First / random thoughts so far on Jordan Peterson, We Who Wrestle with God (Penguin, 2024)

First / random thoughts so far on Jordan Peterson, We Who Wrestle with God (Penguin, 2024), intro & pp1-185+, Elijah and Genesis 1 to Noah. DV proper review in due course. 

We Who Wrestle With God: Perceptions of the Divine

Jordan B. Peterson

Allen Lane / Penguin Random House, 2024 (ISBN: 9780241619612 hb, 544pp)

 

Rather as American novelist Marilynne Robinson  has been Reading Genesis (Virago, 2024), so has Canadian psychologist Dr Jordan Peterson been thinking about Old Testament archetypes from a Jungian perspective. (See The Global Anglican 134 (2024) 4 , p379 for a review of Reading Genesis).

 

It would be foolish, in my opinion, if this were the first or only thing that anyone were to read on biblical interpretation, but if Peterson’s online success and previous sales figures are anything to go by, it would be worth pastors being aware of some of the contents of this book. The focus here is a psychological, philosophical, moral and practical reflection. What do these ancient and wonderful stories tell us about what matters most and how to live? These stories have been the foundational wisdom of Western Civilisation and that gives us good reason to listen to them.

 

The fairly extensive endnotes (507-544pp) so far do not suggest that Peterson has engaged with the best modern secondary scholarship on the biblical texts to any great degree (though commentary from Biblehub is sometimes cited). We have had some citations from Wikipedia and various other online sources, as well as Peterson's other work and scientific papers etc. not always consistently e.g. Shakespeare is cited both from online sources and print editions sometimes by Act and Scene and sometimes by page number. Some sources recur multiple times. More radical editing might have eliminated some repetition. Peterson gets surprisingly upset by Chat GPT being nice about the Canaanites (381 and end note 38).

 

Peterson treats the story of Elijah, Genesis, Moses and Jonah. He is surely to be commended for attending to these texts and for appreciating something of their importance.

 

Not a conventional biblical commentary, though it progresses section by section (not verse by verse). Considerably more space is given to language, meaning and story than might often be the case. We often stray some distance from the text and deal with a level of abstraction that some readers may find uncongenial. Peterson reflects on the symbolism of the text, sometimes interacting with fairy tales or other great literature such as Paradise Lost, Faust or Dostoyevsky, as well as some other ancient (e.g. The Odessey)  and popular modern ‘texts’ (Disney, Harry Potter,  super hero films etc.).  

 

Peterson can write, often like a preacher. He is well aware of the Fall and the possibility of hell but he urges us to look from the good or creation to the very good. He writes as one who is conscious that these things matter intensely. Human destiny depends on them.

 

Christ (the Logos) and the Gospels are sometime discussed and we seem to be promised a forthcoming work?

 

Those familiar with Peterson’s previous work will recognise themes of the masculine and feminine, associated with order / structure and chaos / potential respectively. Christ is seen as something of an androgenous figure who includes male and female and / or the figure of Mary is brought into play. 

 

The theory of evolution is presumed and contemporary scientific papers are cited alongside the ancient stories of the Bible. The attention is not to the OT as history but to these stories as a window into what matters most. Peterson can speak of history becoming “fictionalized” not so much in contrast to fact but as an expression of “abstracted meta-truths” (159). We should live as if these stories are true.

 

The divine is the ultimate. And sacrifice is a core principle: we must give up the lesser now for the greater to come. We must look upwards and take up our cross and step forward in faith and hope.

 

You may not always find Peterson’s interpretations totally convincing or think that he has focused on the main thing, but there were certainly times when I found his work more knowledgeable, subtle and sophisticated than I feared it might be. He treats the text with respect. The tellers of these tales are held to be “just as intelligent and wise as we are today – perhaps more so” (130). The focus is on the final form with literal interest e.g. in source criticism or The Documentary Hypothesis. He is aware, for example, that the notion of Israel as a chosen people is not just a matter of nationalistic chauvinism and bigotry and is able to list noble foreigners in the Hebrew canon. Similarly, he knows that Adamic dominion is balanced by texts which warn against tyranny and those which require care (rather than merely use) of animals. Cain’s story is read as another Fall and in contrast to Job and Christ.

 

Given that Peterson is not an Old Testament scholar nor a theologian, he often reads the text insightfully. The Hebrew (which is sometimes transliterated, sometimes given in the Hebrew script only, and sometimes both) is sometimes considered and multiple translations are sometimes given.

 

Peterson is not Reformed and probably not a believer in the conventional sense. The message might be said to be moralistic. We rightly aim for God as the ultimate and the way to him is by sacrifice. The story of Elijah is read as climaxing in the voice of conscience. Much of the history of the OT is a heroic / epic quest. Jacob’s Ladder is read as an encouragement to reach up to the divine.

