Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Divest from (stopping) Brexit

The Brexit hysteria has hit new highs (or lows) in the last couple of weeks, and it seems to be spreading: perfectly reasonable people who normally show only a passing interest in political affairs report stress and anxiety caused by the prospect of Brexit happening, or (less often, in my circles at least) not happening.

I think we've over-invested in Brexit, or stopping Brexit, and we ought to sell stock now for two reasons.

Firstly, we've invested far too much of our political and social vision into (preventing or ensuring) Brexit.  Some people seem to think that all our hopes for maintaining a liberal society, or a healthy economy, are tied to remaining in the EU; others are of the opinion that the only hope for shattering the neo-liberal consensus and bringing about real change lies in leaving the EU.  But remaining in the EU is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for liberalism or prosperity; and leaving the EU is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for changing the way we structure our society and economy.  We've invested far too much in this one thing, as if preventing/ensuring Brexit would bring about all our political and social dreams.

One upshot of this is that we can't help seeing people who disagree with us about the EU being enemies of everything we hold dear.  If preventing Brexit is invested with all the good of a liberal and open society in your mind, Leavers are necessarily racists, probably just downright evil.  At the very least they unthinkingly threaten everything.  If ensuring Brexit is invested with all your hopes for change, whether nostalgic or utopian or just philosophical change, then Remainers are a sneering elite who just want to circle the wagons and defend their privilege.  But none of these political and social positions necessarily follow from a position on Brexit.  Our hopes and dreams (and fears and nightmares) are far too heavily invested in this one thing.

Second, and this is a point specifically for the Christian, kingdoms and empires come and go.  Different ways of arranging societies and economies come into being and pass pretty rapidly into the history books.  Every political and social arrangement has some good about it, because society is God's idea and humans are not able to totally corrupt it.  Every political and social arrangement has some bad about it, because human society is the not the kingdom of heaven, and bears all the marks of sinful and broken humanity.  Of course the mixes are different, and some ways are clearly to be preferred to others, and in the nature of the case we can debate which is better when it comes to Leave or Remain, but we need to do so within the framework of a theology and an eschatology which knows that none of this is ultimate.

This isn't a glib way of saying there's nothing to worry about.  I see much to worry about whichever way things turn out in the next few weeks.  But let's dial it down a little bit, shall we?  Particularly if we're Christians, let's remember that there is more to (eternal) life.  Turn off the news, make a cup of tea, read your Bible.  And invest some more of your hopes in Jesus, who is surely coming soon, and not in (lack of) Brexit.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Free grace is costly grace

Preaching this past Sunday at CCC from Jeremiah 7, I couldn't avoid mentioning Dietrich Bonhoeffer's concept of cheap grace. In the chapter the prophet Jeremiah was sent by the Lord to preach outside the temple courts. The subject of his sermon, like almost all his sermons, was the sin of the people of Judah; in this particular case, the numerous sins are aggravated by the attitude of the people towards the temple itself. The temple represents their security. They'll be forgiven, of course they will. They'll get away with their worship of idols, naturally. They'll be preserved from foreign invasion and divine judgement, for sure. Because the temple. The house that bears God's name is just up the hill, and they go there all the time to celebrate their salvation.

Cheap grace.

"Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."

That's Bonhoeffer, in Discipleship.

It struck me that cheap grace may or may not seem cheap.  It might mean just praying the prayer and otherwise getting on with life.  But on the other hand it might mean a life of rigorous exertion.  In the case of the people of Judah, the sacrificial system was up and running, and that was work.  I bet it didn't seem cheap.  But what these two things - the sinner's prayer (as misunderstood and presumed upon) and the sacrificial system (as misunderstood and presumed upon) - have in common is that I give something or do something in exchange for grace.  'Grace' in this context might mean different things, but probably includes salvation, God's favour, maybe eternal life.  And it's when you start to think about what it includes that it seems cheap at the price, even if the price is a lifetime of sacrificial devotion.  Who wouldn't purchase eternal life at the cost of a lifetime of sacrifice and ritual - and if you can get it even cheaper, say just by 'believing in Jesus', then so much the better!  That is how many people understand the transition from Old to New Testament.

