key points I was suggesting were to trace a plausible historical narrative, and from that to draw out the message of the kingdom preached by Jesus (summarized here as 'freedom for the oppressed and life in all its fullness') and its applicability today, especially in the context of this continuing series of 'just thinking' posts which have been appearing on Thinking Anglicans since the blog began.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Sunday, 12 January 2014 at 8:30pm GMT

Point taken on healing; point overlapped yes regarding resurrection and 'history' there - my view, if it matters, is resurrection is a legitimising matter for leadership and right belief (though it was variable then!) and it was just as important to have the ascension to tell early Christians why there were no more legitimate resurrection appearances (after all, people have been 'seeing Jesus' ever since and still do).

But it is odd, this, about the deity, the full God the Son, when the God the Son does not know future-wise what God the Father presumably knows, should you believe in it. In order to be 'fully human' the deity ends up not being 'fully God'.

Unitarians and Reformation Arians used to bang on about this for a few centuries but now it seems trinitarian to have a deity that is limited when human.

To be honest, classical Unitarianism is pretty dead these days, as in that preached by Joseph Priestley, which accepted Jesus as chosen, a miracle worker, as resurrected, but not even Arian in a Reformed sense never mind the original sense. But I can't understand this orthodoxy that you present that clearly cannot run with the fully man fully God tag. He was just a Jewish rabbi with some ethical reversals and a lot of supernatural beliefs, many of which are of a mindset and culture that we today simply cannot understand. Basically, you're all forms of Christian Unitarians but you won't admit it - your devotions cloud over what is undermined by modernity. (Discuss)

Posted by Pluralist at Monday, 13 January 2014 at 1:58pm GMT

Thanks Pluralist.

There's a lot to be said for Chalcedonian orthodoxy on the nature of Christ. Fully human, fully divine; but one person, one mind. Within the constraints of a human brain and mind that must mean limited knowledge, limited capacity, with divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc) laid aside. Still the Word of God through whom the universe came into being, but uniquely focused in a particular human being, and working in that limited human life through human ways and human thoughts.

That's not Unitarian. It is trying to understand and make sense of and restate the classic Chalcedonian definition within our 21st-century knowledge and ways of thinking.

There's another, different, discussion to be had about just what can be understood by 'the Word of God through whom the universe came into being' etc. -- which you commented on at the time too.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Monday, 13 January 2014 at 4:21pm GMT

I thought, oh leave it there. What's the point of saying, well, Chalcedonian via 21st century thinking (if such is possible) equals non-Chalcedonian nineteenth century thinking.

And then, rereading it, you have the fully man limited, fully God, 'through whom the universe came into being'.

How does that work then? So this, the word, Jesus Christ, sets the universe into being, and creates it (it's his job), through which, on a pale blue dot, an asteroid knocks out dinosaurs, little mammals succeed, human beings come about (evolution is chaotic, it is local, specific and unplanned) and then this second person of the trinity pays us a visit as fully man fully God.

Can I suggest that, actually, twenty first century thinking, or even later nineteenth, doesn't fit with the Chalcedonian, and it is in fact a form of nonsense to try and join the two together?

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 14 January 2014 at 7:40pm GMT

Pluralist -- did you actually read the text linked in my previous comment? From your reply I infer that you perhaps didn't.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Tuesday, 14 January 2014 at 11:12pm GMT

I admit, I read the comments without reading the piece. Apologies. I also looked at my own comment and didn't understand my own comment.

Well, now I have read the piece. I still don't get it. This is a sort of interpretive, subjective association of one kind of thought to another.

After Darwin's biology book came out, people started applying the idea to just about everything, including society and the cosmos. To update this, the cosmos, like biological evolution, is also a chaotic system, that is the chaos is local and specific, and unpredictable, and the systemic is only how what results inter-relates afterwards. This twenty first century thinking does not match the given doctrinal system you are defending creatively.

But your creative intention in the cosmos is pretty close to nineteenth and much twentieth century Unitarianism, who also took their inspiration from John's Gospel and similar, in their view (mistaken, if via chaos theory) that there was an intentional aspect in active creation pointed to by these Gospel accounts and the rest of the Bible.

All I'm saying is that the relative positions have shifted, and my nineteenth century forebears would have said 'Welcome to the Unitarians, friend' and your Trinitarians would have said, 'Well that ain't a sufficient account to fit in with the eternal revelation the Church discovered in 325 and 351 etc.' Your doctrinal standards have slipped.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 15 January 2014 at 6:30am GMT

I wonder if 'Pluralist' has ever heard of the term 'kenosis'? This is generally associated with the self-limitation of the human Jesus on the occasion of his Incarnation: "Jesus chose" the limitation, because, as fully divine, he was able to. That renders the exercise of kenosis even more meaningful to us followers of Jesus.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 15 January 2014 at 8:08am GMT

Rather a smug comment by Ron Smith. Of course Adrian has heard of "kenosis," even without benefit of an expensive seminary education. *I've* heard the term, with a BA in English and 60 years in Anglican pews. Nevertheless, giving it a Greek label doesn't solve the practical and logical problems of a fully human person also being Almighty God. *When* did Jesus choose the limitation? Not in the flesh, and sperm-egg biology isn't open to pre-existence. How is Ron Smith so familiar with the event? Like most (all) of theology, it's reasoning and explication within a traditional narrative -- no connection to material world experience necessary. Theological discussion was assumed to be about Reality until Galileo, Newton, and Darwin showed that reality could be approached by evidence. Where's the evidence for theology? It's all arm-chair (monk's cell) speculation, based on traditions whose origins are lost. Useful for expressing values (how one lives is one's theology), but irrelevant to every-day concerns. People are still looking for beauty and community, but the church's story appeals to fewer and fewer.

Posted by murdoch at Friday, 17 January 2014 at 1:40am GMT

"The message of the kingdom" seems to have got lost in the doctrinal nit picking, not for the first time in the history of the church. Is it because the Christian life as described in Simon's last 2 paragraphs is just too much of a challenge?

Posted by Helen at Monday, 20 January 2014 at 11:51pm 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.