 

Peterson speaks of divine inspiration of Scripture (103) though not necessarily in an orthodox manner. These stories have been formative for our society. And they have played this role in part because they are ancient and honed stories of the archetypical. In a kind of collaboration between the Logos and God’s image bearers, human beings cherished and evolved those stories which spoke to them of foundational and ultimate things, those stories which helped them to make sense of the world and to walk in it, aiming upwards. These stories came to be seen as essential and canonical.  

 

Sacrifice “as perhaps the most profound and necessary of all truths.” (90) Voluntary assumption of responsibility, an upward aspiration and a willingness to sacrifice for others and the future are essential.

 

Human beings are constituted by personal covenantal contractual relationships, with others, with the future and with the divine. We exist as personalities only in these relations.

 

Peterson argues that all thought, all scientific enquiry, has something of the form of prayer for it is openness to revelation from the divine spirit. It requires humility and a willingness to repent, to admit ignorance and sacrifice old ideas. There must be a death and resurrection, a giving up of old notions for the sake of the new, and a disinterested aiming towards Truth whatever the cost. It turns out the believers and scientist alike must take up their cross and follow the Logos. 

 

Peterson shows a commendable willingness to take responsibility and to encourage it in others. He rightly sees this as a terrible but necessary burden. It is all on you, with God as guide. This seems to be lacking in grace, in the external power of the gospel, in the Christ who comes from the outside to rescue by faith alone. This is too much the gospel of self-help with God as goal and coach. The problem is not so much sin or failure but a bitter and resentful response to such failure which leads to further rebellion against reality and so downwards. The pathway to redemption is humble repentance and willingness to seek to atone and to aim upwards. The supposed good news is that if you bring forth the best that is in you, it will be accepted (128). The ultimate and unforgivable sin, the sin against the Holy Spirit, is the refusal to repent and instead to kill the ideal, which is to murder God and the self.

 

Careful readers will find insights here, though ? dross, refined

 

Let us pray for Peterson and that many will find this book leads them to reflect further on the Scriptures and to meet with Jesus Christ.

 

* * *

 

Sometimes the symbolic interpretations will feel like a stretch. Granted Pharoh is stone-like in his hard-hearted inflexibility, is this really in contrast to Moses who is associated with water and its manipulation?

 

Stories show the weight we give to facts (how we see the world and how we will therefore live). All facts are not equal. It is not even possible to attend to all the facts.

 

Perhaps we like to think of ourselves as neutral observers of facts, judiciously drawing conclusions from all the data. But our perceptions are already value determined. We cannot pay attention to everything so we decide some information is irrelevant and hardly receive it. We tend to see through the lens of a story: a quest, a goal. We see tools or obstacles, helpers or enemies, and a series of objectives. Maybe there is an end pre-programmed into human beings which derives from our nature.  

 

Peterson is known as an anti-woke warrior and in reading the Cain and Abel narrative he comments on politics because he sees here victimhood and supposed victimiser, a narrative especially important to some in our age. The story asks us how we will deal with difference, rivalry and hierarchy. Can there be a good unity between individuals and for societies or is some kind of sectional war inevitable and necessary?

 

Peterson has been lecturing on the bible for years

 

He believes he should live as if God exists

 

The fundamental story is not power, or hedonism, or nihilism but sacrifice.

 

Peterson has sometimes been slippery on the question of the existence of God or the empty tomb. He rightly argues that God is not real like a table is real since God is necessary being and timelessly eternal, “hyper-real”, as Peterson puts it.

 

Work is sacrifice: sacrifice of pleasure now for better reward later. Community is sacrifice of self to others.

 

Aaron at the Golden Calf incident succumbs to a kind of populism and having rejected God the worst of their natures and community rise to the top

 

If we get rid of God, we end up nothing or with a war of the gods or the Strong Man

 

Marriage and children are the stuff of sacrifice and Genesis is a family story

 

Suffering characterises life because of hellish prideful over-read (The Fall)

 

Eve (hyper-compassionate inclusiveness) Adam (desire to impress followed by blame)

 

Collapse into chaos (Noah and the Flood) or the rise of power (Babel)

 

The distinction between man and woman might be the most basic of all biologically and psychologically / symbolically

 

Abraham – increasing sacrificial offering, transformation, new adventures through sacrifice / with God

 

Abaraham it is possible to be a blessing both to yourself and your society and the future

 

Children must be offered up to God and the world and if you do that you get them back. If you don’t they die.

 

The coherence of the biblical story is so deep and profound

 

Peterson thinks he is trying to unite modern science with our deepest stories

 

Post-Enlightenment: there is no escape from the story

 

Large language models give us a hard scientific map of meaning

 

Everything is perceived in relation to the ideal. It turns out Plato was basically right.

 

Every perception is really a micro-narrative. There are no really self-evident facts. It is interpretation all the way down.

 

It seems likely that these stories are being coded into our biology and collective sub-conscious

 

Peterson says he stakes his life on God. He chooses by faith to live as if God exists.

 

Literal minded propositional truth religious types need to remember that God is ineffable. God is beyond time and space and our categories.  