The other thing that the (misunderstood) sinner's prayer and the (misunderstood) sacrificial system have in common is that they both leave the rest of life untouched.  Once you've paid your dues for grace, you can carry on as you were.  Up you get from your prayer and get on with your life.  Out you go from the temple and return to - well, your abominations, says Jeremiah.  Cheap grace.

But God's grace is not cheap.  As Bonhoeffer points out, we should realise that by observing what it cost God himself.

God's grace is free.  There is nothing you have that you can exchange for God, for eternal life, for forgiveness and salvation.  You don't have anything that is worth that much, and everything you have you owe to God anyway as your Creator.  If you are going to receive those things, they will have to be given to you freely, gratis, and for nothing.  And so it, because Christ has paid for these things.

But then again, God's grace is costly.  To receive God, eternal life, forgiveness, is to lose everything you currently have and are.  Nothing can be held back.  It will take everything to be saved.  This is not a price-tag.  I'm not saying 'guys, God's grace isn't cheap; it's really, really expensive'.  I'm saying, God's grace is Jesus Christ, crucified for you and risen for you.  He has done it all.  Receiving what he has done does not require anything from you; there is nothing you can contribute.  But to receive Jesus Christ is to receive his cross.  It is grace that you lose everything you have and are, because that is the putting to death of your old sinful self at the cross of Christ, so that you might have bestowed on you the new identity of the resurrected and beloved.  It is grace that from now on your life in every single aspect is to be shaped entirely by Christ and his Spirit, because that is what eternal life looks like.

Free.  Costly.  But not cheap.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Spirit and Sacrament: An Invitation to Eucharismatic Worship

The thrust of this book, by Andrew Wilson, is pretty simple: the church should bring together in its worship the sacramental and liturgical, on the one hand, and the charismatic on the other.  Hence 'eucharismatic', the combination of eucharistic and charismatic.  But what does that mean, and what would it look like?  In six chapters (this is not a weighty tome), Wilson tries to show us, and to persuade us that this is not only a possibility but a necessity.

The first chapter is really just a brief portrait of what could be.  Imagine bringing together, not the weaknesses, but the strengths of traditional liturgical worship on the one hand and the experiential and expressive worship characteristic of the charismatic movement on the other.  "Imagine a service that includes healing testimonies and prayers of confession, psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit, creeds that move the soul and rhythms that move the body.  Imagine young men seeing visions, old men dreaming dreams, sons and daughters prophesying, and all of them coming to the same Table and then going on their way rejoicing." (15)  Okay, I'm imagining it, and it sounds good (except the rhythms that move the body; I am not a person for whom rhythmic movement is ever a desirable thing).  How would we get there then?

As it turns out, via what seems like a detour, but is actually an essential part of the trip.  The second chapter lays out a theology of gift.  The basis of our worship is not anything we can bring, but is God's gift.  This chapter is beautiful in its own right.  All is grace.  And when it comes to corporate worship, this means we should receive with thankfulness everything that God has given us.  "Marginalizing a particular divine gift because it does not fit with our denominational tradition, if it is indeed a divine gift, should not be an option." (38)  Just so, although that 'if it is' seems pretty important; we'll come back to it.

The third chapter is about the only appropriate response to God's gifts: joy.  Wilson loses me a bit here.  Not in principle, of course: I am in favour of joy.  But a sentence like "In many church traditions, especially Western ones, we find it easier to lament than to rejoice" (41) does not chime with my experience at all - in fact, isn't the evangelical world filled with laments about how difficult we find it to lament?  But let that pass.  Oh, but then there is a bit of a snipe at Thine be the Glory for apparently featuring low and gloomy chords even when it's calling for us to sing with gladness.  Yep, you lost me.  Moving on.  Some good reflections on wine (46-49), I can feel myself rejoining the party.  And then the point: Christians are meant to be joyful, because of God's goodness and grace, and that joy can be expressed both eucharistically and charismatically.  I think I get this.  Wilson admits that we are all likely to find one way more natural, more in line with us (cf. my comments about rhythmic movement above), but that is a good reason why church should be both.  I get that.  Why do we put up with our current sorting hat approach to churches and denominations, with the reserved types going one way and the more emotional folk the other?  So look, I take the point of this chapter overall, but I have some questions about whether the expression of joy isn't somewhat restricted here.  I can sing joy in a minor key, even with low and gloomy chords.

