Stephen's Witness

THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST: Paper Presented at the Divine Commonwealth Conference in Abuja, NIgeria

2012-01-15T10:32:00.000-08:00

Paper presented at The Divine Commonwealth Conference, Abuja, Nigeria 7-11 Nov 2011.

Abstract
This paper focusses on end-time prophecy as it is reflected in the teaching of the Bible and its contemporary relevance and application in the church and society. In particular, the paper examines the message of St. Paul in the two letters to the Thessalonians, as those letters appear in the broader Pauline corpus of writings and indeed their context within the canon of Holy Scripture.St. Paul’s word to the Thessalonians, like that of the wider New Testament teaching, makes clear the reality of the promise that the Lord Jesus Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. At the same time, Paul counsels Christians on how they are to regard their personal future whether they die in the Lord or “meet Him in the air” at the close of this age. He goes on to warn them not to attempt to calculate the time of Christ’s coming and in particular not to disregard their daily work and obligations, in a foolish anticipation that the end is at hand.

Teaching about the end-time is an important part of the biblical Gospel, and embarrassment about this doctrine is one sign of those who have fallen away from that Gospel, as can be seen in many Western churches. However, it is also true that some evangelical and Pentecostal Christians have exalted this teaching to a place above that which is accorded by St. Paul and the New Testament. In doing this, they have distorted the place of Christians in the church and society during this age and have also discredited the truth by speculative time-tables. A perspective which accords with the Anglican understanding of the Bible in the Church provides a strong corrective both to those who have lost confidence in His Coming and those who are over-confident that they know when that Coming will be.

***

I began my pastoral work forty years ago in a church that was experiencing revival. I remember in particular a week-long preaching mission by the well-known Pentecostal leader Derek Prince. Dr. Prince drew good crowds when he spoke about coming to faith in Jesus and walking the Christian walk, but the church was packed to overflowing : when he addressed two other topics: casting out demons and the Rapture of believers in the last days. I suspect there has always been an eager audience of those who would wish to trample down Satan under their feet and to prepare for meeting Jesus Christ in the air.

My topic today is the latter of these teachings, which speaks of the second coming of Christ and the end-times. I shall address it in three parts: An Anglican Approach to the Doctrine, the Substance of the Doctrine, and the Relevance and Application of the Doctrine.

An Anglican Approach to the Doctrine

Belief that “this same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11) has been part of the Church’s basic confession from Pentecost onward. Indeed, we regularly recite in the Creed: “He shall come again in glory to judge both the living and the dead.”The Church’s creeds and confessions focus on those agreed-upon and hence “catholic” teachings that accord with Scripture. While there have been many interpretations of the details of the Second Coming, few there are who deny it. Because of this basic agreement, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism make no additional comments beyond the Creeds. Given some modern denials of this doctrine by scholars and bishops in the West, the recent Jerusalem Declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference did see the importance of reasserting the reality of the Second Coming. It reads:

14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

Let me note that this brief clause includes what theologians refer to as the “already/not yet” character of the coming Kingdom: Jesus, Risen and Ascended, is building up His Kingdom, the Divine Commonwealth, through the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church, even as He prepares to bring in the Kingdom as the final act of history.
In my view, the truth of Christ’s Second Coming and the reality of “the last things” – called eschatology and usually referring to death, judgement, heaven and hell – are essentials of Christian faith. There are also secondary matters of eschatology about which Scripture speaks obliquely and opaquely. Though these other matters may seem secondary to most Christians, they have historically caused a great deal of controversy and even bitterness among believers. The solution to such differences is not to avoid them but to search the Scriptures for guidance, not only on the substance of the last things but on the proper way to live for those who “love His appearing” (2 Timothy 4:8).
Searching the Scriptures in turn leads us to the matter of biblical interpretation. How are we to understand the statements of the Bible about things far beyond our human imagination about the beginning and end of all things? Some people are suspicious of calling for biblical interpretation altogether. “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” is their mantra.
It is, however, characteristic of the Anglican middle way to stand on the authority of Scripture as God’s Word written while maintaining focus on essentials with modesty and openness to its interpretation. Hence Article VI reads:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

In a similar vein, the classic Anglican theologian Richard Hooker writes:

what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit [belief] and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth...

Hooker’s “tripod” of Scripture, reason and tradition is often cited by liberals as an excuse to make of Scripture a “wax nose” that can be bent whichever way they wish to justify their positions.1 This, however, is a misreading of Hooker and the Anglican way. Instead, he commends the primary authority of the “plain sense” of the biblical text in matters of faith and obedience; secondarily, he sees “right reason,” i.e., the mind created in God’s image and led by the Spirit as an important instrument in “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). Finally, he argues for hermeneutical modesty in supposing that “the Church,” i.e., the heritage of earlier biblical exegetes, should guide the current exegesis.
The tradition of interpretation is not merely external to Scripture but is internal in what the late Professor Brevard Childs calls “canonical shaping.” Prof. Childs argues that the biblical authors themselves understood that their particular “scripture” was an inspired thread of a larger fabric, “the Holy Scriptures.” Hence interpreters must recognize and respect any particular text in the context of the whole Bible and especially in the context of the Bible as a two-testament work. Once again, this approach is clear in Article VI, which links “proof” texts with consistent meaning (“neither may [the Church] so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”). Likewise, Article VII lists the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the overall literary context in which such texts are to be understood.

The Substance of the Doctrine

My focus in this paper will be on St. Paul’s two Letters to the Church at Thessalonica. Why should we turn to them to understand better the apostolic teaching on the end-times? One obvious reason, of course, is that they contain specific texts on the subject. But it goes a bit further than this. In these two Letters, Paul himself chooses to address the subject, if not systematically then at least centrally and repeatedly. By addressing diverse topics that appeared in the apostolic church, the various writings in the New Testament reveal the “manifold wisdom” of God and lay the foundation for the creeds and doctrine of the Church.

Let me attempt a broad-brush survey of the New Testament to show how this works. In the Gospels, we find the narrative life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be the heart and centre of God’s new act of salvation. In the Acts of the Apostles, we see the spread of the Gospel though the apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the Epistles we find apostolic teaching about Christian faith and life. This teaching is not presented systematically, as in John Calvin’s Institutes, but occasionally as the need arises in the life of the early church. The nature and full implications of justification by faith, for instance, are necessitated by the Judaizers in Galatia who said faith and law could be dual pillars of identity in Christ. Questions of Christian morality were answered as they arose at Corinth.

In the case of the Thessalonian letters, the primary issue has to do with the proper teaching regarding the Coming of Christ and the end-times. It is clear from Paul’s repeated reference to his earlier teaching that some instruction about Christ’s Coming and the end-time was part of basic Christian doctrine or catechesis received at conversion and baptism. To look at a parallel example from his first Letter to Corinth, Paul had already instructed the Corinthians about the resurrection of the dead but had to go back over it with them and expand it in chapter 15. With the Thessalonians, it appears Paul had to repeat himself twice on the subject of the end-times: hence the two consecutive letters written not too far apart in time.

Now none of the “dogmas” of apostles stand in splendid isolation from the practical question for Christians of “how now shall we live.” Looking at the situation in Thessalonica, we can identify several key features of the community that led to the questions about eschatology. Paul himself describes the Thessalonian church in this way: “You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 1:6). From this we learn that a) they were an apostolic church, recognizing St. Paul as their founding father and seeking to “imitate” his example and teaching; b) they were an afflicted church under regular persecution from the day Paul arrived and thereafter (cf. Acts 17:1-7); and c) they were a charismatic church, experiencing, even in the midst of affliction, supernatural joy through the Holy Spirit. They were not too different from the church in Philadelphia addressed by John the Divine years later (Revelation 3:7-13). As in the case of Philadelphia, the primary message to the Thessalonians is: “I am coming soon; hold fast to what you have, so that no one can seize your crown.”

It is an irony of our human nature, I think, that truth often bears like a coin an opposite or “flip” side, and this flip side can distort and finally destroy the plain truth. So while the assurance “Jesus is coming soon” seems clear enough, it can bring and did bring anxieties and illusions that threatened the very life of the church at Thessalonica. The anxieties clustered around the “soon” part of Christ’s Coming. There were those whose faith was being tested, even unto death, who prayed with the Psalmist, “How long, O Lord!” There were others who wondered whether those who had died before the End might fail to see the Last Day. The illusions clustered around a spirit-filled conviction that the Day of the Lord had already come. While this conviction wore a victorious face, it also bred a disdain for everyday acts of work and love.

So let us now turn to key texts in which Paul addresses these anxieties and illusions:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)

The church in Thessalonica had existed only a few months by the time Paul wrote this. While it is possible that in that short time someone there had died of natural causes, it is equally possible that the persecution that had begun on Paul’s visit had continued and some believers had been martyred for their faith. The belief that the martyrs will stand before the throne may seem obvious to us who look back with the Book of Revelation in hand and from the perspective of two thousand year honour roll of that noble army, but for the Thessalonians it is a first-time crisis: how do we regard those who die before the End comes? This crisis may have been made worse if they had interpreted Paul’s teaching on the Second Coming to mean that it would come immediately or even that it had already come and was an event of the past. Distracted by grief, they had expected that the Day of the Lord would arrive before any had died.

Paul’s pastoral reply focusses on the key Christian virtue of hope. You may grieve for the departed, he says, as is humanly natural, but not as those who have no hope.2 The ancient world had no hope for the dead beyond the mythical shades in Hades or the philosopher’s immortality of the soul. The proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection – to the academics at Athens and to the tradesmen at Corinth – turned that world upside down (Acts 17:6). For Paul Jesus’ Resurrection is the “first-fruit of those who sleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20), and the general resurrection will necessarily follow, at which time God will judge the world and all men through Jesus (Acts 18:31).

Paul is not interested in explaining in detail the state of those who have fallen asleep, but the Church has generally understood that the souls of the departed live on, whether fully conscious or “asleep” in the presence of God, until their bodies are reconstituted and rejoined with their souls at the resurrection (cf. Luke 16:20-25; 23:43; Revelation 6:9; 20:4). What is important for Paul is the truth that no benefit of Christ’s death and resurrection will be withheld from those who die before His Second Coming. Paul now supplements his basic teaching “by a word from the Lord” and presents a vision of the dead and those still alive rising up together to meet the Lord Jesus when He comes in glory. The so-called “rapture” – being caught up to meet the Lord in mid-air – requires a transformation of the mortal body into immortality – how else could we fly? - but it is not so much that we are whisked into heaven, but rather that we rush to welcome Christ as He returns to His kingdom on earth.3 Paul says nothing about the state of non-Christians during this event, but it is implied that they will be judged and have no part of this kingdom. Neither does he say anything about a thousand-year reign, though he does speak obliquely elsewhere of an interim reign of Christ, “when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power” (1Corinthians 15:24). What is important in Paul’s view is that all believers know for sure that “we will always be with the Lord.” What more can we possibly ask than to live eternally in the presence and glory of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

Paul now moves from the anxieties over those who have died to the illusions of those who think the Day has already come.

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. 5 For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. 6 So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. 9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. 11 Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-11)

He begins by recalling Jesus’ own teaching about watchfulness:

“But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Luke 12:39-40)

Jesus and Paul are both drawing on a chain of Old Testament prophecies to the effect that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly (Amos 5:18-20). Unlike the Prophets, who foresee a Day of Darkness, Paul sees the Day as one of Light and the new people of God not being judged but redeemed because they have already entered by faith into the Kingdom of Light.

Paul moves on from our status to our obligations. As we are children of light, we should not act like those who spend their nights in slothful slumber or in wanton drunkenness. He had earlier reminded his converts that Christians put away sexual immorality and that they love one another by aspiring to live quietly, minding their own affairs and working with their hands (1 Thessalonians 4:2-12). Unlike the Corinthians, the softer sins of the flesh were not the besetting problem at Thessalonica, and Paul does not mention them again in his second follow-up letter. Idleness, however, is another matter. His first word to them is what we might call positive reinforcement. Be what you are, children of light, Paul says, and encourage one another to live up to your calling! He leaves the matter to them in hopes that they will self-correct.

Unfortunately, Paul’s first mild exhortation was not enough, as Timothy reported back after another visit to the city. Indeed the germs of idleness had sprung up into weeds. To make it worse, the slackers were claiming that their inactivity was due to Paul’s own teaching. So he writes a second letter on this subject, rebuking the idlers more openly.

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)

The main error, Paul says, is the idea that the Day of the Lord has already come. Possibly this idea was circulated by way of prophecy. We know that prophecy was a vital feature of worship in the apostolic churches, and prophecy often looks to future events. Prophets speak with great authority from the Lord and the Holy Spirit. Sometimes prophets reapply existing teaching, and so perhaps a prophet twisted Paul’s teaching on the Coming of Christ. At Corinth, Paul explains at some length that while prophecy is preferable to inarticulate utterances in tongues, even prophecy is to be judged by others with the gift of discernment, and that the guiding rule for using all gifts is the rule of love (1 Corinthians 14:12-33). Paul’s guidance to the Thessalonians is briefer but much the same: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21).

