March 25, 2012

Richard Bonifant

Lent 5     Jeremiah 31-27-34     John 12:20-36

Video available on YouTube, Facebook

There once was a pig. He was an ordinary pig in all ways, but one thing did set him apart. This thing was his distaste for the mumbling and grumbling that is the natural way with pigs. “I know,” thought the pig, “I shall do something extraordinary. From now on I will stand for everything that is true and wonderful. I will see the best in everyone and everything. I will be the Pig of Happiness!”

The next day when Pig A complained about the weather, the Pig of Happiness went dancing in the rain. When Pig B was rude about Pig C’s bottom and all the other pigs joined in, the Pig of Happiness gave Pig C a flower and said that he thought Pig C had a beautiful bottom actually.

After a while the Pig of Happiness became so happy that his happiness became too big. It had to find an escape! And so it was that it began to seep from inside him into all the other pigs. Now all the pigs are happy and their happiness is showing signs of seeping out too. The sheep are laughing. Even the chickens are beginning to smile!

It takes a great deal of courage to go against the flow. More than that is takes perseverance. Sometimes people have the courage to speak out against injustice only to have their voice silenced. To reform anything people need to work through all the obstacles and setbacks and keep going and keep going and keep going.

In recent years one of the great narratives of scripture that speaks deeply into the ongoing need for reform of both society and the church has sadly become something of a dirty word in Anglican circles. I am referring to the C word! Covenant. Within our church we have become guilty of using and abusing that term. It now carries with it connotations of oppression and enslavement which is exactly the opposite of what covenant means in the biblical context.

To understand this more fully we need to first consider the covenant established between God and the Israelites at Mt Sinai. The covenant expressed through the Ten Commandments was forged in the shadow of Egypt. The Israelites’ experience of Egypt was one of enslavement. Their reality had been one of producing wealth for a powerful elite while barely having the necessities of life. In this context the covenant of Sinai is a radical alternative to the literal practice of slavery. The intention of the covenant is to create and preserve hard won freedom. The Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann describes the alternative covenantal society as a neighbourhood. 

This mornings reading from the book of Jeremiah is a potent reminder that despite the lofty intentions of the covenant at Sinai it remains incredibly easy for humans to slip back into the pattern of slavery. The Israelites constantly slipped back into social structures that recreated the experience of slavery for some. In our time the church remains silent about the state of our economy despite our knowledge that the gap between rich and poor continues to increase. Let me say that another way. It is hard for the church to articulate alternatives to the unjust structures of society when those structures are part of our everyday lives. 

The intention of covenant is to reject that which enslaves us. Covenant is about liberating all of the people of God to encounter God in new ways. Yet within the community of faith, time and time again, we slip back into habits that serve some and enslave others. Some of you will know what it is like to have other members of the Christian family criticise you for holding beliefs that differ from theirs. Sometimes such criticism is overt. Sometimes it is simply implied. Even in our church it is hard to go against the flow.

At the beginning of Lent I found myself at a workshop regarding Lenten resources and practices. In recent years I have found that much of the traditional thinking surrounding the season of Lent leaves me cold. When I gave voice to these thoughts and feelings I found that no one was prepared to listen. My desire to experience Lent in a new way was deemed to be threatening by others and suddenly it became clear that my contribution held little value.

The notion that there is only one truth, one level of understanding, one dominant narrative that must be adhered to is to enslave God’s people. Theological or liturgical constructs can become idols of the church. When we get wrapped up in defending any belief or practice, be it liberal or conservative, we rapidly loose sight of God.

In considering my personal struggle with dominant Lenten traditions I found myself asking another question. What are we able to do when confronted with the bad theology of Lent and Easter? Firstly I need to address my assertion that the dominant theological narratives of Lent and Easter are bad. What I am saying is that at this point in my faith journey, I find much of that narrative to be life draining rather than life affirming.

To give you a quick example. One of the collects for next Sunday in the New Zealand Prayer Book begins with the words: Almighty and everliving God, in your tender love towards us you sent your Son to take our nature upon him, and to suffer death upon the cross. This prayer quite happily assumes that because Jesus died on the cross, it was always God’s intent that he would die on the cross. That unhelpful idea, which is frequently articulated through the dominant narrative of the church, is a logical fallacy.

In reading the Gospel of John we must take into account the context out of which that Gospel tradition emerged. In the years following the execution of Jesus, the resurrection narratives grew and developed. By the time the Gospel of John was being written those traditions in part, became assumptions. A key assumption of the Gospel of John was that because the early Christian community had found new freedom through the events of the first Easter, that God must have intended for that to happen. This flawed logic is known as a fallacy of false cause. The Gospel of John suggests that because Jesus died on the cross that God intended for Christ to die in that way. 

Within our tradition there are many ways of understanding the events of Good Friday. For me I see only the depths of human misery. Good Friday calls to mind the dark places in the world where torture and brutality continues to destroy lives. I cannot say prayers that speak of the crucified Jesus stretching out his arms with love. For me such words devalue the suffering and injustice experienced through this bitterly cruel execution. And yet the notion of Christ as atoning sacrifice continues to characterise most Christian thought regarding the cross. 

It is interesting to note that in the Didache, a first century text that explains early Christian practice, that there is no mention of a sacrificial understanding of the cross in the Eucharistic prayers of that time. All of the Eucharistic prayers found in our New Zealand Prayer Book make explicit reference to the saving work of Christ on the cross. When General Synod has been presented with the opportunity to authorise forms of the Eucharist that omit such that understanding or offer alternative understandings, they have been reluctant to do so.

As I understand it, progressive Christianity is a movement that seeks to move us beyond the assumptions of the church that serve some, but not all. There are many Christians who long for creative alternatives to the dominant narratives. To boldly offer new or different thinking is to challenge the dominant narratives and critiques those ideas which threaten to drag the church into idolatry. Creative alternatives also serve to expand the boundaries of this church allowing others the freedom to explore the greater reality, which is God. When Christ summarised the first four of the Ten Commandments with the words, “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength” he was affirming the need for theological creativity.

As Progressive Christians our goal in exploring the creative understandings of the divine cannot be a self-serving means to an end. Our journey with God is a gift not for ourselves but for our church as a whole. Our challenge is to continue to share our thoughts, feelings and experiences of God with the entire church. In doing so the purpose is not to simply subvert the dominant narrative, but rather to expand and enrich it. 

May the members of this community continue to go against the flow, to challenge assumptions, and to make room for those who find membership in the body of Christ challenging.