 

Peterson argues that “Karl Marx is Cain to the core” because he saw the world in terms of rigged group conflict (105)

 

God must ultimately remain in some important sense above and beyond human evaluation. In other words, human beings must sometimes adapt themselves to reality rather than expecting the universe to answer to them.

 

Technology / knowledge / mastery by Luciferian intelligence / cleverness / subtlety – technical ability obviously can be good, but it can also be demonic (by way of privation / corruption / parasitical use of the potentially / originally good for lower aims

 

The lone hero heartlessly speaking the truth

 

The symbolism of the rainbow (183) – the full spectrum implicit in a transcendent and heavenly unity – Light as ultimate / order; water as earthly / chaos – diversity in harmony / balance / integration; the divine and the material  

Thought or science as prayer

Dr Jordan B. Peterson argues that all thought, all scientific enquiry, has something of the form of prayer for it is openness to revelation from the divine spirit. It requires humility and a willingness to repent, to admit ignorance and sacrifice old ideas. There must be a death and resurrection, a giving up of old notions for the sake of the new, and a disinterested aiming towards Truth whatever the cost. It turns out the believers and scientist alike must take up their cross and follow the Logos.  

Facts and values

 Perhaps we like to think of ourselves as neutral observers of facts, judiciously drawing conclusions from all the data. 

But our perceptions are already value determined. We cannot pay attention to everything so we decide some information is irrelevant and hardly receive it. We tend to see through the lens of a story: a quest, a goal. We see tools or obstacles, helpers or enemies, and a series of objectives. 

Maybe there is an end pre-programmed into human beings which derives from our nature.  

Your busy time of the year, Vicar!

 

Clergy Christmas Planning Schedule Practical and Psychological, Real and Ideal

Christmas is a big thing and theologically it forms us. You can’t think about it too early or too much, in a way, but perhaps you do. If you try to prepare some things in January, you may well be asked to revert to the person in October. Your Christmas talk may be stale if you make it in August, though the deep freeze can really help you.  

It is always worth keeping your stuff from previous years and having a file on your computer for next year. Quite likely you will think of things this year when it is too late to use them. Or there will be things you think you could improve or try differently. And without your “Next Christmas” file you may forget your good ideas or questions.  

Some things I try to do in January or at any convenient time in the first two thirds of the year. This includes any work on clergy cover and the schedule of the actual services. We need to contact the donkey’s agent early on.

From September, I can feel Christmas really looming. Remembrance and Harvest and winter and a million other things loom so there is a need for some perseverance, jollity and self-care in this term of colds and winter vomiting bugs.

October is our hard deadline to work out details of all our service times, places and blurb so that we can finalise, order and distribute our churches Christmas card programme before the beginning of December, since we do a Christingle on the first Sunday of December. All this needs to go on the website etc. If I were brave, I would even try to update A Church Near You!

December is really focused on Christmas. The first couple of weeks might still have some routine meetings but personally I try not to have chapter, synod etc. in December. If it can wait ‘till January, why not? Though surprisingly if you are ahead on your Christmas prep or not yet quite ready to prepare (maybe you want to be topical or a deadline focuses your mind) there can be some bits of December that are surprisingly quiet.

If you are ordering props etc. for that school assembly, you might need a few more days than you think. Shops can run out of quiet basic items like advent calendars earlier than one might imagine. Amazon can fail.

The build up to the first big carol service is probably when you are really in the zone. For us this is before the Sunday before Christmas. But all this might depend on what else you have and when it falls. We have a regular Wednesday before Christmas service, which of course can be before the Sunday before Christmas!

Maybe your regular day off is impossible the week before Christmas.

Sadly you might just be totally pooped on Christmas day at lunch time. I have had a couple of years where I was bit poorly, couldn’t really be useful / the life and soul / just moved a bit of food around on my plate and went to bed.

Personally I like to take the traditional week off after Christmas, though inevitably it is quiet anyway. Getting away can be a hassle and an expense, but I think it is always worth it if possible. Quite a lot of stuff is closed this week. National Trust membership is wasted!

When you get back to work and the pile of emails has been assessed, its really worth a bit of a review and some notes for next year. It is easy to forget what you wanted to do differently. Maybe others will even have views! You could have a review and planning meeting, if you like that sort of thing.

On Safeguarding and the C of E

 

From The Rectory II

You’ll probably know that The Church of England has again been having terrible trouble with safeguarding. I don’t really want to add to the ink spilled on the subject, but maybe I could say one or two helpful things and then offer some vital theological foundations.

The rights and wrongs of the present cases are complex. The abuse was horrific. That so many were so harmed is awful. That so little was done, that further abuse was not stopped, is utterly lamentable. We cannot say these things often or strongly enough. Our apologies can hardly be sufficient and we must all strive to do better. “Never again”, should be our aim.  

Archbishop Justin has spoken of his sense of shame and has taken personal and institutional responsibility for the many and long-term failings. His resignation became inevitable. He has apologised for his farewell speech in The House of Lords’ which failed to mention victims and survivors of abuse, who must always be uppermost in our thoughts, and which struck the wrong tone. 