Since some had apparently abused his authority, Paul now puts his teaching down in writing, and signs the letter with his own hand (2 Thessalonians 3:14-17). In the process, he expands his original catechesis with more detail on the events of the End-time.

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only the Restrainer will continue until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false… (2 Thessalonians 2:4-11)

Paul clarified one matter – that the Day has not come – but he added some other matters that are rather obscure to us in our day. Who is the “Man of lawlessness” (verse 3)4, also known as the “Son of Destruction” and the “Lawless One” (verse 9)? What is the “mystery of lawlessness” (verse 7)? Who is the “Restrainer” (verse 7)? While the detailed description of these forces is obscure, the overall depiction of them and their activity is reasonably certain. The “Man of Lawlessness” is agent or incarnation of Satan. Paul describes his activity primarily in religious terms as an anti-Christ: making himself the object of false worship and bearer of a false gospel. He is also the anti-Spirit, performing bogus miracles and deluding unbelievers.

The “Restrainer” is the force of worldly Government, sometimes identified in the New Testament as “principalities and powers” (Ephesians 3:10). Government, though part of the fallen world order, is established by God to restrain evil (Romans 13:1-4). The “mystery of lawlessness” is the spiritual battle of law and order with lawlessness and destruction. Government is corruptible and ultimately subject to the Prince of this world. Hence Christians, while honouring Caesar, must not put our final trust in him and must be prepared to contend against him when he acts as an agent of evil (Ephesians 6:12).

Paul now outlines the timetable of the end-time in order to refute those who have used his name in promoting the idea that the End has already come. On the contrary, Paul says, the End cannot come until the final battle between law and lawlessness, order and chaos, has occurred. In personal terms, we know that Paul was frequently wronged by the civil authorities; at the same time, Paul proclaimed his citizenship in the Roman commonwealth and finally exercised his right to appeal his case to Caesar. Clearly he believed the church was living in the middle of history: the spiritual battle was engaged, but the final victory had not yet been fought and won.

Having clarified and expanded emphatically his original teaching on the end-time, Paul exhorts the believers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).5

Next Paul goes on to warn explicitly against idleness:

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. 13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-14)

Let me make two comments about this warning. The first is that Paul advocates a kind of “excommunication” for those who refuse to work. It is not full excommunication from the church or the Communion table; rather, it is excommunication from charity. It seems likely that the idle folks at Thessalonica were also appearing to be so super-spiritual that they could demand alms from others. They were, as the saying goes, so heavenly-minded as to be of no earthly good. They were not the real poor, but voluntary mendicants, like some of the friars who flooded Europe in the late middle ages. Sorry, Paul says, but we don’t give to able-bodied beggars.

My second point is that Paul does not put full-time church workers – the clergy of his day – in the category of the idle. He makes the point frequently that he chose to work for his keep to make certain that the Gospel he preached was itself free to all. However, he also says that it is his right to be supported, a right that he has voluntarily renounced. He makes clear to the Corinthians that it is the Lord Jesus’ own command that “those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14). I think he implies the same instruction to the Thessalonians, saying:

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).

I have seen plenty of lazy clergy in my day, and they fill the pages of English novels, and I suspect Paul would not have kind words for them. But I have also seen hard-working clergy, particularly parish priests, who have not received the honour or the pay which they deserve from their congregations or from their superiors in the hierarchy.
In his two letters to the Thessalonians Paul has clarified a doctrine – the Second Coming of Christ – and issued a moral command – that none should use the expectation of the End as an excuse not to work.
Before I conclude, let me return to my image of the whole cloth of Scripture with many threads. I said that the Thessalonian letters represent the most direct teaching on the Second Coming. One other book presents the Second Coming in the form of a prophetic vision: the Revelation to John. In my opinion, John’s vision, though vastly expanded from Paul’s references, follows the same basic substance:

Christ is certainly coming soon.
A spiritual battle is engaged even now between the forces of God and of Satan, the Dragon, during which Christians will be killed for their testimony to Jesus.
The tipping point of the battle will come when the Dragon overwhelms the powers of Government and Religion, turning them into the Beast and the False Prophet.
When the whole world has succumbed to the power of the Satanic Trinity, Christ, the Rider on the white horse, will come and defeat him and his minions.
There will follow an interim period when all those who have lost their lives will be restored to earth and reign with Christ for a thousand years.6
Then will follow the final resurrection, last judgement, and the transformation of the created order, the New Heaven and New Earth.

Relevance and Application of the Doctrine

I am not sure how the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ is taught and believed in the Church of Nigeria. I suspect that the classic view of the Creed is shared by most Christians. You should be grateful for this consensus: it is not true for Western Christians and Anglicans. Take a bishop like John Spong, the Episcopal bishop who commented at Lambeth 1998 that African Anglicans held primitive beliefs about the Bible because they were so recently come in from the forest. Anyway, here he is attacking the straw man: Jesus the space alien:

We need to look at Jesus not as a divine invader from outer space, but as a human life that is so completely full, he becomes a channel through which all of what we call God can flow. And he can flow in you and me.

And again:

So the mythical religious language of a finished creation, the fall, original sin and the need for a rescuing God becomes language out of touch with our present perception of reality. The loss of this mythical framework has also rendered meaningless the normative portrait of Jesus as the divine rescuer, and the story of the cross as the sacrifice designed to pay the price of sin. Those concepts are rapidly becoming all but nonsensical.

And here he is on hell:

There is no hell; hell is an invention of the church. The church hates like hell to give up hell because hell is a means of controlling the hoi polloi and the church is in the business of controlling people!

Bishop Spong is a huckster of religious modernism. At the same time he is a bishop in good standing in the Episcopal Church. Many so-called moderates in the Church would claim to have a more nuanced position on Christ’s return, but nuance is a dodge and when push comes to shove, they too have lost the anchor of hope that Paul and the New Testament hold out to all who believe. Let it be clearly stated: it is because of the wholesale denial of the Christian faith – not just homosexuality – that many of us have left the Episcopal Church.

There is a second danger in eschatological thinking, I think, which may be closer to the situation Paul addressed and more pertinent in Africa. Often, teaching on the End-time is part and parcel of the “health-and-wealth Gospel,” which says “Christ has suffered so that I might prosper” and “God wants to give you anything you want if you have faith enough to ask.” One hears this message mainly from Pentecostal evangelists, but it can also crop up in the traditional churches. What it has in common with Thessalonica is this: it presumes that the realities of the End-time are already in full effect, where there will be no more weeping or poverty or death. It also involves teaching that the Rapture is coming at a set time and will whisk believers away from the troubles that beset them. I would not say that people who hold this view are necessarily lazy, but I have seen super-religious people spend a lot more time attending prayer meetings and fellowships than working with their hands or minds.

The health-and-wealth Gospel is especially destructive when it comes to facing death. Early in my ministry I was called to the bedside of a man dying of cancer. He and his wife were being ministered to by a Pentecostal pastor who assured them that if they had enough faith, the man would be healed. He even pretended to see marked improvement in the man’s condition, when in fact he was sinking lower by the day. Finally, the man died. The pastor did not say anything, the man departed ill-prepared for death and the wife went away bitter because she felt God had let them down.
St. Paul, through the Scripture, would instruct us today that we who have believed in Christ are chosen from all eternity and that we have assurance of being with Him for all eternity whether we die or whether we are alive at His Coming. The Second Coming of Christ is a “comfortable” doctrine of the Church to be believed even in the midst of trouble; it is also an event in cosmic history to be anticipated with joy and celebrated in hymns of praise. So I leave you with these majestic verses of faith and hope from the popular hymn by Daniel Whittle:

I know not why God’s wondrous grace
To me He hath made known,
Nor why, unworthy, Christ in love
Redeemed me for His own.

But I know Whom I have believèd,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.

I know not when my Lord may come,
At night or noonday fair,
Nor if I walk the vale with Him,
Or meet Him in the air.

Notes
1 J. V. Langmead Casserly wrote in Toward a Theology of History (London. 1965) p. 116: “Modern biblical scholarship has proved itself so insipid and unstimulating. We are confronted with the paradox of a way of studying the word of God out of which no word of God ever seems to come, with an imposing modern knowledge of the Bible which seems quite incapable of saying anything biblical or thinking biblically.”

2 Note Paul’s own anticipated grief over Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:27.

3 Greeting a returning conqueror is a feature of Roman “triumphal processions,” but Romans were not the only ones to do so. Think of the crowd greeting the Coming King on Palm Sunday.

4 Note some texts say “man of sin,” but this almost certainly is a scribal error.

5 Permit me a detour here regarding the Church of Nigeria. I have observed that the Church is remarkably faithful to its founding traditions, which can be seen in the guilds, the hymns, even the smart attire. At a critical moment in the Lambeth 1998 Human Sexuality debate, Bishop Bishop Peter Adebiyi of Nigeria held up a Bible and said:

The CMS [Church Missionary Society] brought Christianity to Western Africa about 150 years ago. And when the CMS came, they brought the Bible, telling us that what they believe is what has come from the word of God. And so, our forefathers meticulously accepted the Christian faith and religion that was tied to the word of God and the Scriptures. Therefore, we accept the Scripture as the most authentic thing we should follow, rather than our intelligence or the way we are naturalistically.

6 I think there are two valid interpretations of the millennium. Pre-millenialists see the millennium as an historical period prior to the last judgement. Amillenialists see the thousand years as a symbol of God’s restoring the Adamic lifespan to the faithful who were cut off before their time. Post-millenialism, in my opinion, confuses the “already” aspect of eschatology with the “not yet.” At its worst, post-millenialism leads to a smugness that things are getting better and better, an idea that motivated turn of the century progressivism prior to the Great War. “Dispensationalism,” which derives from Charles Nelson Darby and is widespread in Pentecostal and fundamentalist circles, is pre-millenial in form but shares the smugness in assuming Christians will avoid the tribulations of the end-time through rapture to meet the Lord in the air, leaving cars to crash and breakfast burning on the cooker.

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, lecture 1

2010-10-23T06:00:00.000-07:00

Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount and Some Parables of Jesus

Note: The following series of Bible exposition on the teaching of Jesus was given to students at Uganda Christian University during the January term 2008.

Introduction

It is commonly said “Religion and politics do not mix.” This idea comes both from clergy and from politicians. The clergy say, “Politics is worldly and unworthy of our attention.” Politicians say: “When clergy speak on politics, preaching turns to meddling.” No doubt there is some truth to these common sayings, and we shall see why. But in another way, the attempt to separate religion from politics runs directly contrary to the teaching of Scripture, even of Jesus himself.

Politics and the Kingdom of God

The word politics comes from the Greek word for “city” or polis. Normally we think of a city as a sub-unit of a larger entity, of the nation or the state. However, the Greeks believed that the moderate-sized city was the ideal forum for human development to take place. The Greek idea of politics began with places like Athens and Sparta and was then spread around the Greco-Roman world by Alexander the Great and the Romans. St. Paul had a political strategy in the sense that his mission was aimed at key cities like Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth and Rome.

The Old Testament speaks of cities too, one in particular: Jerusalem, David’s city. The old city of Jerusalem is about a square mile, surrounded by walls that have been built over centuries, from David’s time to the present. The old city is divided into Christian, Muslim and Jewish quarters. Jews stand at the Wailing Wall, praying for the day when the Temple will be restored. Above this wall rises old Temple Mount, occupied by two Islamic shrines, among the holiest to Muslims. Wars have raged over control of Jerusalem, and world leaders in succession have tried to mediate a settlement over claims to the City – to no avail.

Six hundred years before Christ, the city of Jerusalem fell to the great empires: first to the Babylonians, then to the Persians, then to the Greeks and finally to the Romans. Politics – the art of managing a city – was swallowed up by empire-building. In one respect, this development reflected a biblical theme: that God is Lord of all the earth. So when Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God, it was less a matter of city politics than a universal dominion.

Having said that, let me add that Jesus’ notion of God’s kingdom is significantly different from that of Rome or other empires. “You say you are a king,” Pilate asked, and did not wait for any answer. Although Pilate failed to see Jesus Kingdom as a threat, nevertheless, he crucified him with a mocking inscription: “King of the Jews.”

The thesis of these meditations is that Jesus not only claimed to be King, Messiah, and to bring God’s Kingdom into this world but that he also had some specific teaching about the nature of that Kingdom, and it is of practical importance for Christians in living their lives in today’s world.

Preparation for the Kingdom

The Gospel of Matthew introduces us to the birth of the Messiah in the days of Herod the King. Herod was a builder of monuments: he built a pagan city Caesarea, dedicated to the Emperor Caesar Augustus and to the Goddess Roma. He also rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem, dedicated to the God of Israel. In fact, these were also monuments to his pride. Needless to say, Herod suffered no competition. When Herod heard that a child-king was to be born in Bethlehem, he took no compunction in killing all the male-children in the town. But Jesus had escaped, and Herod died soon after.