The fourth chapter covers the specifically eucharistic element to being eucharismatic, and we're talking about more here than just an emphasis on sacraments.  Actually Wilson is arguing for being embedded in the Great Tradition.  After all, part of the gift we are given is the gift of being in the catholic church, the gift of our forebears in the faith and their thinking and their worship.  There is a useful table here (81-82) showing how different elements of the tradition - from the sacraments themselves to the church calendar - can benefit the church.  I'm already sold on all this, but if you're not you'll find the chapter interesting and perhaps challenging.  Much of the argument draws heavily on James Smith, and despite my reservations about some of his points I think it's all still broadly helpful.  This chapter also helpfully reflects on the fact that much of this stuff is just directly biblical; the emphasis on the sacraments and regular participation at the Table is right there in the NT.  So hurrah for being eucharistic.

Chapter five seeks to be equally persuasive on the charismatic front.  A lot of it is given over to a defence of the ongoing availability of the spiritual gifts mentioned in the NT.  I find the arguments persuasive, particularly as they are set here: in the context of a wider reflection on the spiritual experience that seems to be central to the Christian life as we see it unfold in the NT.  There is a handy discussion of angels and demons (96-100), which might not seem immediately relevant but is actually really helpful for establishing that we basically can't get around the supernatural, and the immanence and agency of the supernatural, in the Bible - and if we downplay it today, why is that?  I found this chapter really helpful in so far as it goes.  The big takeaway is that if you're not a convinced cessationist - and I'm not - then you should be actively pursuing spiritual gifts.  Okay, but...  Well, I'll come to that at the end.

Chapter six tries to draw it all together, with some useful tips on how we might lead our churches in the direction of eucharismatic worship.  It's mostly very good.  But here's where I get stuck with the whole project.  I can introduce my church to liturgy; I can plan the year around the church calendar; I can push for the great significance of the sacraments.  All these I have kept from my youth.  So look, we're covered for eucharistic.  But as far as I'm aware, there is no way of programming in the gifts of the Spirit.  I've grumbled about this before, I know.  But what to do about it?  Pray, of course.  But is that all?

So I guess I want a follow up book.  I want a book about what we do when we've been in church all our lives and we just haven't seen this stuff.  I want a book about how to be a eucharismatic church when nobody in the church seems to have the more miraculous gifts.  I did wonder also as I was reading whether there might have been some virtue in separating out things which Wilson joins up - for example, although I see how dealing with the sacraments embedded in a view of liturgy and catholicity is helpful, it might be more persuasive for some folk if we make the biblical case for a high view of sacraments without immediately drawing in elements of the Tradition which are less obviously biblical.  Similarly, unpicking general spiritual experience (not to mention exuberance and expressive worship) and the particularities of the gifts might have been helpful.  Maybe.

In the meantime, there's a lot I'll take away from this.  Joy - even if I'm not sure it has to look the way it's described here - needs to be a bigger part of our worship.  The presence of the Spirit in the here and now needs to be emphasised more.  More expectation.

It's a beautiful vision for church.  I'm sold.  If I could get there, I would.

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

The prophetic voice

As we've just launched into a Lenten preaching series in Jeremiah, I've been thinking a good deal about prophets, and what it means to be prophetic.  There is no doubt in my mind that the church is called to a prophetic ministry, that the church must sometimes speak in the prophetic voice.  But what does that mean?  Jeremiah has been helping me to think it through.

Most fundamentally, before one can speak in the prophetic voice one must adopt (or be placed into) the prophetic posture.  This is basically the position of the humble listener.  What the prophet has to say must first be heard by the prophet.  God's words are put into Jeremiah's mouth; he is a recipient (and sometimes not a particularly enthusiastic one).  It is characteristic of the false prophets whom Jeremiah encounters that they speak without first hearing; they have not stood in the council of the Lord, they have not received his words.  The true prophet is first of all a humble listener, and for the church to speak in the prophetic voice it must first of all be a community which is devoted to the reception of God's word.  That means primarily devoted to Scripture as the one divinely commissioned and inspired witness to God's revelation in Christ.  A prophetic church is a biblical church.