Quite a few other people got things wrong, sometimes very seriously so, for a whole host of reasons and motives, some better than others. Some rules and policies were poor. I suspect there are questions for the police too. Co-ordination and communication were weak. Some claimed they thought others had acted or were dealing with things effectively. International co-operation and follow up is obviously vital where relevant. It is for others to adjudicate on all this. And importantly useful work has been done on what lessons can be learnt. There is much more to say, but as I say, others are better placed to discuss it.  

For us in the parish, it is worth us saying that much has changed for the better with regard to safeguarding in The Church of England over the years, as well as in our wider culture and society. No place or institution can ever be totally safe and we must not be complacent, but our parishes and diocese now have much better structures in place. Everyone is on it with regard to the safeguarding of both children and vulnerable adults in a new way. We know this is a top priority for everyone and we are all responsible. DBS checks and training have to happen and are checked up on. And lots of good work has been done to promote a healthy open culture where concerns can be raised and dealt with appropriately. Many parish and diocesan safeguarding officers do a fantastic job. The C of E is continuing to work on all this. There are moves afoot to make safeguarding more independent still.

So to the theology, which is really at heart of what I want to say. I hope this won’t seem like abstract irrelevancies. As the church, of course our theology matters to us and we believe it does and ought to shape the whole way we think and live. For all its failures, the church has a unique contribution to make here. We have fallen short, but we should have been showing the way on loving others wisely, because the Bible gives us the resources and motivations to do so.   

Perhaps two points about the Christian vision can be made.

First, we believe that all human beings, children, the vulnerable, are made in the Image of God. They are therefore of infinite dignity and worth, known and loved beyond measure. Christians above all should look out for the last and the least with love and compassion. Jesus’ care for the lonely, forgotten and vulnerable is well known. Remember how he welcomed the little children and said they should not be hindered in coming to him, though his disciples felt too important and busy. Jesus has some pretty eye-popping things to say about those who allow any harm to come to one of his “little ones” and we ought to look them up and heed them (Matthew 18:6, 10, 14, and similarly in Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2).

Second, the Bible gives us a robust account of sin, our own and others. We can be horrified at temptations we don’t understand or share. They can be, in a way, rightly unthinkable to us. We maybe don’t want to think about them. I can see why, but these things must be faced and named. What if our background and experiences and opportunities were different? Some of us are nice polite middle-class people who can seem to have our lives together much of the time. But dig beneath the surface, poke us enough, and we know that all sorts of wickednesses lurk in our own hearts. The human heart is deceitful above all things. That should be one of our maxims. We could deceive or be deceived. There but for the grace of God…

We don’t want a crazy suspicious conspiracy control freaky sort of culture. In a way, some trust is essential to human relationships and flourishing. But we must be vigilant and open minded. And careful. We need a right kind of curiosity.

Everyone is a sinner. I am a sinner. We are foolish if we think we couldn’t sin or fail in many ways. And we are very much mistaken if we are sure that so and so could never do such and such, or X and Y could never happen here. We need a healthy view of the sin sickness which affects us all, and touches all our groups and institutions, and what protections and measures we are going to have in place.

All are loved. All can be forgiven. But redemption and reconciliation don’t mean that actions are without consequences. All are welcome, but not in a way which makes others unsafe. There is grace – but it is not cheap. Our sins can be covered, but there is no place for cover up. We do not need to manage Jesus’ reputation. What we need is to be genuinely blameless and above reproach in the eyes of all.  

We need to pray for great wisdom and diligence in this area.

Fingers have rightly been pointed. But we should also look to ourselves and the part which we can play in excluding abuse of all sorts and mitigating its consequences.

If this were a meeting not a parish magazine article, I think I might suggest we pause for a moment of silence and then say a prayer.

Almighty God, we look to you on behalf of victims and survivors of abuse.

We pray too for those who have done or failed to prevent terrible things.

And for all those in positions of authority and responsibility.

For all those who seek to care and help.

For your church and her future, and for a hurting world.

May we all know your grace, wisdom, healing and renewal.

May we play our part in building safer churches and cultures. For Jesus’ sake. Amen.

The Revd Marc Lloyd

Our parish safeguarding information can be found here: https://www.warbletonchurch.org.uk/safeguarding/

Or see The Diocese of Chichester site here: https://safeguarding.chichester.anglican.org/

And The Church of England: https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding

The local authority gives information here: https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/social-care/worried/guide-to-safeguarding

And help and support is also available from various organisations such as Childline https://www.childline.org.uk/

The NHS gives useful advice on adults at risk of abuse or neglect: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/help-from-social-services-and-charities/abuse-and-neglect-adults-at-risk/

Luke 3:1-6 Advent 2 Year C Sermon Outline

 

 

Introductions

 

-          Why read these passages (again)?

 

-          Why the excessive introductions?

 

(1) The Jesus of world history: it is really true and changes everything!

 

(2) The John of Old Testament promise: God is speaking and acting again at last!

 

(3) The God of global salvation: repent and receive him!