Thirty years later, Jesus came preaching: “The Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Gospel.” We might immediately jump to the conclusion that Jesus’ announcement of the Kingdom is a spiritual matter, that he is proclaiming a spiritual fellowship, or if you will the church. And this is partially true. But I think we may be too quick to miss the political overtones of this announcement.

When Jews of the first century looked for a Messiah, they had very specific and, if you will, worldly ideas of what he would be like. They saw him coming as a warrior like David, defeating their pagan oppressors. Jesus noted that many “messiahs” would arise claiming “I am he,” and most of these were political rebels against Rome. In 132, a Jewish leader who called himself “Bar Kokhba,” “Son of the Star,” led another futile revolt against Rome. There is today a walled up gate in the Jerusalem city gate, and Jews believe that when Messiah comes, he gate will open to receive him.

Now to be sure, Jesus was merely a carpenter’s son from Nazareth, but when he began to preach and to do miracles, his words and actions had clear public overtones. His healing miracles were simultaneously a sign of great power but also pointed to the fact that his kingdom was one of shalom, of peace and wholeness.

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount follows directly from his first preaching ministry. Matthew wants us to know that the Gospel of the Kingdom has a particular content, which is contained in the Lord’s teaching. The nature of this teaching is also captured in Jesus’ first parable, the Parable of the Sower or of the Soils.

Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop-- a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 13:3-9)

Jesus himself interprets the parable, and we learn that the sower’s seed is the message of the Kingdom. The parable is particularly focused on how people receive that message – or don’t. Because there are three kinds of people (soils) who do not accept the message, we may conclude that Jesus’ teaching is intended only for a tiny audience, a secret society of believers. But I think that misses the point. Note how he says the good soil – the person who does receive his word will produce 30-, 60- or 100-fold returns. Now what are the returns? I think the most obvious answer is: other disciples. So the farmer is not wastefully scattering his seed. He is purposefully planting a well-prepared field, from which some seed, but by no means the majority, is lost on bad ground.

My point is this. Politics involves a whole “commonwealth,” a body of citizens. If Jesus’ teaching of the kingdom was intended for a chosen few, it would not be political but gnostic, occult. But indeed his picture of the productive crop is hardly defeatist, especially when we think that a fruitful field will produce many more seeds to fertilize other fields.

There is one more point about the Parable of the Sower. I said it has to do with how people receive the teaching of Jesus. Jesus sums this up in the phrase: “He who has ears, let him hear.” What does this mean? Well, obviously we all have physical ears, so he must be referring to an inner ear. Some people will hear the sound of Jesus’ voice and it will stop there. Others will hear the sound, think about it, and then act on it. There is a famous Scripture Collect which says:

Almighty God, who has caused all Holy Scripture to be written for our learning: Grant that we may in such wise read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word we may embrace and ever hold fast the hope of everlasting life…

“Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest…” That is what Jesus says is necessary to absorb his teaching of the Kingdom and to produce good fruit. In one sense this sounds obvious, but in another it is revolutionary. Jesus is saying that when people internalize his teaching it will change their lives for ever and they will then go on to change the society in which they live.

The Christian Gospel is intended be transformative. Now many Revival Christians (balokole) would agree with this assessment. When Christ comes into your life, you are a changed person, a new creation. However, the parable is not only about individual ears – ears to hear, ears of corn – but of a whole field of ears. Revival Christians have not been so clear about the wider social and political implications of this teaching. For instance, when one hears about the recent violence in Kenya, some will say: “well, what to do you expect from unconverted people.” Some will say: “we should just pray for a spirit of repentance to come over people.” These responses are not wrong, but I am not sure they are complete. They tend to treat Jesus’ teaching as a private possession, between me and my God. They also tend to cause Christians to be indecisive or inactive in the political affairs of the day.

I shall not be taking the route of the so-called “social gospel,” which reduces the teaching of Jesus merely to ethical advice or aligns it with a particular political ideology like socialism. But I am going to suggest that Jesus’ teaching has real political implications, and indeed that it has already transformed the way people think today, whether they know it or not, about how to relate to their neighbours.

Next week we shall look at the Beatitudes, where Jesus describes the character of those who have had ears and heard, those who have received the seed of the Good News and brought forth good fruit.

16 January 2008

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, lecture 2

2010-10-23T05:30:00.000-07:00

Lecture 2: The Beatitudes

In last week’s meditation, I argued that Jesus’ preaching of the “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of heaven” was not simply a private spiritual teaching, but a collective vision for a new society. This society or “commonwealth” (the Latin synonym for commonwealth is “republic”) is portrayed as a fertile field to be sown with a new idea, the seed of God’s word. This word, while it may be rejected by some for various reasons, will be gladly accepted by others who will multiply it and spread it.

Citizens of the Kingdom

Ancient political thinkers like Aristotle spoke of various types of government or “regimes” as aiming to produce a certain kind of persons. A Kingdom, for instance, produces “subjects” who are obedient to the Sovereign. Aristocracies, or rule by the few, produce a class of elite “gentlemen” who earn the right to rule. Democracies, rule by the many, require general education to produce responsible citizens. In all cases, the “fruit” of a certain kind of government is seen in the people it produces.

I mentioned in the first meditation that the core of Jesus’ political teaching is found in the Sermon on the Mount, which Matthew features at the beginning of his Gospel. The Sermon on the Mount is a bit like a nation’s Constitution, laying out the general principles and rules of governance. In that case, the Beatitudes function as the Preamble to that Constitution. What is interesting is that this preamble features a description of the kind of citizen that the Kingdom of God will produce or educate.

Jesus commends the citizens of the Kingdom by calling them “blessed.” The word “blessed” connotes spiritual blessing, but it also has a more secular sense of prosperity or happiness. So one could translate them to say “Happy are those who live this way, and their way of life will prosper.” This thought is in keeping with the Psalmist who says: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the way of the wicked…, but his delight is in the law of the Lord” (Psalm 1). Being happy, according to Jesus, is not superficial, what some people today call “happy-clappy,” but a deep contentment of being in the will of God.

Classes of Citizens

The Beatitudes are a description of civic types, or maybe, more accurately, classes of citizens. These classes of citizens are not a matter of rank but of situation and disposition. Some people may not be able to rise above their situation; others may not find the will to do so. But Jesus does in a sense commend that every citizen seek the highest level, what he calls “perfection.”

I am going to group these classes in this way:

1. The Poor – those who are unable to help themselves
2. The Achievers – those who take action and make a difference
3. The Martyrs – those who are persecuted for the Kingdom

Let’s look at these classes one by one.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (verse 3)

This first group, called simply “the poor” in Luke’s Gospel, are those who are trodden down in life by their economic and social condition. In the ancient world, slaves would usually be in this category, as well as many women. Jesus does not guarantee that they will rise above this condition in this life; elsewhere he says “the poor will always be with you.” But he does promise them a place in his Kingdom, indeed in the world to come.

The second group are the “mourners”:

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. (verse 4)

Whereas the poor are in a state of long-term or permanent destitution, mourners are seriously debilitated for a time but they recover. Jesus notes that many people go through periods of mourning and I would include in this category other crises, like loss of a job or failure on examinations. These people will find comfort, not only in the world to come, but in this life.

These first two groups are folk who are included in the commonwealth but are not actively spreading it because of their condition. Their plight highlights another group of people, those who oppress the poor and those who mock the mournful. In Luke’s version, Jesus makes clear that they will have no place in His Kingdom.

But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. 25 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. (Luke 6:24-25)

The great sin of these people is that they live by outward status rather than inner righteousness. Thus Jesus points out:

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. (Luke 6:26)

There is nothing intrinsically bad about being wealthy or well-fed, but there is something lethal about flaunting one’s wealth or status before others. Jesus’ kingdom is meant to be internalized in a set of attitudes. This kingdom has no room for arrogance and ostentation.

The first two classes – the poor and the mourners – are burdened down by life. The next two classes – the meek and the seekers – represent a transition to a more responsible life.

The third beatitude speaks of the “meek”:

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. (verses 5-6)

The meek or simple ones are those who live in contentment. They accept the good things of life as from the hand of God. They do not demand too much, nor are they overly downcast by life’s little disappointments. They may represent the majority of “ordinary people” who say their prayers as Jesus taught. They will inherit the earth in two senses. Because they do not demand too much, they are satisfied in the present. In addition, they can expect a final inheritance from God for their patience.

If the meek are contented with their lot, the seekers most definitely are not. Hunger and thirst are very strong passions that motivate people to do great and desperate feats. To hunger and thirst for righteousness is a matter of positive ambition. It is not wrong to strive for things when they are the things of God. Jesus identifies “righteousness” in particular as such a thing, and we shall find out as we go along just what that righteousness is. To achieve great things for God and the world, one must have a certain restlessness or disquiet with the status quo. Jesus sees this attitude as transitional to the higher civic virtues.

The next three beatitudes represent the kind of things that those who strive for righteousness can accomplish:

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. (verses 7-9)

Merciful people are those who reach out from their own sense of inner righteousness to forgive others. It is not natural to take initiative toward those who are under your feet, much less to those who have offended you. But that is exactly what the merciful do. The pure in heart are those who act with conscientious freedom. St. Paul often boasts that he has a good conscience before God. This is does not mean that one is sinless, but that acceptance by God leads one to an inner freedom – “seeing God” - that results in acts of love. Finally, peacemakers are those who can bring peace between individuals and within societies where naturally no peace can exist. Here is the remedy for tribalism: people acting mercifully and peaceably toward their neighbours because they know themselves above all a “son of God.”

Opposition

Jesus’ portrait of the new citizens may seem very appealing, even rosy, as if all will be well, or as if the end-time kingdom has dawned on earth. But this is not a full picture. Jesus knows the evil in the human heart, and he knows that the proud of this world will not simply surrender to the new regime. Indeed, many will not only resist the citizens but the founder himself. Hence he ends his beatitudes with two stern types of martyr.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. (verses 10-11)

The first martyrs we might call secular martyrs – people like Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, who stand for righteous and pay a price for this stand. The second type is the Christian martyr, who dies explicitly for his faith in Jesus. Both have a place in the Kingdom. Just as the poor and the mourners are promised an end-time reversal of fortune, so also the martyrs are to be cheerful even amidst their persecutions, knowing that they are in a special company of God’s elect.

Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (verse 12)

Salt and Light

Taken together the citizens of the kingdom of whatever class are to have an impact on the world around them. Jesus uses the vivid images of salt and light, both substances which are both pure and powerful. The citizens of the kingdom, in their different capacities will both preserve and spice the affairs of this life (salt) and will spread its influences as far as the sun shines its rays. They cannot lose their essential qualities; their kingdom cannot fail.

Traditionally, such a commonwealth has been identified with the Church as the forerunner of the end-time Kingdom. This is correct so far as it goes, but we must also note that the Church itself is to be an ever-lively, ever-expanding vehicle of God’s grace and word. And it is not enough for the church just to do “spiritual” tasks. It is to impact all of life “of the earth” and “in the world.”

We are called to be citizens of this commonwealth by manifesting the fruits and virtues which are our rights and duties.

23 January 2008

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, lecture 3

2010-10-23T05:00:00.000-07:00

Lecture 3: Jesus and the Law

Jesus in the Beatitudes has painted a portrait of a new kind of citizen of the Kingdom of God, indeed a new kind of citizenship.

Now, as he continues to teach in the Sermon on the Mount, he turns to compare this new citizen and citizenship with the old model. That is the model of the law-abiding citizen and the rule of law. The radical nature of Jesus’ political teaching emerges when we consider that He dares to challenge what most people in most ages consider to be the undisputed model of justice: obedience to the laws. Of course, there is the Nazi problem: what if someone obeys bad laws. Jesus does not take the easy way out by saying He is bringing a better law. Indeed He takes on the Law of Moses itself, a law which comes direct from the mouth of God and which is therefore indisputably just and worthy of obedience.

Jesus begins his teaching in chapter 5 by acknowledging the dignity of the Law of Sinai.

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (verses 17-18)

By adding the phrase and the prophets, Jesus makes clear that His teaching is not only to be compared with the letter of the Law, which could perhaps be twisted into a cramped legalism. No, He has come to fulfill the prophets’ negative judgements of the Law against the kingdoms of ancient Israel and their positive visions of a restored Israel. Even these visions, to the extent they are based on law-keeping, Jesus says, will be imperfect.

Is Jesus dreaming of a kind of Marxist utopia, where the laws and the state have withered away? No, at least not immediately. Jesus notes that the Law will not pass away until all is accomplished. What does this phrase mean? Jesus does not explain it here, but we can gain insight from His great interpreter, St. Paul.

