Abraham and Isaac

I regularly listen to Pray as you go and on Thursday 2nd July 2009 it included the reading about Abraham and Isaac (NRSV Oremus, Lots of others Biblegateway)

During the reflection on the passage they suggested that there were two alternative readings: that God was testing Abraham, or that this was the stage in history at which Abraham and the people recognised that God did not want human sacrifice and instead wanted humans to flourish.

My immediate reaction was to want to argue with that - there are surely so many more interpretations than just those 2 :).

My mind started drifting and I started going into sermon mode - thinking that surely it can be a metaphor for how God asks for our obedience. Then however I stumbled across the idea that it isn't an instruction, instead it is a warning - if we love God then we cannot deny him anything - and the warning is twofold - that if we do love God then the impact on our lives will be this big, and secondly that there are things which we should deny him - that he doesn't want us to sacrifice everything - ‘I have come in order that you might have life – life in all its fullness.’ John 10:10.

Thoughts around Communion

A number of different issues have all cropped up at once making me think about when people may receive communion. The first was that recently I have had reason to attend a number of Roman Catholic services, and I was shocked to discover the pain I felt at not being allowed to receive. And yet some were while I was on retreat (at Ampleforth), and I could have chosen not to attend any more communion services, but I did - at least in part to explore my feelings of exclusion. These were particularly acute on a couple of occasions when the words of the service felt particularly exluding:

"Lord, I am not worthy to receive but only say the word, and I shall be healed"

and

"Remember those who take part in this offering, those here present and all your people, and all who seek you with a sincere heart" (Eucharistic Prayer 4)

I also remember at my selection conference taking part in a conversation about communion before confirmation where another candidate reported that her granddaughter had asked "Granny, aren't I the body of Christ?" (from the words at the fraction "We break this bread to share in the body of Christ. Though we are many, we are one body,because we all share in one bread.").

It struck me that this comes down at least in part to Eucharisitic theology - after all, I realised that at Ampleforth I didn't share their understanding of what was happening to the elements - so what would receiving have meant? My theology in this space is very much one of community, and I recall a priest I know telling me that at theological college he had been told to receive each time he was present (after having refused as he felt unworthy) because in refusing there is a breach of community.

This was also highlighted in a recent discussion at church where we were talking about being a welcoming community, and it was said that we welcome everyone - I had to point out that we don't - the Eucharist is exclusive- even though we admit children to communion before confirmation (and here of course lies another problem - only the baptised - when in many cases it is Christian parents who have carefully thought about this who do not have their children baptised).

This was then followed at Deanery Chapter by a discussion on what common practise is - most said that if people put out their hands they would receive.
So... what does this all mean? As I was pondering this I stumbled over this report from the Episcopal Church.
I also had pause for thought, as I can remember attending a RC church many years ago and not feeling excluded - perhaps because I was less attached - so is there something about people desirous of receiving communion being in a state of being ready for baptism? (cf Canon B15A on receiving communion: "members ... who have been confirmed ... or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed").

It also struck me that in some senses people are perhaps behaving with more integrity now - If baptism is a big deal then it shouldn't be entered into lightly, and people shouldn't be "done". I think it also ties in with the fact that people don't "join" as much any more (sounding like and old codger), not just the church but anything - when we present quite a hard picture of baptism as "joining" perhaps it is no surprise that just as people now see marriage as the completion of a journey rather than the start of it, so they don't want to commit to baptism until they are sure.
Am I arguing for open communion? I don't know. Perhaps a better approach would be to teach more about baptism and encourage people to see it as the start of a journey - for after all we never end the journey this side of the grave! What I do know is that I feel drawn to the invitation to communion that goes:

Come, not because you must, but because you may, Come, not because you are strong, but because you are weak, Come, not because you are righteous, but because you sincerely love Christ, Come, not because you wish to receive the benefits that Christ may bring, but that you wish to be his disciple, Come, not to express an opinion or to make a statement, But to seek a presence and to pray for a spirit. Come - for Christ himself wishes to meet with you here.

and if an unbaptised person comes forwards and puts out their hands they will receive.

PS I forgot to add that recently I also attended a Greek Orthodox Church - but didn't feel excluded there, perhaps for two reasons: firstly many of the other attendees did not receive either, and secondly the liturgy was so far removed from the Anglican liturgy that it was difficult to recognise it as such - unlike the RCs, where the service is remarkably similar.

PPS and then I read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/04/st-gregory-food-pantry-san-francisco

Last Week of Radcliffe

The final two chapters! Or at least one chapter and a conclusion.

This week it is about the need for Sabbath - but as usual Radcliffe wanders a little wider than the chapter heading.

His first suggestion is that we see Sabbath as a gift, not an imposition (if indeed we don't already see it that way). Using the analogy of attending our mother's birthday party! This perhaps leads into his thoughts on the changing nature of work. The Greek and Latin words for work are literally "not leisure" which suggests a turnaround in emphasis - we perhaps see leisure as what we do when we are not working! He also writes of the difficulty of work as identity now that jobs for life are almost extinct. Finally he talks about work as a branch of entertainment.

He moves on to talk about religion as consumption, choosing which church we go to on the basis of the "services" on offer. Joan Chittister has something to say on the risks of this: "They know how to shop for a parish but they do little to build one. They live off a community but they are never available when the work of maintaining it is necessary. They are committed to morality in the curriculum of grade schools but completely unmoved by the lack of morality in government ethics."