Parish Magazine Item for The Year of Faith 2025

 

From The Rectory

 

It is the Diocesan Year of Faith! Well, obviously every year is, or ought to be, a Year of Faith. But 2025 is very special for at least two reasons.

First, the global church is celebrating 1700 years since The First Council of Nicaea which was called by the Emperor Constantine in 325AD. Pedants will want to pedant, but the Council was involved in giving us the Nicene Creed. Technically what we traditionally use at every Communion service is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which was promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in 381AD, but we can look forward to celebrating that at a future date!

 

Many books have been and could be written about the Nicene faith. What is the essence of it? The traditional Christian claim is that the Creeds don’t say anything which isn’t taught in or implied by the Scriptures. But the Creed is quite short and the Bible is very long. Creeds provide a convenient summary for teaching purposes. And importantly they respond to the errors of the moment. The Creed was intended to promote Christian unity and truth by including all those of the catholic (“universal”, worldwide) Christian faith and excluding those who had wandered off into heresy.

 

We can get a sense of the heart of the Nicene Creed by comparing it to the shorter so-called Apostles’ Creed, which we also continue to use today. They both tell the same story of the Triune God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, focused on his saving work in Jesus Christ and our vital response of belief, manifested in faith, trust and a changed life. Nicaea goes into more details about who the Son is:

 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father;

through him all things were made.

 

The Son is distinguished from the Father by his eternal relation of origin. The Son is all that the Father is, except Father. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. He is not made. He is not a creature. Arius was wrong to say that the Son was just the best, holiest, most divine of God’s works. Arius thought “there was when he [the Son] was not” but God the Son was not made. He did not come into being. He has always and will always exist, eternally, necessarily. He is not a being but of one Being with the Father. The Father and the Son are never without one another. The Father is not before the Son in time for they are one eternal God.  

 

The word “of one Being” is homoousios in the Greek of the creed. Consubstantial in Latin. This extra-biblical technical terms means of one and the same substance or essence or being. Not that Father and Son are made out of the same third stuff, but that they share or are the same God-ness. They are both God in the same sense. So the Son is God from God, but there are not two Gods.

 

I know it is heady stuff!

 

Homousious (‘same substance’) was contrasted with homoiosious (which means ‘like substance’). And the second is heresy. Notice there is only one “i"s difference – one iota. But the church came to see that this one “i" makes all the difference in the world. Jesus is not just God-like, god-ish, sort of divine, God-lite but God Himself, True God. This is not theological hair splitting but the difference between truth and error, life and death, darkness and light.

 

The one true God is Father, Son and Spirit.

 

And, even if this is somewhat technical, it really matters. Jesus saves us. And only God could save us. If we know Jesus we know God.

 

So, as you can no doubt tell, this is all very important, fun and exciting.

 

Second, there is some Sussex history to celebrate in 2025 too. St Wilfrid evangelised the South Saxons in the Kingdom of Sussex and founded the Diocese of Selsey in 681 AD. This year we’re marking 950 years since the translation of the Cathedral (the Bishop’s seat and mother church of the diocese) from Selsey to Chichester. I think one of the claims to fame of our diocese is that our borders have been perhaps uniquely more less unchanged for almost a thousand years.

 

There is something very special about this combination of global and local. It is this great Christian faith shared by millions around the world that we are seeking to live out in our own way here and now.

 

And with our Christian brothers and sisters of other denominations, we are still seeking to live out the Christian mission to Sussex and the world afresh in our own generation.

 

You can read more about The Year of Faith on the Diocesan website or at: https://celebratingfaith.co.uk/

 

In January and February there will be a special celebration service in each deanery. Ours is at St Mary’s, Hailsham on Tuesday 25 February at 7:30pm with Bishops Martin and Will, followed by refreshments.

 

Also planned during the year are an ecumenical conference and the clergy conference.

 

There will be a Lent Course, a family camp and pilgrimages for young people.

 

The Cathedral has its own special programme of events and is inviting everyone to visit.

 

The Revd Marc Lloyd

Safer Theology for a Safer Church

 If I had more time and expertise, here is a little outline of some things I'd like to do a bit more thinking about:

Safer Theology for a Safer Church? Theological and Practical Reflections on Safeguarding and The Church of England

 

All Christians must be ever vigilant of their life and doctrine but there is a clear need for The Church of England to think and act better regarding safeguarding at the current moment. Some of these issues relate in particular to my own corner of the evangelical tribe within the C of E.

 

Theological Foundations

 

() The dignity and worth of all people as such

 

First things first: Genesis 1-3

 

Theological anthropology and two things at once: totally depraved and totally loved

 

() The evangelistic and pastoral responsibilities of the church

 

Being good news

 

Light Shepherds

 

The rights of individuals: rejecting pastoral oversight and rejecting Jesus

 

() The protective and corrective responsibilities of the state

 

Some particular controversial issues of the moment

 

() Does spiritual abuse exist?