For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified. (Romans 10:4)

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)

For St. Paul, Christ Himself is the end of the Law and His love is its fulfillment. But let us remember that Paul is writing from the far side of the Cross and Resurrection and coming of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is preparing the people for the Kingdom, but He is a realist in thinking that it can only come in after a fulfilling Act by the King Himself. Having admitted as much, He is preparing them for a kind of obedience which the world has never seen:

Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (verses 19-20)

I take the reference to these commandments to be ambiguous. Does it point backward to the Law of Moses, or forward to Jesus’ new teachings? The answer is, in a sense, both, because Jesus claims that His teaching fulfills the Law in a way which exceeds the best Judaism could offer – the careful law-keeping of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus does not consider them hypocrites because they do not try to keep the Law. He rejects them because they are sinners, and no sinner will be righteous before God.

Once again Jesus’ teaching leads us to St. Paul, who said:

So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Romans 7:12-14)

We shall only be able to understand Jesus’ seemingly impossible demands for perfection when we also see that he shares Paul’s premise that man is bound by sin. Jesus says later in passing, “If you being evil….” (Matthew 7:11). In other words, our problem with the law has to do with the problem of our evil heart, an area which the law can barely touch and sometimes even makes us worse, “sinful beyond all measure.”

Case Studies in the Law of Love

So Jesus is a realist in judging that the failure to obey the Law is a failure of the heart. However, He is not finished – God is not finished – with the heart. In the Beatitudes, He paints a portrait of the virtuous citizen of the coming Kingdom. In the next section (verses 21-48), he gives us five case studies comparing the functioning of the Law of Moses and the law of Love. Let us look briefly at these, beginning with murder.

"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. (verses 21-26)

Jesus recognizes that sinful men will continually resent and hate their rivals and that this hatred will lead to murder. This chain of violence applies not only to individuals but to clans and nations, who will take up arms at some perceived offence. Jesus proposes that such angry, self-righteous people look into their own hearts and see that there is seldom a clear matter of right and wrong. If both sides begin to look at things Jesus’ way, they can find a mediated settlement that will avoid hatred and killing and lay a foundation for lasting peace.

Next he turns to sexual immorality.

"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. "It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (verses 27-32)

Once again, Jesus calls those who would solve matters of sexual infidelity by resort to legal means to look within their own heart. The problem of adultery is the problem of lust. Every man (and here I mean especially males) knows this problem: looking on a woman other than one’s wife with an evil eye. Elsewhere Jesus said to a group of men: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Jesus does not deny the reality of temptation, but He teaches that by taking up radical action against one’s own inclination – plucking out one’s eye or cutting off one’s hand – the disciple can resist the lust that leads to adultery. And in a society of citizens where marital fidelity is honoured, the need for legal divorce will be minimal.

Next He turns to oaths.

"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply `Yes' or `No'; anything more than this comes from evil. (verses 33-37)

Today people are less likely to utter oaths, but we still resort to various means of claiming that we speak the truth. Jesus suggests that the person who needs an oath will at other times be a liar, or at least a semi-liar. Don’t you know people who would not perhaps “tell a whopper of a lie” but who regularly shade the truth? Jesus wants the Christian to be single-minded in truth-telling so that “your whole body will be full of light” (6:22).

Now we turn to what must be the most striking and difficult of Jesus’ commandments, revenge and hatred.

"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. (verses 38-42)

"You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (verses 43-47)

The underpinning of the Law is the principle of retribution, called lex talionis: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.” The principle of retribution has two elements held in tension. The first element involves payback. If someone hurts you, the law hurts them back. Note here a civilizing element. It is the law, not you, that pays back the enemy. The second element involves proportionality: the law pays back the opponent in proportion to the offence: “Let the punishment fit the crime.” Properly framed law is just in demanding proportional payback. Indeed, it is far superior to individual vengeance, or vigilante justice, which is the alternative in primitive societies or in times of chaos.

Jesus, however, sees in this law a vicious circle, maybe not of physical violence, but of legal contentiousness. You strike me, I strike you back. You sue me, I sue you back. In the West today, we speak of the “litigious society,” where one person will take a neighbour to court at the drop of a hat. When they are not defending their clients at the bar, lawyers are drafting liability clauses to preclude such suits. A litigious society is one where people are not inclined to work out their differences amicably but rather to exact the “exact pound of flesh,” like Shakespeare’s Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.

Over against this way of the Law, Jesus’ way teaches us to “turn the other cheek,” not as a gesture of submission to a wrongdoer, but as a claim to stand above him. Shame cultures depend on external marks of honour; Jesus proposes that citizens have their honour, their righteousness in the heart, where no evildoer can enter. This can apply in “criminal case” – turning the other cheek to violence or “civil cases” – giving up a coat to a false claimant.

Now let me return briefly to the communal, i.e., the political, side of Jesus’ teaching. He foresees a society of individuals who will “fulfill the Law” by internalizing its demands and by forgoing its retributions. By doing this, the new citizens show forth a higher righteousness – Jesus calls it perfection. In so doing, they also open a door to others, both righteous and unrighteous who are snared in back-and-forth ways of sin and death.

I wish I had time to apply this teaching more exactly to the problem of tribal rivalries, as they are appearing in Kenya. Let me just say that the Church must show a better way, a way that breaks the iron law of “you hurt my relatives” and “you took my land.” This will not be easy to do, especially if the Church does not have its own house in order. For us here in Uganda, the troubles in Kenya should come as a warning to commit ourselves to Jesus’ way, personally, in our families, and in our University. The season of Lent is a good time to make a new beginning.

20 February 2008

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, lecture 4

2010-10-23T04:30:00.000-07:00

Lecture 4: Practicing One’s Piety

From speaking about ethical activity, to which we can easily relate, and communal activity, which is the domain of politics, Jesus turns to another domain in Matthew, chapter 6: the spiritual life. From the Jewish point of view, however, practicing one’s piety is a political activity. The Law of Moses commands certain religious observances, of praying, of festivals of tithing. Indeed the first five Commandments of Moses deal with religious practice, “loving God” as well as loving the neighbour.

Jesus assumes that his hearers do practice their piety. In this sense, he is “preaching to the choir,” just as I am speaking to those today who have bothered get up early and come to chapel. Outward observance is the starting point of Jesus’ teaching. While there may be elements of His teaching that commend “doing things in secret,” it would be a mistake to think that He is rejecting public worship, whether feasting or fasting, or communal almsgiving. Certainly, the Church from its very beginning gathered together for these activities.

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers…. And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. (Acts 2:42,44-47)

So Jesus is assuming they know that they ought to pray and to fast and to give alms. What He wishes to do is clarify the motivation for such piety and in the process to change the way His disciples carry out these practices.

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 6:1).

The key contrast here is between the phrase before men in order to be seen by them and the phrase from your Father who is in heaven. Jesus’ reference to the Father in heaven is His own distinctive teaching. It is found mainly in the Gospels of Matthew and John, but here it is especially concentrated, occurring ten times in one chapter. There are a couple things about Jesus’ teaching about the Father which may seem commonplace to us who have lived under that teaching for centuries but were not so in the first century and even now in other religions. The first is that God is personally related to the believer, as father to son. This is a striking new thing even within Judaism which knew God as the personal father of the nation. Secondly, Jesus suggests that this relationship is interior – the Father is “in secret,” the Father “already knows our needs before we ask.” What an incredible idea that the Father is simultaneously in heaven and secretly seeing the heart. It reminds me of a chorus we sing here: “heaven is in my heart.”

So this raises the question: if the Father is already in our heart, why pray, fast or give alms, publicly at least? Is it not enough for God to know our good intentions? Let’s look at Jesus’ teaching in these areas to see why it is not enough.

First we come to almsgiving, acts of charity.

"Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (verses 2-4)

Jesus makes a distinction between the disciple and the hypocrite. What is it? It is that the hypocrite is acting a part in order to receive honour and praise. The disciple, on the other hand, is acting on the inner stage where the only audience is the heavenly Father. Now let us confess that very often we act from mixed motives. I sometimes give a little help to a needy student or staff member. I don’t advertise this (well, I guess I am right now), but there is a satisfaction of thinking the person who received the help will know and be grateful to God – and to me! According to Jesus, such mixed motives are a false gift: you give something and you get something back. You give with your right hand and take back honour with the left. Ouch! This duplicity is very hard to avoid, but Jesus demands it so that we shall be no respecter of persons in our charity toward others. This teaching also forms the basis for a kind of disinterested philanthropy, which is practiced by the best of donors.

Now we turn to prayer.

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. (verse 5)

The same logic applies to public prayer by hypocrites. They pray to be seen; hence they have their reward in the praise they get in return. Jesus is not condemning public worship but rather ostentatiousness within that worship. I think a clear example of ostentatiousness is the way in which people march up the aisle at harambes or church auctions to put their money in the basket. They want to be seen to be giving. Their reward is earthly, says Jesus, but it does not register in heaven. In terms of “heaping up empty phrases,” I wonder if this might not apply to some of our choruses that go on and on about how much we love God and Jesus.

Let’s move on to the content of the Lord’s Prayer. Let me begin by questioning whether it is right to call it the “Family Prayer.” Is it meant to be recited in the home, or with the church family? Perhaps, but there is a wider political scope as well.

Notice the first petition: Your kingdom come, on earth as in heaven. Certainly petition has a wide scope of the coming order. Indeed all the petitions use the plural “we” and “us” in addressing “our Father.” It is the praying community not just the individual. This praying community is looking out not only for its own but for others. How can they pray for daily bread without asking it for others. If God sends his rain on the just and the just, surely they should pray for the bread to be shared around. Similarly, Jesus has already suggested that we should be settling debts before we get to court, even with our adversaries. And the temptations which we resist, are they not often directed against those who would harm us, who would strike us on the cheek?

So while Jesus’ Prayer may be said by the church family, it is directed toward the whole community who live under the reign of the Father. One change that has entered into Anglican liturgies is the “prayer for the State of Christ’s Church.” In most modern prayers, we pray for the Church and the world. This seems right. How can we not pray for peace in Kenya, even as we pray for the leaders of the church to play their role in national reconciliation?

Jesus returns to the question of money at the end of the chapter. At first he was concerned about giving money, but now he turns to keeping it. In one sense it is obvious that you cannot be much of a philanthropist if you don’t any income and you spend it all on immediate needs. So one might wonder if Jesus is commending a kind of monastic life, where a person renounces possessions altogether. Maybe for some, but this is not Jesus larger political purpose.

Jesus observes that much economic activity and care goes into “insurance,” making provision for the uncertain future. He says that just as mixed motive in distributing alms puts the giver at the mercy of those who bestow honour or gratitude, so piling up income to protect oneself from economic disaster is a distraction from the work of the Kingdom. He says:

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (verses 19-21)

Let me be straightforward. Jesus is not opposed to people being wealthy, but he does see the rich of the world as having a heavy burden, the burden of handling Mammon’s currency. Those who are poor don’t notice this, but wealthy people are constantly bombarded with appeals for money. More often than not, they develop strategies for rationalizing their financial portfolio, which can include “tithing” a portion of the interest to charity. The problem is, they almost always assume they have a right to the principal. We can see such a person in the “rich young ruler” who came to Jesus. He was an upright citizen, no doubt giving his alms according to the Law. But when Jesus him (and loved him), He asked him to give up all that he had. The man’s sorrowful look revealed where his treasure really lay – with Mammon and not with God.

In one way, this hording of treasure is ironic, because we all know we shall die, sooner or later, and we cannot take our money with us. The Preacher in Ecclesiastes says: “I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me.” (Eccles 2:18). We may wonder at his attitude, but in fact some modern philanthropists like Bill Gates have determined that it is not healthy to leave your riches to your children. It is like passing on a golden but poisoned apple.

Jesus poses an alternative way at looking at worldly possessions, or rather not looking at possessions. He suggests a person should focus his eye on something else.

"The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

The problem with aiming to be rich is – you may only get rich. If you aim to do something else – to design a new computer processor or visit in a hospital ward – you may get rich, more likely for the first than the second, or you may not. But you will receive a reward from the heavenly Father.

We were talking two weeks ago about those who volunteer for ministry and mission in the Church. It is not likely that they will become wealthy by doing so. They are, by the way, entitled to adequate payment, but they should accept the “wages” of the work before they set their hand to the plough. And they should do so with trust in the Father who supplies food for the birds of the air and garb for the lilied of the field.

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day. (verses 33-34).

Sometimes I have heard it said Africans have a natural tendency toward fatalism. If someone dies, he dies. If the programme starts late, it starts late. If there is no pay this month, make do. I suspect such an attitude reflects the uncertainties of life in many cultures of the world. Jesus is counseling a kind of contentment with what you have, but he is not proposing laziness or sloppiness in one’s activity. After all, the birds are pretty busy hopping around all day, even as God feeds them. No, Jesus says that the disciple is to seek – that’s a strong, active word – he is to seek first and foremost the kingdom of God. Missionaries like Bishop Tucker who came to Uganda in the 1880s trusted their lives, usually rather short lives, to God, but they were also very hard-working and long-suffering under various illnesses and disabilities.