Finally in the last chapter he suggests that with today's entertainment we become passive spectators - not participants. He also suggests that we should live as a community where we "let ourselves be seen in our complexity and our contradictions". I for one see a contradiction here - how can we manage that if we do not participate?


In the conclusion he encourages us to live as a community of "love, freedom and hope" - including everyone, not just the like minded. Some challenge if you are currently a community of the like minded - how do you start the process of change? He also suggests that we should speak out and not be afraid - seeing the church as a place where it should be safe to discuss ideas. And yet so many would disagree - at confirmation groups I have seen regular churchgoers afraid to say what they think until the know what the vicar thinks - whereas those from outside the church are very happy to do so. What is it that they have learnt in the church that stops them?

And finally! He encourages us to accept the goodness of corporeal existence and to accept our own bodies whatever shape or condition they are in. I think I have already done corporeal existence in the chapter which covered it - but how many would believe that of he church - not many I suspect.

Overall this has been a wonderful book. The highlight for me was the chapter on hope, and comparing hope and optimism, but there were so many good bits - including sharing it with a great bunch of people!

Grrrr - Press overreact again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/5423736/Microsofts-Bing-under-fire-for-porn-video-access.html

That is blaming the messenger - there are porn videos out there - if you don't want to watch them don't search and don't hover over them - is the feature that delivers this a useful feature - yes - when I am searching for videos it will make my life easier - if I don't want porn then I will leave the safety search setting on. So the Telegraph are complaining that this makes it easier to search for videos - durr! Perhaps they should complain about moving pictures and get them banned because they enable porn - no motion pictures = no porn.

The Church in Wales

Yesterday I attended the installation of Peggy Jackson (my cousin) as Archdeacon of Llandaff.

I was struck by how confident Barry Morgan was in preaching a liberal gospel, saying of Biblical literalism that there is far too much of that nonsense about. Something which I could believe that Rowan Williams thought - but have not heard of him saying since he became Archbishop.

In addition we had incense - no great surprise you might say - but this was Choral Evensong!

This has set me thinking - I am usually against polarisation and want to embrace and synthesise all views - much as I thought that Timothy Radcliffe was advocating (see below). However, it can lead to a lack of clarity, which in turn makes progress difficult.

2 more chapters

The next two chapters are about division within the church. Radcliffe doesn't tackle division between churches, and focuses on division within the Catholic Church, but much of what he says speaks into the situation of Anglicanism! It perhaps speaks less to other denominations because Protestantism has a tendency to split when differences become too great - each part of the split believing that they have the truth - and that truth is more important than unity. This is typified by the number one joke in the Ship of Fools religious joke poll.

Radcliffe sees the problem as the internal disagreements within a church "What young people are going to find their home in a community that is so angry?" - and what old people come to that. He does not like the exisitng terminology used to separate the different attitudes and instead suggests that the two main approaches are those of Kingdom and Communion.

Kingdom
See the church as "the People of God on pilgrimmage towards the Kingdom". The central doctrine is the Incarnation: "In Jesus Christ, God had embraced the whole of humanity." Liberation is the rallying call and Christ is seen as overthrowing boundaries.

Communion
See the people as "members of the institution of the Church, the communion of believers". The central doctrine is the cross: "We must dare to stand by the scandal of the crucified Lord." Truth is the rallying call, and Christ is the one who "gathers into community".

What Radcliffe doesn't articulate, but I see as implicit in what he is writing is that Communion is about modernity (although he presents them as being against it!) and Kingdom is more post modern - although he sees Post modernity (again not described as such) as the solution, the way of reconciling the two approaches.

Using the metaphor of "Root Shock" where people uprooted from their environment retreat into "communities of the likeminded" he suggests that both Kingdom and Communion are reacting against an exile, but that each feel it in a different way. Communion saw the local environment being torn up both within the church and within society and wanted that sense of familiarity back. Kingdom felt an optimism during Vatican II which they felt was disappearing and in a similar way the "utopian dreams of the 60s were not being realised".

Radcliffe asks how the Last Supper is a "sign of a home in which everyone, regardless of his or her sympathies or allegiance, may be at ease?" He answers his own question by pointing out that "the bread is given just tothe disciples" but the wine whilst also given to them is also "poured out for the many". In the Eucharist the tension between the in group and everybody is there visible and reconciled. He points out that this tension has been there from the beginnings of the church - that the disciples would have stayed, but that Paul first dispersed them through persecution and then took the gospel to the Gentiles. "If we today try to retreat inwards into any little walled Fortress Church, then we can be sure that God will demolish it".

Having determined that the solution is some form of synthesis between the two approaches Radcliffe then looks at how this may be achieved. He says that the main problem is that we are no longer free to explore faith in a way that was possible before the Thirty Years War; keeping silent and defending our doctrine, and developing questions like Mrs Thatchers "is he one of us".

He proposes that we should not build "communities of the like-minded", but listen to the stories of each others lives, trying to understand how the other has arrived where they are. And when I hear someone saying something that I believe to be wrong "my first reaction must be to see what truth they are trying to say rather than immediately condemn their error." He says that we need places where "we can speak without fear and prejudice" - wouldn't we all like a church like that?

Funny how things crop up!

Having discussed consumerism in the book group todays comment from Christian Aid is as follows: http://www.surefish.co.uk/faith/daily_readings/05_may/28.htm