 

Abuse is abuse

 

Abuse is complex: context, nature and methods matter

 

() The New Testament concern for the reputation of the church with outsiders: ought there to be a tension between protecting the people and protecting God’s work?

 

God’s work and our empires

 

True blamelessness: above reproach not covered up

 

Truth and light

 

() Should safeguarding be independent?

 

Everyone’s responsibility

 

Who should do this work and how?

 

Accountable to whom?

 

The peculiar polity of the Church of England

 

Further theological and practical issues

 

() Conservative evangelical strengths and weaknesses

 

-          Women

-          Homosexuality

-          Penal substitutionary atonement

-          Class, old boys and old school ties

 

Conclusion: safeguarding as a gospel issue

 

Assisted dying and Christmas

 Parish Magazine Item for December 

From The Rectory

 

We are praying that all our Christmas services will be full of joy. We hope you’ll join us and find them uplifting experiences. 

 

I’m sorry, in a way, that this item isn’t especially merry. But then nor was the first Christmas. It likely involved, amongst other things, scandal, long and hard journeys, a painful birth, a borrowed manger, plot, escape and murder. We make a mistake, may I suggest, if we imagine that we can all have a couple of months which are all glitter and tinsel.  

 

I want to take this opportunity, if I may, to say something about a difficult but important issue of the moment and then to think about it in the light of Christmas. If you’d rather give this article a miss, I quite understand!

 

The new Labour government has had a flurry of initiatives and announcements. But one of the potentially most consequential events in this parliament will take place on 29^th November as the House of Commons holds its first debate on the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill to allow for the assisted suicide of terminally ill adults in England and Wales.

 

Of course our first response to anyone suffering pain or feeling hopeless must be compassion. We must do all that we can to help.

 

The case against assisted suicide has often been made eloquently, recently so by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. Google will help you find those. Or readers might also be interested in Baron Etchingham’s contributions to this debate in The Spectator: spectator.co.uk/article/not-all-suffering-can-be-relieved-a-debate-on-assisted-dying/

 

Traditionally, Christians have always been strongly opposed to suicide as an act of despair and therefore contrary to Christian faith and hope. We believe that God alone gives life and that we should trust God with our deaths. Christians are for life. Although it is hard for secular society to grasp, we reject the idea that persons are utterly free and autonomous individuals divorced from all connections or loyalties. We belong to God both by creation and redemption. It is not complete to say “It’s my body; it’s my life; I can do what I want.” Speaking actually in the context about how we use our bodies sexually, the Apostle Paul tells believers: “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies.”   

 

As well as this in principle objection, I am pretty terrified by the potential practical problems of such assisted dying legislation. The “right” of terminally ill adults to die might be expanded to teenagers with mental health difficulties. And we can, I suspect, easily imagine that some pressure might be put on (or at least felt by) granny as she clings on to her, we are told, “poor quality of life” in her expensive care home as the grandchildren’s inheritance is put up for sale. If this seems alarmist, we might look at some of the experience of other countries. Or at the theoretical safeguards and procedures around abortion and its practical availability. The statistics give me pause. We might think we are talking about very rare and restricted circumstances, but we might in fact see many many deaths, even if the formal legislation remains apparently preventative.

 

I find it hard to think that assisted suicide will aid the advances in hospice and palliative care that we undoubtedly need. It is perhaps worth saying that ethicists have often accepted the idea that pain relief might legitimately shorten a life if this is a secondary consequence, not the primary aim.

 

Laws such as those which are proposed would radically alter the relationship between patient and doctor. Those who are pledged to preserve life will be dealing in death. Will family doctors also terminate life? Or will offering assisted suicide be a specialism to which some devote all day, every day?

 

Much more could be said, but perhaps Christmas also tells against “euthanasia”. The baby of Bethlehem shows us how much God values human life. God the Son came from heaven for us. He came to mean and difficult circumstances, overshadowed by death. He who made the stary host, was weak and vulnerable. Human life does not matter for what we can do. The Romans were given to infanticide. Babies were disposable. The Christians cherished helpless, crying, spewing babies. The infant Jesus shows us that someone who cannot speak or in fact do anything for themselves can be – is – of infinite worth. Here too, perhaps here especially, is the Image of God, the God who could be made man, made small. Christmas affirms again the dignity and worth of all, including the last and the least. The newborn Christ shows us that the old and the sick are cherished by the Almighty.

 

Jesus was born to die. And at the very heart of the Christian faith is suffering with meaning and purpose. Of course the death of Jesus is unique. But I hope it doesn’t seem glib to say that the cross proclaims that there are worse things even than gruesome pain. Jesus’ death was deliberately terrible and humiliating. No effective pain relief for him. He seems to have rejected that which might have dulled his suffering. And no quick humanitarian end. Soldiers would sometimes break the legs of the victims of crucifixion who lingered on to hasten their death, but this was not needed in Jesus’ case. He had already died when they came to check on him.