So what is Jesus’ picture of a society which practices its piety? It is a society of people who are modest and generous with their worldly goods, who are regular in public worship and diligent in private prayer and fasting, who are accepting of what life brings but hard-working toward the goals of God. If the Church is such a society, Jesus says, the kingdom will begin to come on earth, even as we pray in the Lord’s Prayer.

30 January 2008

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, lecture 5

2010-10-23T04:00:00.000-07:00

Lecture 5: Loving Your Neighbour, Knowing Yourself

We come now in chapter 7 of the Sermon on the Mount to the heart of Jesus’ political teaching: the so-called Golden Rule: “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (verse 12). Note how He says that this Golden Rule sums up the whole of the Law and prophets. That cannot help but remind us of one His other most famous sayings: the Summary of the Law.

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40)

Clearly these two famous sayings of Jesus are related, but how? Many people have wondered why Jesus compares love for one’s neighbour with love for oneself. Perhaps he simply assumes that a human being will look out for his own welfare and He is asking that person to extend the same kind of regard for others. That makes some sense. I have heard some people try to say that Jesus is commanding us first to love our selves and then others. Or maybe we can put it another way: if you have a low self-image, you may not have what it takes to reach out to others. This also makes some sense.

I want to push this thought a bit further. “Love your neighbour as yourself” requires us to know ourselves, for how can you love someone you do not know? The philosopher Socrates described the whole purpose of life in these words: “Know thyself.” For Socrates, self-knowledge involved a life-long quest for wisdom, or philosophy. Jesus too calls his disciples to a life-long journey, but it is different because it begins with a revelation that our identity is bound up in God; our identity is bound up with Jesus. Maybe this is why the first great commandment must precede the second. We can only know ourselves when we know ourselves in God. St. Paul puts it this way: “I am crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

So what is it that we know about ourselves when we know ourselves in God, in Jesus Christ. The first thing we know is that we are sinners, that our self-love is “naturally” curved in on itself. Hence, it is not enough to love oneself in the modern therapeutic sense. It may be true that it is difficult for people with low self-esteem to sort out dying to self from mere self-hatred. Nevertheless, it is only when we die to self that we can truly live (cf. Mark 8:36). The robust attitude of the publican in Jesus’ parable is our model: “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner” (Luke 18:10-14). When we know and confess ourselves to be sinners, we can also accept God’s judgment that we are sons of God. We are justified by His Son and we have become heirs. Hence, to know oneself is to know oneself approved and righteous in His eyes. Jesus said of the publican: “he went down to his house righteous.” Nothing had changed in his outward status. He was still a despised publican in the eyes of society. But in God’s eyes, he was a saint.

So we know ourselves to be both sinners and saints. What then are we to do with this knowledge in the political sphere. Here is where the Golden Rule comes in: “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.” Jesus is asking his disciples to treat others in the way that they would wish to be treated. This is possible only when they understand that they have been treated mercifully by God. Again, one thinks of Jesus’ parable of the ungrateful servant, who had been forgiven a large debt by his Master: “Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?” (Matthew 18:33).

The key to the Golden Rule is the ability to put one’s own consciousness into the consciousness of the other. But to do this requires several different ways of approaching the neighbour.

Be slow in judging.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get” (7:1-2). I think one of the most useful insights into ethical and pastoral situations is the distinction between “first-person perspective” and “third- person perspective.” (Grammatically “I” is the first person, and “he or she” is the third person.) In Jesus’ teaching, disciples are to take a strict attitude toward their own lives (“first person”), e.g., when He says “You must be perfect.” Jesus does not allow us to be lenient toward our own sins. We are not to say: “Well, yes, I do sin, but I am no worse than anyone else.” But with regard to our neighbour (“third person”), Jesus counsels that we be slow to judge, that we turn the other cheek, avoid lawsuits, and forgive them seventy times seven.

Why should we not judge our neighbour as strictly as we do ourselves? One reason is that we are not authorized to do so. God is judge, not us. Another reason, which is why we are not judges, is that we are constitutionally biased in our own favour. We are inclined by sin to see the speck in our neighbour’s eye and miss the log in our own. Hence it is better to take a “hands off” attitude toward others’ behaviour and leave it to God to judge, or perhaps even to let them judge themselves. St. Paul restates Jesus’ teaching in this way: "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." (Romans 12:20). By “heaping burning coals on his head,” Paul may mean that the person will be convicted in his conscience and repent (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:5).

There is an added bonus in not judging, according to the Golden Rule. Not only are we biased in overlooking our own sins; we would also like to be treated better than others. Who would not prefer the pleasant surprise of getting a higher seat at table or a better mark on an exam? Now the Golden Rule says this: if you would like to see special favours and advantages for yourself, then give them to others. This is the basis of the “win-win” philosophy of management, seeing how you can give others an advantage and in so doing getting an advantage yourself.

William Shakespeare considers Jesus’ counsel of non-judging in two plays, one titled Measure for Measure and the other The Merchant of Venice. In the latter play, we find Shylock the Jew demanding strict repayment from Antonio, the merchant of Venice, of his pound of flesh, i.e., to forfeit his life. A mediator appears, the lady Portia robed as a lawyer, and in a famous speech she pleads with Shylock to voluntarily give up his claim:

The quality of mercy is not strained,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest -
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes….
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest to God’s
When mercy seasons justice… (Act IV, scene 1)

Sadly, Shylock refuses her plea, saying, “I crave the law!” In so doing, he brings judgement down on himself. But we are reminded before this that Shylock’s vengeful attitude is a reflection of his isolation in the Christian society, where he is considered a “Jew dog.” It is the failure of Christians to live according to Jesus’ teaching that frames the context of Shylock’s vengefulness.

Be persistent in seeking the welfare of others.

Loving the neighbour Jesus’ way will not bring instant rewards. Some people like Shylock will not repent until they feel the burning consequences of their own sins on their heads. Some may never turn back. So Jesus warns: "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you" (verse 6). There are times when the law must be enforced on law-breakers and in which one must act in a way that may appear “un-Christian” because their hearts are hardened.

Knowing the obstacles, however, Jesus encourages an attitude of persistence in extending His teaching of the Kingdom. “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened” (verse 7-8). The Greek language has a continuative voice by which it is better to translate verse 7 as: “Keep asking… go on seeking… continue knocking…” Changing people’s heart and changing society is not a matter of a moment’s success but of patient endurance of many trials and tribulations.

The story of Nelson Mandela can be a political object lesson to us in Africa. Having been imprisoned for 27 years, Mandela accepted an invitation to tea with P.W. Botha on 5 July 1989, which he describes in this way in his Autobiography:

From the opposite side of his grand office PW Botha walked towards me. He had planned his march perfectly, for we met exactly half way. He had his hand out and was smiling broadly, and in fact from that very first moment he completely disarmed me. He was unfailingly courteous, deferential and friendly.

One commentator is amazed at Mandela’s grace, saying:

Botha was a killer. Mandela knew that, but he found it in him to forgive him. As he forgave the whole of white South Africa. As if accepting somewhere in his heart that all was fair in love and war. If Mandela went beyond forgiveness to respect, and maybe even something approaching admiration, it is because he understood… it was Botha and not de Klerk who had carried out the greatest act of political courage; who, for all his sins, had given Mandela the opportunity to explore the route of peaceful negotiations, to meet on a level political playing-field.

Mandela had waited many long years for this opening, and he was not going to squander it. Ironically, Mandela and Botha, each in his own way, had been influenced by the teaching of Jesus, and that opened the door to national reconciliation.

Be focused in following.

This leads us to the third characteristic of following the Golden Rule: to be focused in following.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (verses 13-14)

It is one thing to be persistent; it is another to be focused. Jesus teaches his disciples to pursue the Kingdom of God by walking a straight path. I know Africans are said to have special night vision; I don’t, and I find sometimes walking at night that I need to focus on some light in the far distance and then keep my feet pointed in that direction. The same is true of Christian discipleship, which one writer refers to as a “long obedience in the same direction.”

As political wisdom, Jesus is saying something like Steven Covey’s advice that “the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” Let me give a political application of this principle from my own country. You may have heard the sentence from the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Now this statement is not found in the U.S. Constitution nor in its laws; indeed the Constitution and laws compromised this principle in the case of slaves, and after slavery of black Americans. But it was from the principle of liberty and equality that Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves and that Martin Luther King compelled the end of legal discrimination against blacks. Both Lincoln and King were Bible-readers and I think we saw the teaching of the Declaration as being “not far” from that of the Golden Rule.

Jesus’ teaching in the Golden Rule is not narrow in the sense that it is meant only for a small group of enthusiasts. It is to be the foundational teaching of the Church. Jesus’ teaching even reaches beyond the church into the secular sphere; it has wider political implications, whether for Nelson Mandela or the United States of America. I believe it is essential for African Christians to change the consciousness that sees the other person, the other tribe, in terms of “what he did to me” or “what he deserves” to rather “what I would hope he would do to me in return.” That is our particular challenge here. We breathe a sigh of relief that a way forward has been found in our neighbour Kenya, but we must also learn that without a true change of tribal consciousness, we shall not see the true peace and justice of the Kingdom of God. Our house will be built upon the sand, not the Rock, which is Christ and his Word.

5 March 2008

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, lecture 6

2010-10-23T03:30:00.000-07:00

Lecture 6: Jesus, the Portal, the Plantation, the Palace

In the last lecture, I emphasized the central role which the Golden Rule plays in Jesus’ politics: the sense in which we can only love others when we can extend our own (selfish) perspective to include our neighbour. While the Golden Rule sounds simple, it has earthshaking implications for all human interactions, which is the basis of politics.

We are all familiar with our Lord’s words: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6). However, in the conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount, he describes Himself and His teaching in slightly different way, a way that is perhaps a bit more relevant to the political dimension of his mission. Jesus concludes his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount with three metaphors for the Kingdom: what I am calling God’s Portal, God’s Plantation and God’s Palace.

Jesus, God’s Portal

The first image Jesus gives is from city architecture.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Jesus uses two words here: one is gate or portal, the other is road or path. Ancient cities used to have a main entrance gate or portal, a tower-like structure that was heavily fortified and sometimes it was narrow with a jog in it to prevent enemy chariots from coming through. Inside this entry gate would be another area called the city gate, a kind of plaza or reception area. Obviously, the road would run up to the gate, but the access to the city might be quite restricted. Perhaps this is the image Jesus is using here. The wide gate might characterize a poorly designed, militarily vulnerable city – or worse yet, a city whose walls had been breached.

So Jesus is warning that to accept his teaching requires focus – I mentioned this last time – and commitment. One has to follow the road-map and also be prepared to go through the proper gate. The road map is Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon, and the gate may be the Golden Rule. Of course, there is another sense in which the gate is Jesus Himself. You cannot follow along the way without following Jesus as the Way. This requires conversion – giving one’s life to Jesus Christ. That is the starting point. When one enters the narrow door, the interior gate is actually spacious inside the city walls. In other words, Jesus is promising there will be plenty of room for people to live once they have come into the Kingdom. The expanding nature of the Kingdom is captured by the parable of the Mustard Seed. So the gate access is narrow, but the gate area is wide and wonderful.

Jesus, God’s Plantation

Having addressed the question of access to the Kingdom as a path and a portal, Jesus now turns to its distinctive products. To make this clear, he turns to imagery from agriculture.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. (verses 15-20)

Jesus anticipates that His teaching will become so acceptable that there will be teachers claiming to represent it who do not. They are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” It is not enough to say that you speak for Jesus or even to quote his words. Rather, Jesus argues, “you will know them by their fruits.”

Bearing fruit is a natural process for any tree. It is necessary for flourishing and reproduction. Jesus looks to the results of His teaching in order to authenticate the content. It is not enough to say “I love God and then hate your brother” (1 John 4:20). It is not enough to say “Go and be warmed” to a poor man who needs your help and then do nothing to help (James 2:16). Jesus takes a results orientation to discipleship. This is not to say we are justified by our works, but it does explain James’s statement that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).

When we think of a tree bearing fruit, we rightly identify ourselves with the tree, and we understand that we are to bring forth good fruits (plural) continually. It may be that some people bear a specific kind of fruit, e.g., hospitality or financial acumen or music ability. However, looking at the image politically, I would suggest that we think of an orchard of trees, or maybe better a larger plantation of many orchards. A plantation is a functional enterprise. It is the kind of enterprise which this country needs if it is to market its abundant crops. Spiritually speaking, the plantation represents a community involved in a variety of works of love. This was the reputation of the early Christian church, that they shared their goods with each other, that they welcomed strangers and outcasts. “They will know we are Christian s by our love,” says the song. Think of a beautiful plantation of trees – mangoes, avocadoes, pineapples, oranges – all loaded down with ripe fruit. That is what the Kingdom of God looks like, says Jesus.

Jesus, God’s Palace

Jesus now wraps up his political teaching in the Sermon with a description of the kingdom in architectural terms:

"Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it." (verses 24-27)

Tying in with the previous image, Jesus makes clear that the wise builder both hears the teaching and acts on it (bears fruit). That builder Jesus says will have chosen a bedrock foundation, which cannot be moved by the elements. On the other hand, the false prophets and false disciples may hear or even repeat His words, but they do not put them into practice. Their commitment and their fruits will fail and be lost, like a house built on sand.