A second thing that struck me about the role of the prophet in Jeremiah is what a vulnerable role it is.  The prophet is entirely without weapons (except the word of God), entirely without defences (except the word of God), and entirely without a solid place to stand (except the word of God).  The priest has his role in the temple, his ancestry, his legally-backed position in society; the prophet has nothing but the word of God.  To speak in the prophetic voice is a venture, a reach, a stretch - into the void, humanly speaking, but for the prophet a step onto the firm foundation of the word of God.  For the church to be prophetic it will need to understand the authority of God's word and have deep confidence in it, so that it can go out in the strength of that word alone, expecting and needing no other resources.  A prophetic church is a bold church.

Then again, one of the key characteristics of the true prophet as we see that role in Jeremiah is speaking unpopular truths.  The false prophet says everything will be fine.  But Jeremiah has to proclaim judgement on sin, the inevitability of the fall of Jerusalem.  He is even driven to call the people to surrender to the enemy, a stance which in time of war look distinctly treacherous.  Because the true prophet has heard God's word, and because he knows he can stand only on that word, he will speak, regardless of the consequences.  The prophetic voice in the church must surely include this aspect: saying what has to be said (and it has to be said not because we think it is important, but because we heard it from the Lord) regardless of the unpopularity of the message.  I think something for me and churches like mine to look out for is a faux-prophetic stance which criticises sins which none of us are particularly guilty of, or only makes those denunciations which will play well in the group to which we belong.  (It is easy for me to critique materialism and greed in the pulpit; the liberal-ish world around us also denounces those things.  What about if I speak against sexual immorality?  Might one test of the prophetic voice be: would this get me thrown into a cistern?)  A prophetic church is a counter-cultural church.

All of which leaves me thinking we have a long way to go.  But...

Most fundamentally a prophetic church is one which looks to Christ, who is in his person the fulfilment and sum of all prophecy, and expects from him the Holy Spirit.  In other words, the prophetic church is empty, and recognises that it cannot possibly be the prophetic church, but needs God to move if anything worthwhile is to happen.

So perhaps we're on the starting block at least.

Tuesday, March 05, 2019

Thoughts on the Lord's Prayer

Doing a little bit on the Lord's Prayer for last Sunday, I had a couple of thoughts.  Nothing remotely original, but just things that have struck me again.

1.  Prayer can be learned - otherwise what are Jesus' disciples doing asking him to teach them?  And what is Jesus doing in his response to their request?  I commented on this before in relation to Bonhoeffer's book on the Psalms.  Against the assumption that prayer must be spontaneous or the overflow of the heart, the very existence of the Lord's Prayer testifies to the fact that prayer can be learned.

2.  It is significant that Jesus doesn't teach a technique or a frame of mind but a form of words.  Prayer is not a vague openness to God, or a period of meditation (however helpful that may be).  Prayer is an address, an act of speech.  So what is interesting to me is this: we all know how to talk, and what Jesus thinks his disciples need to know is what to talk about when they are addressing God.  In other words, it's an agenda, not a method.

3.  A lot could be made of the fact that the prayer is cast in the first person plural - our Father.  Again, our assumption often is that the purest form of prayer is that done by the individual in isolation.  There is some reason for this - consider Matthew 6:5-6.  Certainly the lack of individual private prayer is an indication that something is seriously wrong, even if there is plenty of public prayer in your life.  Nevertheless, according to the form of the Lord's Prayer, even our individual prayer is done in company - we always address our Father alongside brothers and sisters, and ultimately alongside the Lord Jesus.  So there is a sense in which corporate prayer is primary, and individual prayer joins it.

4.  The prominence given to forgiveness of sins is striking.  Bread and forgiveness are our two great daily needs.  I wonder what is lost when that sense of needing, and being given, daily forgiveness is eclipsed.  It is also striking that this daily experience of forgiveness is conditional, which goes against the grain for many of us; probably because what is ingrained in us is cheap grace and not gospel.