 

To the Christian, it is not only all life that has meaning and value. Suffering too can have infinite worth. When a death is horrible, or we are tempted to think it shameful, maybe we can see there a hint of the cross of Christ, which was in reality the wisdom, power and glory of God, for all the agony and seeming futile waste.

 

Whatever we face, pray Christmas might bring us fresh peace and hope.

 

The Revd Marc Lloyd

The prayer huddle

 The Bible speaks of various postures in prayer (standing, kneeling etc.). 

We have just had a few days holiday in Spain. At the departure gate, a group of maybe ten young men from south London formed a prayer huddle - an inward facing circle, arms around one another. 

Good for them, I thought. I'm not sure it would be quite my cup of tea, but it seemed to express a resolve and solidarity: the boys on tour contra mundum. 

1 Corinthians 11vv1-16 - a handout

 

THE CHRISTIAN DRESS CODE

FOR MEN AND WOMEN

FOR CHURCH

(Useful background reading: Genesis 1-3)

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (page 1152)

 

INTRODUCTION: Fasten your seatbelts!

 

Ch 11-14 – the public gathered worship of the church – note v1

 

Difficult and controversial

 

Important and useful

 

Not Christianity 101!

 

True, good and beautiful

 

TWO UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES:

 

(1) Men and women are human: equality

 

 

 

(2) Men are not women; women are not men: difference

 

 

 

IMPLICATIONS: These two principles should be appropriately expressed in life and especially in public worship

 

 

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Hats, haircuts and our contemporary culture

1 Corinthians 5 - an outline / handout

 

The Necessity of Excommunication

 

Chapter 4: Being stewards of the grace of the cross means taking repentance and change seriously that we might be a holy covenant community

 

• A shocking sin (v1)
• The sinfulness of puffed-up acceptance / celebration of sin (v2)
• A serious public clear unrepentant sinner should be “handed over to Satan” (vv3-5)

 

(1) For the sake of the salvation of his soul (v5)

 

(2) For the sake of the purity of the church’s Passover Feast (vv6-12)

 

Good news?

 

Us?

 

(The Book of Common Prayer Communion Service and The Canons of the Church of England - B 16 Of notorious offenders not to be admitted to Holy Communion)

 

On funerals and the Christian gospel

Over the course of my ordained ministry, I must have conducted hundreds of funerals. And yet each one is special and unique. It is always a privilege to be involved. And often I find out something fascinating even about those I have known quite well. There may be periods or areas of their lives that some of us knew nothing about: that service in the Navy, the early job as a baker, the passion of jazz or the prize-winning gymnastics.

 

I can sometimes go quite a long time without taking a funeral and then several seem to come along at once. Recently there have been four. To stand in church with the coffin, or at the graveside, or in the crematorium remains a stark reminder of our mortality. This end will come to us all (unless the Lord Jesus returns speedily).

 

So death and the world to come have been much on my mind. Alongside this, I was also at an event for Christian ministers when we were sitting around discussing the gospel. What is the essential good news of the Lord Jesus which the church is trying to communicate to the world? A number of those present wanted to emphasise the real day-to-day benefits of faith. And quite rightly so. Christianity is not just pie in the sky by and by when we die, but ham where we am. One even audaciously said that giving a hungry person baked beans from the food bank is the good news. Now, I can see that food is good news to the hungry. And they may not be in a place to receive any other message than this tangible demonstration of love. There may be ethical issues too about giving out rice and Christ.

 

But I think we dare not withhold Christ from people – from anyone. Christ is what – whom - the Christian church must always offer. He is our USP. Unless we get to explicitly holding out the real Jesus of the Bible, we might as well join some secular organisation (even if our motivation is quietly “religious” or inspired by the Gospels).

It is essential that we Christian have much to say for this life of course. We believe in life before death. But we must also have something to say about the Last Enemy and the looming eternity. Permit me a lengthy quote from the New Testament because it is directly relevant to these questions: What is the gospel? And what does it say to our dying race? The Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth:

“Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [=Peter], and then to the Twelve [Disciples / Apostles]. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,  and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born….

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians chapter 15, part of verses 1 to 22)”

The whole chapter would repay thoughtful reading. It would be a very suitable passage for a Christian funeral. An essential part of the Christian message is that the crucified Jesus lives as Lord. He gives an indestructible life to any who will trust in him. That coffin is not the end of the story. For those who have faith in Jesus, nothing is in vain.

 

May God bless you with joy and peace in believing both for Wednesday morning and for the ages to come.  

Unburdened by doctrine or served by healthy doctrine?

 Parish Magazine Item for August 2024

From The Rectory

 

I won’t be saying here or from the pulpit how I voted in the general election. Perhaps there is a good case for keeping these things private. You know, discussing religion or politics might end up in an argument! And I shall certainly be praying for our new Prime Minister. I could easily have written about many things Tory or other candidates have said with which I disagree. But I would like to highlight a prominent statement by Sir Keir.

 

Standing on Downing Street, the newly electing PM has promised us "a government unburdened by doctrine." 

 

Charitably, he means he will be pragmatic and not doctrinaire or ideological. 