Again, if we expand this image of the house to the political realm, we cannot but think of the great royal palaces and the Temple of God in Jerusalem. Solomon’s temple, for instance, was founded on a rock outcropping thought to be Mount Moriah, where Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac. That rock is still visible under the Muslim shrine called the Dome of the Rock.

Now all political regimes have a theological foundation. Most cities have a myth of a divine founder or at least a divinely inspired man. Most national anthems, like Uganda’s, refer to God as upholding the regime: “Oh Uganda, may God uphold thee…” We have had an astounding development in the political race in USA. The pastor of Barack Obama’s church preached a sermon in which he said: “I don’t say we should sing ‘God bless America,” but rather ‘God damn America.” Obama has had to denounce these words and distance himself from the pastor. To deny the divine foundation of government is a serious charge indeed.

Now of course much invoking of God by politicians is hypocritical. Indeed Jesus suggests that worldly politics is often building castles in the sand. But there is a truth political lip service to God, and that is that any political order must have a foundation in a common truth accepted by all citizens. Jesus claims that His teaching is the true foundation of a new order, the Kingdom of God. When people begin to love their neighbour as themselves, when they begin to treat others as they would be treated, then something new and permanent emerges. After its emergence, nothing else will do.

And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. (verses 28-29)

Jesus is God’s Portal, God’s Plantation, God’s Palace by virtue of His teaching. The crowds recognized this immediately, “for He taught them as one who had authority” (Mark 1:27). This authority was that of the Heavenly Father, in whom He dwells bodily. Jesus Christ is the Portal, Plantation and Palace through his Personal work on the Cross whereby He freed us from the Kingdom of Darkness and qualified us to be citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven (Colossians 1:12-13). As He entered into the Kingdom of Heaven through the gates of death on the Cross, so we are called to enter in the same way.

One of our great Anglican Collects for Holy Week sums up this truth about the way of the Cross and the cost of discipleship:

Almighty God, whose most dear Son went not up to joy before He suffered pain and entered not into glory before He was crucified, mercifully grant that we, walking in the way of the Cross, may find it none other than the way of life and peace, through the same Your Son Jesus Christ, to whom with You and the Holy Spirit be all glory, now and for ever. AMEN

19 March 2008

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, lecture 7

2010-10-23T03:00:00.000-07:00

Lecture 7: Parables and Sayings of the Kingdom

We have been sketching Jesus’ politics in the Sermon on the Mount, with its quick summary in the Golden Rule: do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”; or alternatively the Great Commandment: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Jesus’ parables and other sayings complement this teaching. Note how the parables begin with the phrase: “The kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven is like…” In other words, the parables are directed to the same subject matter as the Sermon. Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon is straightforward and didactic. We now turn to His parables, where we find much of the same teaching through illustration and riddle.

The Extension of the Kingdom

We have already seen that although Jesus’ teaching requires commitment, entering in by the narrow gate, it is not intended for a tiny band but for a political regime, the Kingdom of Heaven. In his first parable, Jesus describes the Kingdom this way:

Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop-- a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 13:3-9)

I suspect we are all familiar with this parable of the Sower or of the Soils. We can get easily distracted by the fact that three kinds of seed do not sprout to fruition while only one kind does. But look, a farmer is not going to intentionally sow his seed in bad places. He will have prepared the ground to receive the good seed. So we should concentrate on the fruitful harvest – 100 or 60 or 30 times the original seedlings.

What is the secret to being part of the good soil. Jesus puts it this way: “He who has ears, let him hear,” Jesus says. This little saying is making the point that you can hear words with your outward ear but not understand their meaning and not act on them. True hearing involves hearing, understanding and obeying. Now Jesus goes on to say that because of the hardness of the human heart many people refuse to hear as they ought. But His disciples have been given full hearing. And as they hear, they are like the good soil, and they produce good seed of their own. Indeed they become sowers themselves, just as Jesus says He will take fishermen and make them fishers of men. This is what happened to the apostles. After three years with Jesus, they went out in the power of the Spirit and did even greater – not mightier, but more extensive – works than the Lord himself. And in this way the Gospel spread from country to country, from field to field. And the means of propagation was the same: not physical force but the force of persuasion of the Word, of the Gospel.
The Absolute Worth of the Kingdom

The key to right understanding of Jesus’ Word is to realize its absolute worth. Jesus tells the simple parables of the man who found treasure in a plot of land and sold all he had to get it. In possessing the treasure of the Gospel, he had to sell all he had (Matthew 13:44). This “all” comes in different forms. For some it is money. This was Jesus message to the Rich Young Ruler, who kept all the Law: “If you would be perfect, sell all you have and follow me” (Matthew 19:21). This man, sadly, was owned by his wealth rather than owner of it, and he went away downcast. Then there is giving up of power, as when Peter tried to defend Jesus and cut of the priest’s servant’s ear, and Jesus rebuked him, saying: "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52). Others give up fame or reputation, as when Jesus found James and John debating who would be greatest in the Kingdom. “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory," they said. Jesus rebuked them as well:

You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10: 42-45)

Jesus calls others to leave family in preference for his Kingdom: “

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:34-38)

The final price to be paid, Jesus says, is one’s own life, and he uses the striking image of crucifixion to hammer it home. It is well-known that “the blood of the martyrs is the seedbed of the church.” We know in our own day that revolutionary movements – even the fanatical suicide-bombings of the Islamic jihadists – require martyrs, people willing to give their all for a cause or a vision. Jesus demands no less. Only where people are prepared to pick up His cross will the Kingdom spread.

Practical Considerations

There is a danger in the kind of radical response which is required by the Kingdom. Radicals seldom make good politicians or even good neighbours. There are examples among the Christian saints of men who castrated themselves or sat naked on a pedestal night and day as a sign of their commitment to Christ. Others have formed exclusive communities like the Kanungu sect that start out with a religious goal – like keeping the Ten Commandments – and end up in mass suicide. Jesus’ teaching is not radical in this way: indeed he includes a number of parables that counsel prudence or practicality. Let’s begin with the parable of the wedding feast, where the king sent invitations to all his well-born neighbours to his son’s wedding feast. When they failed to respond, he told his servants:

Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, `Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22: 9-14)

What was the problem with the man who was rejected? It was not that he was poor or unworthy. He simply had neglected to dress properly. I am often amazed at how well students here dress, even though they are not that well-to-do. But the fact is, they know what it is to be decent. This man seems to have thought it was enough to appear as a guest, but he failed to honour the host. If the naked saint on the pillar had arrived in that state, he would not have fared any better, I think.

Another example is the short parable-like saying about counting the cost.

For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ (Luke 14:28-30)

This parable is about unrealistic planning, perhaps based on excessive zeal or self-confidence. The tower-builder wants a magnificent structure to give glory to, well, perhaps to God, but it reminds one a bit of the tower of Babel. Such projects are often monuments to self more than to God. Ironically, the failure to finish the tower leaves it as a monument to folly.

Now I find it quite common in Uganda to see buildings that are partially built, with several rows of bricks laid and the iron rods sticking up in the air rusting. I remember how amazed people were when we built this assembly hall and completed it pretty much on the date projected. Some of this reflects the problems people have in getting and keeping adequate capital for projects. But some of it reflects impractical views of how much they can do. Sometimes I wonder if the Anglican Church House project is an example of grand planning beyond the resources of the Church. Perhaps the modest upgrade of the Provincial Office is a better witness than a great tower in the middle of Kampala, especially if it is only half-finished. Jesus wants us to extend His kingdom, but he wants us to scale our vision to the reality of our gifts and resources.

The Great Obstacle to the Kingdom

If Jesus would have us be realistic, he would still have us be bold in promoting his vision of a new political reality, of men and women reconciled to one another out of love of God and neighbour. But he is also clear that there is an enemy working against this vision. The enemy is Satan, who is busy sowing weeds of discord in the field of the Kingdom. Much of Satan’s work is done in the human heart through resentment and envy. Hardness of heart is the great obstacle to the realization of Jesus’ new politics.

Jesus has several famous parables on this subject. The first is the Prodigal Son. It is of course a wonderful story of grace and repentance, of the Father welcoming back one sinner to his household. But the attitude of the elder brother stands as a warning:

But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!' (Luke 15:29-30)

The elder son, who no doubt represents the attitude of the Jewish leaders of the day, resents the father’s generosity, even though the father notes that this elder son has been the beneficiary of his grace every day. Again we find this attitude in the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard who had worked all day only to see others paid their wage for one hour’s work: “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” (Matthew 20:12). The attitude of envy and resentment finally culminates in a murderous plot in the Parable of the Tenants toward the Son: 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours’ (Matthew 21:38).

The greatest single barrier, Jesus teaches, to the dawning of a new politics is the small-mindedness of people who care for their own personal honour, the advancement of their family and clan, over the wider benefit of society. I have tried to point this out to students here with regard to the Student Guild government: the purpose of the Guild leadership is not to benefit their party or their promoters, but to benefit the students of Uganda Christian University. If only they would use the Golden Rule rather than secular rules of politics, we could be a truly distinctive body politic.

Don’t give up, the truth will set us free in God’s time. We have the guarantee through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ that all will be made new. And this new society is coming into being now in this age, through men and women who will have ears to hear, even as it will be perfected in the final kingdom of God come to earth:

"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down." (Revelation 12:10).

26 March 2008

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, lecture 8

2010-10-23T02:30:00.000-07:00

Summing Up: The Politics of the City of God

We come now to a final summing up of the politics of Jesus. I want to acknowledge my dependence in these lectures on one particular source: Tod Lindberg’s The Political Teaching of Jesus (2007). I have followed him, with a bit of indulgence, because his overall thesis is unusual: that Jesus’ teaching forms the basis of modern politics. In this regard, he may be suspected of secularizing Jesus in a way common from the time of the 18th century Enlightenment: one thinks of philosophers like Hegel who saw Jesus and Christianity as part of the unfolding history of an idea. Or Immanuel Kant, who believed that Jesus’ teaching was implanted in the heart in such a way that men might act naturally on their moral instinct. I am not sure from the book whether Lindberg is a practicing Christian; I suspect he is. In any case, he seems not so much intending to secularize Jesus as to strip way an exclusive religious mindset in reading the Gospels.

What I would like to do in this final address is to give due credit to Lindberg’s view of Jesus’ politics, to qualify it with a more traditional understanding, and then to give a contemporary example of how Jesus’ political teaching can guide us in the Church today.

Jesus’ Politics for the Modern World

Lindberg’s view is that Jesus’ teaching has relevance and practical importance for everyday life in the modern world. He points out three aspects of that teaching in particular: self-regulating love for the neighbour, a kingdom without a king; and a league of nations without enemies.

The first aspect, self-regulating love of neighbour, flows from the Golden Rule and the Love Commandment. When we come to see ourselves in others and others in ourselves, then we will want to treat them as brothers, even if they are from a different race or tribe. In many traditional societies, people tend to follow a group consciousness which separates them from us, their tribe from my tribe. In ancient Israel, law functioned both to unite tribal identity and offer a more advanced standard for treating others, but it was still externally imposed through a positive attitude to “law-keeping.” Jesus’ does not deny the value and need for law, but He teaches an internalizing of the Law such that when we see a person like the man fallen among thieves, we think, “there is my neighbour, because there, but for the grace of God go I.”

The second aspect is a kingdom without a king. Jesus did not preach for or against various human political orders: what today we might call monarchies, aristocracies and democracies; and indeed Christians have lived for centuries under various forms of government and justified these forms with ideas like “the divine right of kings.” But Lindberg argues that modern notions of universal rights and representative democracy do flow from His teaching about man’s yearning for righteousness and the commonality between me and my neighbour. One might argue that the two main political alternatives in today’s world are the one found in the democratic societies formed by the Christian ethic and the other reflecting an Arab tribal ethic going back to the 7th century. The recent change of regimes in Kenya and Zimbabwe, costly though they have been, are a vindication of democratic rights over tribal or racial autocracy, even while they show that democracy is not easy or automatic.

The third aspect of Jesus’ teaching is a league of nations without enemies. Jesus is seen constantly counseling his followers to seek peace, to settle disputes along the way, to turn the other cheek, to forgive seventy times seven. This has led some to conclude that his politics are unrealistic or perhaps that they were intended only for private relationships, not for the political sphere. But in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus directs his hardest teaching to the crowd as well as the inner circle. He wanted to motivate them with a vision of a “counter-culture” (a phrase John Stott coined for his book on the Sermon) where people and peoples can live at peace. This was such a strange notion in his day, where it was assumed that peoples would be in a continual state of war or suppressed under a dominant empire like Rome, that he did not want to dilute it by giving anyone an excuse to opt out. And there is a certain sense today that we see the fruit of that teaching. The idea of a League of Nations, championed by the Christian statesman Woodrow Wilson and then embodied in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, penned by the Christian philosopher Jacques Maritain, has become a partial reality in our days, where we expect nations to work out their disputes at the conference table rather than on the battlefield. Ideologies like radical Islamic jihadism are challenging this vision, but it is not clear that they will succeed.

The Politics of the City of God

Although Lindberg’s attempt to find Jesus’ teaching in the political mindset of the modern world is highly original, there is something clearly missing: the transcendent role of the heavenly Father and the eschatological role of Jesus himself, not just as Teacher but as Son of Man, who will come to separate the sheep and the goats, the righteous from the unrighteous. Likewise, Lindberg fails to account for assumption behind Jesus’ teaching that man is sinful: “if you being evil…” Therefore he seems to see Jesus’ teaching as an educational project rather than a redemption project. Powerful as Jesus’ teaching is, it only becomes fulfilled in the mighty acts of Holy Week and Easter, when He dies for our sins and rises for our justification.

It was St. Augustine, the North African bishop and theologian, who classically described Christian politics under the heading “The City of God.” For Augustine, the City of God was certainly not identified with pagan Rome, nor was it even the same as Christian Rome after Constantine. For Augustine, the City of God was a supernatural society of the redeemed, who had come into relationship with their true selves and others through the love of the Triune God. To some extent this city could be seen in the Church rather than the state, but even the Church, according to Augustine, was a pale shadow of that city whose foundations are not made with human hands and whose citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). At the same time, Augustine did not back away from believing that Christ was Lord of history and Lord of politics, even though the world was sinful (Ephesians 1:19-24). He defended the Church from the charge of having weakened the political fabric of ancient Rome. He laid the foundation for a missionary Christianity which spread out into the barbarian kingdoms and eventually conquered Europe.

Like Jesus, Augustine exerted his power through words, the words of Scripture, fused with the wisdom of classical political thought, and his lasting influence on Christian political thought came from his writings, which were studied and passed on to the great Reformers like John Calvin and even down to the present in a writer like Tod Lindberg.

Jesus’ Politics Today

As I said above, Lindberg seems particularly concerned to reclaim Jesus’ teaching for the real world and over against a spiritualizing tendency to treat it as only relevant for private morality or church life. This was a tendency of the Revivalists, even as they made a deep impression on East African society. It shows up today when people are angered by Ghadaffi’s comments on the Bible but not on the autocratic way he rules his country. So we need some new models of discipleship which draw from Jesus’ radical teaching but which are full of the supernatural sense of salvation which comes from the Gospel.

I want to give one example of the way in which Jesus’ teaching is having a mighty impact on the Muslim world, just at a time we may think the Muslims have the upper hand through their oil money. This example is about a man named Zacharia Botros. Let me quote from a recent article “Islam’s Public Enemy #1”
(http://article.nationalreview.com/q=NTUwY2QyNjA0NjcwMjExMzI2ZmJiZTEzN2U1YjYyZjE=)
Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East…

The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry.

Now here is an example of the kind of issue that Botros exposes: the fact that sharia law authorizes men to have female sex slaves. In a recent broadcast, a Muslim woman in full hijab challenged a Koranic sheikh to deny this and mentioned that “there is a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no reponse from you.” Like the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, the Sheikh was speechless, unwilling to admit that the Koran does teach sex slavery but unable to deny Botros’ challenge. Instead he said: “Don’t listen to that low-life character.”

What do we see here? We see a Christian political preacher, using the global media (if he were in a Muslim country, he would be killed) to reach the Muslim world and challenge it with the message of Jesus. The Muslim woman, though veiled, has already absorbed something of the Christian and Western view of women’s rights, and the Sheiks is too embarrassed to come right out and defend the Arabic tribal view of women as nothing but property.

Botros’s message is, finally, not just political but a message of inward transformation:

But the ultimate reason for Botros’s success is that — unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint — his primary interest is the salvation of souls. He often begins and concludes his programs by stating that he loves all Muslims as fellow humans and wants to steer them away from falsehood to Truth. To that end, he doesn’t just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites all his viewers to come to Christ.

Botros’s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote “Israeli interests,” or “demonize” Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another. And so Father Zakaria Botros has been fighting fire with fire.

One further crucial point is made in the article. Botros is successful because he speaks fluent Arabic and knows the Koran better than the ulema, the religious leaders of Islam. In this respect he also resembles our Lord, who amazed the teachers of the Law and who spoke to the crowds in vivid parables and sayings that are part of our heritage to this day.

I see no reason to think that there might be a Botros right here at Uganda Christian University, a person from the local African culture who would take up the cross of reaching Muslims for Christ by showing Jesus’ teaching as a better way. I see no reason that the African Church cannot grow up to full maturity in becoming a model society about which people over the world would say, not “they will know they are Christians by their tribe, but they will know they are Christians by their Love. Let us pray that this is the case.

2 April 2008

COMMUNION GOVERNANCE: A Revised Anglican Covenant

2010-08-01T04:16:00.000-07:00

PREFACE

In March 2010, I published an essay titled “CommunionGovernance: the Role and Future of the Historic Episcopate and the AnglicanCommunion Covenant” (http://www.americananglican.org/communion-governance).The initial essay lays the theological groundwork for what I consider an urgentnecessity for the Global South coalition[*]: arevision of the Anglican Communion Covenant draft (whether in its “RidleyCambridge” or its “final” Standing Committee-approved form).

The present essay was drafted prior to the Fourth Global SouthEncounter held in Singapore in April 2010. While the Global South Encounter hadthe Covenant on its agenda, the composition of the delegations and theunfortunate absence of key leaders like Abp. Henry Orombi made it impossible tocarry through proper deliberation on the Covenant text. Hence the Conferencemerely issued a general statement, which is nevertheless significant:

21. Global South leaders have beenin the forefront of the development of the “Anglican Covenant” that seeks toarticulate the essential elements of our faith together with means by which wemight exercise meaningful and loving discipline for those who depart from the“faith once delivered to the saints.” We are currently reviewing the proposedCovenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose.For example, we believe that those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliancewith Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, beingresponsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant inits implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

This statement makes clear: 1) that the proposed Covenanttext is not “final” but must be reviewed further and strengthened; 2) thatcompliance with Lambeth Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality must be aprerequisite for those signing on to the Covenant; and 3) that the Primatesmust be given their proper place as overseers of the Covenant.

The present essay is an attempt to put flesh on the bonesoutlined by the Global South leadership. It is presented to that leadership onthe occasion of the All Africa Bishops’ Conference in Uganda in late August.

THE COVENANT: THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

Events of the past twelve years since the 1998 LambethConference have made it increasingly clear that the Anglican Communion, lackingcoherent doctrine or effective discipline, cannot continue in its present form.The idea of an Anglican Communion Covenant as a remedy for the presentlawlessness (politely termed “ecclesial deficit” by the Windsor ContinuationGroup) was raised by the Windsor Report (2004). From 2007-2009, a CovenantDrafting Group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury produced three drafts.The third “Ridley Cambridge Draft” was brought to the Anglican ConsultativeCouncil meeting in Jamaicain May 2009 and was nearly approved by delegates representing the majority ofAnglicans worldwide. But through some procedural maneuvering by the liberalleadership of the ACC aided by Canterbury himself, the fourth “disciplinary”section was rejected. Abp. Rowan Williams then took the matter into his ownhands and appointed a new “Covenant Working Party” that met in November 2009and presented a revised section 4 to the Standing Committee of the ACC forapproval in December 2009. The “final” draft was then circulated to theprovinces for possible adoption.

The ACC debacle in Jamaica changed the attitude of many inthe Global South, including this writer, toward the Covenant text. Inparticular, critics began to note the enhanced role of the Standing Committee inthe Covenant. The “Joint Standing Committee” of ACC and Primates had quietlymorphed into a new “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” a.k.a.“trustee-members” of a new UK Company. The articles of this company make theStanding Committee the primary governing body of the ACC, structured accordingto secular “diversity” criteria and in which the Primates have a minorityvoice.[†]Disillusionment became public in January when Bp. Mouneer Anis resigned fromthis Standing Committee and raised serious questions about the overallgovernance of the Communion and the Standing Committee in particular. In April,Abp. Henry Orombi seconded Bp. Mouneer’s objections and stated that he hadrefused to attend its meetings as a matter of conscience (Abp. Orombi’s alternateon the Committee, Abp. Justice Akrofi of Ghana also resigned). Shortlythereafter, Abp. Ian Earnest agreed with the sentiments of Mouneer and Orombiand conditioned his attendance at a Primates’ Meeting on the absence ofPrimates from TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. In June, Bishop AzadMarshall of Iran also resigned from the Standing Committee.

Meanwhile, Canon Mary Glasspool, a professed lesbian, waselected in Los Angeles and consecrated bishop by Presiding Bishop KatherineJefferts Schori. This act of The Episcopal Church and its Primate was in clearcontravention of the so-called moratorium on homosexual bishops and confirmedfor those who did not already know that TEC has rejected Lambeth ResolutionI.10 and the Windsor Report irrevocably. And yet Schori and her fellow TECbishop Ian Douglas both sit on the Standing Committee and participated fully inthe most recent meeting. Meanwhile the Global South’s Stanley Isaacs’resolution to discipline TEC was defeated by the “overwhelming opinion” of theCommittee that it would “inhibit dialogue” (“dialogue” meaning that TEC keepson violating Scripture with impunity).

In my view – and I think this view is widely shared nowacross the Global South – the role of the Standing Committee in the Covenant isunacceptable. This is so for two reasons. The first is theological. Final responsibility for doctrine and disciplinebelongs to the bishops of the Communion, not to a mixed group of Primates and “diverse”ACC members. In matters of Communion discipline, the Primates themselves or theLambeth Conference of bishops should take the important decisions, not delegatethem to an executive committee.

The second reason is political.The present Standing Committee of fourteen leaves power with the Lambethbureaucracy at the expense of the Global South and the Primates. Thegeographical composition of the Primates’ Standing Committee itself isunbalanced, diminishing the importance of the church in Africa. The fact thatPresiding Bishop Schori, not to mention other revisionists, remains on theStanding Committee despite the Resolutions of the Primates at Dromantine andDar es Salaam, is reason enough to know that it will continue the disastrouspolicy of coddling TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada in their flouting ofbiblical and Communion teaching and practice.

So the current text offered by Canterbury to the widerCommunion must be revised or the entire Covenant project abandoned. For thosewho believe the Covenant idea is good and necessary for the Anglican Communionat this point in its history, three options are available.[‡]One can:

1. Replace the role of the Standing Committee with that ofthe Primates’ Meeting in Section 4 and keep the rest of the text as is.

2. Go back to the drawing board and produce a completelynew text (see e.g., the Jerusalem Declaration from the Global Anglican FutureConference).

3. Replace the role of the Standing Committee (and the ACCsince it is legally joined at the hip with the Standing Committee) and clarifyand correct matters of Communion governance that have been revealed in thepresent crisis.

I believe the third way is to be preferred, and I think thisway is consistent with the view expressed in the Global South Communiqué fromSingapore. Consequently, I offer a series of revisions to the Covenant which Ibelieve will strengthen it to serve as a vehicle for Gospel mission and godlyleadership within a reformed Anglican Communion. [§]

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE “FINAL” DRAFT COVENANT

Revision 1: Strengthening the historic and normative role of the Anglicanformularies

Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith

Each Church affirms:…:

(1.1.2) the catholic and apostolic faith uniquely revealed in the HolyScriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church iscalled upon to proclaim afresh in each generation.

(1.1.3) The historic formularies of the Church of England - the Thirty-nineArticles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering ofBishops, Priests, and Deacons – are in accord with Scripture and bear authenticwitness to this faith.

Rationale: Therole of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal asthe common doctrinal basis among Anglicans worldwide was stated in the NassauDraft; in later drafts it was mentioned only obliquely and hedged withqualifiers such as “forged in the context of the European Reformation.” Theneglect of the Articles, treating them as historic artifacts rather thanbiblically faithful truths, has eroded our common inheritance of faith. Byrestoring an explicit affirmation of the Reformation formularies alongside theaffirmations of catholicity (1.1.1-2) and the ecumenical Lambeth Quadrilateral(1.1.3-6 [4-7]), the Covenant will assure Evangelical Anglicans that theirposition is upheld within the Communion.

Revision 2: Affirming explicitly God’s standard of marriage and abstinence

(1.2.3) To uphold the Church’s historic standard of“faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union,” and that“abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”; [footnotereference to Lambeth I.10]

Rationale: Thisamendment would signal that biblical mandates and prohibitions are binding onmembers of the Communion (see 1998 Lambeth Resolution III.5), would ensconce 1998Lambeth Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality in the Covenant text and would set aprecedent for recognizing future resolutions of the bishops in council asauthoritative.