 

However, a government entirely without doctrine is neither possible nor desirable. 

 

We cannot imagine that, even if his Manifesto was a little thin, Sir Keir will really approach every issue entirely without beliefs and seek to work out what works. We do not believe he has a blank sheet of paper and nor should he. One only has to ask: “What works for whom? To achieve what?” We are back to doctrine. We all have and need these fundamental beliefs and guiding principles.

 

The British Army would tell him that you need your doctrine worked out, understood, shared, applied and open to revision. It is no good turning up in a battle and launching a three-year study with options for how the enemy might be defeated. You will find yourself overcome while you worry about rules of engagement or methods of attack.

 

Even if Sir Keir has a very broad and ill-defined aim such as “the flourishing of the British nation”, he will still need doctrines about what constitutes the good life, who shares in the British nation, and how advancement for many or all might be achieved by governments. Politics actually gets almost theological pretty quickly, it seems to me.

 

We do not want a government burdened by false doctrine, but served by true, good and sound or healthy doctrines, which are open to reformation if there are new arguments or evidence, and which may be adapted to changing circumstances. 

 

Likewise, Christians have sometimes used “doctrine” as a sort of boo-word. It can sound a bit boring or irrelevant. And wouldn’t love be better than dogma? But in fact this is a false dichotomy. Belief and behaviour belong together. Doctrine ought to lead to delight and duty.

 

Granted the church too could be too ideological, doctrinaire and dogmatic. The old slogan: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love” still holds good. There could be inappropriate theological hair-splitting or unreasonable degrees of intellectual enforcement, but these are unlikely to be the main dangers for most of us in the C of E.

 

Our creeds are an attempt (in response to errors of their days) to state some of the most fundamental Christian doctrines. The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed continue to provide a basis for broad Christian unity. We might want to add something about grace and salvation, the cross, the Scriptures or ethics, since these have been matters of great controversy since the early centuries when our creeds were agreed.

 

But I think we (church, army, government, individuals) can all be clear that we need a certain amount health-giving doctrine. We cannot avoid beliefs. The question is where we will get them from and how they will guide us. The church goes back to the Bible, the Word of God written, aided by her traditions and reason, as she seeks doctrines which will serve her common life afresh in this generation.

The Revd Marc Lloyd

"a government unburdened by doctrine"

Standing on Downing Street, the newly electing PM has promised us "a government unburdened by doctrine." 

Charitably, he means he will be pragmatic and not doctrinaire or ideological. 

However, a government entirely without doctrine is neither possible nor desirable. 

We cannot imagine that even if his Manifesto was a little thin, Sir Keir will really approach every issue entirely without beliefs and seek to work out what works. What works for whom? To achieve what? We are back to doctrine. 

The British Army would tell him that you need your doctrine worked out, understood, shared, applied and open to revision. It is no good turning up in a battle and launching a three year study with options for how the enemy might be defeated. 

Even if Sir Keir has a very broad and ill defined aim such as the flourishing of the British nation, he will still need doctrines about what constitutes the good life, who shares in the British nation, and how advancement for many or all might be achieved. 

We do not want a government burdened by false doctrine, but served by true, good and healthy doctrines, which are open to reformation if there are new arguments or evidence, and which may be adapted to changing circumstances. 

Sir Keir also offered actions not words. In a speech. And it would be petty to quibble that words are actions. But let us hope that what Keir does is perhaps a bit better thought through than what he says, or tells us he believes.  

Disagreeing and assuming harmony: reading the Bible again

 I have sometimes been surprised that people more learned and cleverer than me read some Bible texts so differently from the way I do.

Our assumptions or presuppositions make a big difference. 

A huge question is whether we are inclined to read a text in its canonical context (that is, as Holy Scripture) and whether we assume it is in harmony with the rest of the Bible and the Christian tradition of not. If this is the Word of God, we should look for unity in it, whilst acknowledging its rich variety. 

It is obvious that no two texts are exactly the same. If they were there might be little point in having them both. Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John and Mark all have distinctive things to say in their different voices. 

But do we assume that Paul got Jesus wrong? 

That Peter and Paul couldn't agree?

That Paul and James had a different gospel? 

Or that John contradicts Mark?

And that is before we try to bring Old and New Testaments together. 

In my experience, biblical scholars are sometimes especially prone to make a difference into a contradiction unnecessarily. But is a reasonable harmonisation possible? If so, why not embrace it?

A difference of emphasis need not be a repudiation of substance. 

Someone obviously thought that these texts could be read coherently together as they collected them up. 

The great tradition knew about the law of non-contradiction and has affirmed all these texts as infallible. The differences are not a new discovery and were not thought an insurmountable problem or a barrier to affirming all these texts as true. 

Augustine and Aquinas may have erred in many ways, but we should take their sense that the Bible's many voices constitute the voice of God to us seriously. Our Anglican formularies commit us to such a view. The human Scriptures are the Word of God to us - and God does not contradict himself. 

Each bible text enriches our understanding. It qualifies but it does not cross out the other texts.