Revision 3: The Covenant Communion and its Instruments

Section 3: Our Unity and Common Life

3.1 Each Church affirms:

(3.1.2) its resolve to live in a Communion of Churches underthe terms of this Covenant.

Rationale: TheAnglican Communion will be constituted by those who adopt the Covenant. Whilethe mechanics of joining the Covenant Communion will be spelled out in section4, there is need for a definition of Communion membership in terms of theCovenant.

The Ridley Cambridge draft leaves in place the existingmuddled and failed governance structures. In fact, the idea of four“Instruments of Communion” are not sacrosanct but relatively recentdevelopments. They emerged at different times and commentators have notedserious overlaps and confusion about their roles, especially as regards thePrimates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. In order to orderthese authorities properly, I would propose the following revisions to section3.1.4:

I. We accord the Archbishop ofCanterbury, as the bishop of the See of Canterbury with which Anglicans have historicallybeen in communion, a primacy of honour and respect among the college of bishopsin the Anglican Communion as first among equals (primus inter pares). Asa focus ~~and means~~ of unity, the Archbishop ~~gathers and works with~~ presides at the Lambeth Council of Bishops andthe Primates’ Council ~~Meeting and presides in the Anglican Consultative Council~~.

Rationale: Whileretaining the Archbishop of Canterbury’s historic role of “focus of unity” and his“primacy of honour,” this revision limits his executive or “gathering”authority. The revision makes clear that the primary form of Communiongovernance is conciliar, by bishops in conference, as stated in section 3.1.3.In my opinion, this clarification is necessary in order to shed the colonialpast and to remedy a weakness in Communion polity that goes back to the firstLambeth Conference. Such a change is consistent with the overall thrust of the1930 Lambeth Conference Report, which linked “communion with the See ofCanterbury” (Resolution 49) to a conciliar mode of governance. At a practicallevel, the Archbishop of Canterbury may be authorized to call special meetingsof the Primates on his own initiative or on petition by a certain number ofPrimates, but this will be in his presiding role in those bodies as primus inter pares.

II. The Lambeth Council of Bishops ,held historically at Canterbury,expresses episcopal collegiality worldwide, and brings together the bishops forcommon worship, counsel, and deliberation ~~consultation and encouragement~~ in their ministry of guarding thefaith and unity of the Communion and equipping the saints for the work ofministry (Eph 4.12) and mission. This Council, consisting of archbishops anddiocesan bishops, meets regularly at designated locations.

Rationale:Changing the name from “Conference” to “Council” and adding “deliberation”clarifies the role of the Lambeth Conference as an authoritative body withinthe Communion. The phrase “Council ofBishops” emphasises the bishops’ spiritual authority rather than theparticular venue of their meetings. The exclusion of assistant bishops (andwives) makes clear that this Council meets for authoritative business, not fora tea party. I see no reason why the Lambeth Council of Bishops might not beconducted as part of a larger assembly including other clergy and lay members,which might ratify the work of the Council. This revision leaves open thefrequency and venue of Council meetings, as “Lambeth” refers only to thehistorical continuity of the body with earlier Lambeth Conferences.

Current Section III. Delete the Anglican Consultative Council as anInstrument of Communion and replace it with a revised section on the Primates.

III. The Primates’ Council meets regularly between Lambeth Council ofBishops’ meetings for mutual support, prayer, counsel and deliberation.

Rationale: TheACC has always been considered an advisory body only. Ironically, as the only“Instrument” with a legal constitution and with the power of the purse, it isthe only organ of Communion governance which has no ecclesiologicalsignificance. The listing of member churches of the Communion is a clericalfunction that does not require a separate “Instrument.” I have no objection tothe existence of a body that will advise on Communion matters, but it should nolonger be classed with the other Instruments of the Communion. At the presentmoment, the Articles of the ACC and its Standing Committee are inconsistentwith the aims of the Covenant, and it is best simply to drop both of them fromthe Covenant text altogether. By the same token, the secretariat of theCommunion should no longer function under the thumb of the ACC but under thePrimates (which probably means setting up a new secretariat, since it seemsunlikely that the current one will go gentle into that good night).

As for the revisions of (old) section IV on the Primates,the changes follow the rationale for the Lambeth Council of Bishops, givingauthority as a Council to the Primates rather than just a “meeting.”Alternatively, the body could be named the “College of Primates”to avoid confusion with the “Lambeth Council of Bishops.”

(3.1.2, cont’d)

Each Instrument shall be constituted from among thoseChurches that have adopted the Covenant, excepting the Archbishop of Canterburywhose ministry is independent of the Church of England. It is theresponsibility of each Instrument to consult with, respond to, and support eachother Instrument and the Churches of the Communion. Each Instrument mayinitiate and commend a process of discernment and a direction for the Communionand its Churches.

Rationale: Theentire thrust of the revision is to constitute the Communion under theCovenant. This means that the Instruments themselves must be representative ofthe churches that adopt the Covenant. In excepting Canterbury from thisrequirement, I am assuming his willingness to fulfill an historical andecumenical role independent of his roles in British church and state (see Implementationsection below).

Revision 4: Restoring the Primates to their proper oversight of Communionfaith and order

Section Four: Our Covenanted Life Together

Revision 5: Binding the Communion into an Accountable Union

Adopt the followingrevisions to section 4.1 in order to make adoption of the Covenant andmembership in the Anglican Communion coterminous.

(4.1.4) Every national or regionalChurch of the Anglican Communion is expected to adopt this Covenant accordingto its own constitutional procedures. Provinces that reject adoption or fail toadopt in a timely manner will be declared vacant by the Primates’ Council andde-recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

(4.1.5) ~~The Instruments of Communion may invite other~~ Churches – dioceses,parishes and ecclesial networks – in non-adopting national and regionalChurches may adopt the Covenant according to their own constitutionalprocedures. Such Churches will be recognised by the Primates’ Council as havingprovisional status within the Communion until such time as the status of areplacement national and regional Church is ratified by the Lambeth Council ofBishops and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

(4.3.1) Any covenanting Church may decide to withdraw from theCovenant. The Primates’ Council and Lambeth Council of Bishops will treat such acase in the same manner as that of non-adopting churches (sections 4.1.4 and4.1.5).

Rationale: Thisset of revisions makes adoption of the Covenant a requirement of Communionmembership. Following the suggestion in the original Ridley Cambridge draft(section 4.1.5), it gives dissenting churches in non-adopting Provinces thechance to sign on to the Covenant, but it also looks toward the replacement of thoseProvinces and the incorporation of the dissenting churches into the newProvince.

Revision 6: Communion Discipline

Replace the Standing Committee [of the AnglicanCommunion] with the Primates’ Council(or College of Primates) throughout section 4.2 and 4.4 (see Appendix forspecific revisions).

Rationale: Ingeneral, see my discussion in the introduction to this essay and the longerargumentation in my paper on “Communion Governance.” The idea of leaving theStanding Committee in section 4 but identifying it with some other body of thesame name misses the point that it should be the full council of bishops,whether the Primates’ Council or Lambeth Council, that oversees ecclesiasticaldiscipline under the Covenant.

At a practical and political level, it is hard to imaginethe current Standing Committee reforming itself to become an administrativebody of the Primates. A new Primates’ Standing Committee will probably need todevelop a constitution and rules of order under some secular authority (the objectionto the new articles of the current Standing Committee is not to their existencebut to their incompatibility with the Covenant and with a conciliar form ofgovernance).

***

These proposed revisions, I believe, are “conservative” intreating the existing draft texts respectfully but also “radical” in seeking toaddress anomalies in these texts in such a way as to form a coherent structureof governance.

IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSEQUENCES

The question of how churches of the Anglican Communion mightimplement changes such as those suggested above is a thorny one. Anyone who hasfollowed the Covenant process to date knows that such revisions will never besanctioned by the Lambeth bureaucracy. In fact, if given the opportunity,Canterbury will claim his “gathering” authority to co-opt any bodies set up bythe Global South, as he did in 2007 with the Covenant drafting committee.

The only feasible political way forward therefore is for theGlobal South churches to take the authority of revising and adopting a Covenantinto their own hands. As I see it, there is nothing illegal about doing so. TheCovenant text does not itself require any particular method of formulation and adoption,and it has been agreed by all that final adoption is a matter for the constitutionalassemblies of the Provinces. In my opinion, if a number of Provinces adopt arevised Covenant and begin operating according to it, there is no “Communionlaw” that would nullify this action. For the Global South to adopt a revisedCovenant without Canterbury’s approval will require courage born of convictionthat this is God’s will at this particular moment in the Communion’s history.

How long would it take for Provinces to adopt the revisedCovenant? No longer than the current “final” text, which stipulates that eachProvince places itself under the terms of the Covenant as soon as it adopts itunder its own constitutional procedures (section 4.1.6). One might hope thatspecial synods might be called to deliberate on such an important matter.

Is it conceivable that the Archbishop of Canterbury mightcome to accept a revised Covenant in which his role was reduced? What happensshould he decline to accept this role among those churches that adopt therevised Covenant? Surely such refusal would cause a further constitutionalcrisis, and further amendment of the Covenant might be necessary, as providedfor in sec. 4.4.2. The Archbishop, however, would have real incentive to acceptthe more focussed role assigned him in these proposals. He has opinedpreviously about the need for two levels of Communion membership. This wouldgive him a role in both. He could thereby maintain his ties with the GlobalSouth coalition while probably continuing to function as primate among thenon-adopting churches. If the Church of England were not to adopt the Covenant,his international role would then be delinked from his role in the EstablishedChurch, which should free him from constitutional and even ecumenicalrestraints.

Many Anglicans, particularly from the churches of theFellowship of Confessing Anglicans, may hesitate to sign on to a Covenant inwhich Canterbury remains the titular head. I would urge those Anglicans torecognize that under a revised Covenant, the role of the Archbishop and theLambeth bureaucracy will be fundamentally changed. The GAFCON movement itselfwas prepared to respect the historic role of the see of Canterbury so long asit was not seen as constitutive of Anglican identity, and that role isimportant for many other orthodox Anglicans as well. Politically, all may haveto risk something in order to gain a greater good.

What about the Anglican Consultative Council? In my originaldraft for the Global South Encounter, I made room for a reformed AnglicanConsultative Council. However, considering the current ensconcing of the ACC inUK law, I think self-reform by the ACC and its Standing Committee is next toimpossible. There may well be a need to constitute a consultative, missionaland ecumenical body that serves the Communion, but like other consultativebodies, it is not needed in the Covenant text.

What will happen to the “old” Communion and the non-adoptingchurches? I suspect that we shall see the development of a parallel Communion –call it the “TECommunion” – probably under the sway of the Standing Committeeand financed out of TEC’s coffers. This Communion will no doubt dispute the nameand legitimacy of the Communion gathered under the Covenant, and it willattempt to infiltrate the regions of the Global South. This is a sad fact ofour current situation, and one can already see this scenario playing out inNorth America. But that is where the acceptance of a false Gospel in somechurches and the acquiescence to this at the top level has led us. Let’s behonest: the division has already occurred. The question is whether thisdivision leads to dissolution or reform of our historic tradition.

CONCLUSION

As one who has written extensively about the AnglicanCovenant, I present these recommendations to the bishops of the Global South,beginning with those assembled in Uganda in August 2010. One thing I havelearned in the Anglican world: theologiansmay propose, but bishops will dispose. The burden now falls on theepiscopal leaders of the Global South to ponder these proposals and takeaction.[**]Failure to do so, I fear, will have tragic results. In the short term, it mayencourage individual Provinces to neglect international affairs and simply mindtheir own shops. “To your tents, O Israel!” may become the byword of the GlobalSouth churches. To take a pass on the opportunity to be part of a worldwideGospel-centred church would sell short the providential moment in which we findourselves. Even more ominous, the atomization of Global South Anglicanism wouldleave the door open for the powers that currently rule the Communion to augmenttheir subversive and divisive activities around the globe. Remember, thesepowers were soundly defeated at Lambeth 1998, and yet twelve years later theycontinue to defy biblical and traditional teaching and to hold the balance ofpower in the official Communion organs.

I ask the bishops of the Global South to address the futureof the Anglican Communion Covenant urgently.At a critical point in Israel’s history, Joshua summoned the leaders of thenation to reaffirm its commitment to the Covenant and the God of the Covenant,and he challenged them: “Choose this day whom you will serve,” whether the godsof the pagan nations or the Lord, God of Israel. “As for me and my house, wewill serve the Lord,” he concluded (Joshua 24:15). The Anglican Communion isfacing just such a crisis of two religions within one body, one a new paganism,the other the faith once for all delivered to the saints. To adopt a revisedAnglican Covenant is to decide to serve the Lord and to stand firm for the Godof Scripture and the God of the Anglican martyrs – those who died in the firesof Oxford and Namugongo. So I urge you, brothers: “Be strong and of goodcourage!” Do not turn aside from your duty to defend the word of God and Hisholy church (Joshua 1:7).

Appendix to Revision 4: Restoring the Primates to their proper oversight offaith and order

In light of the revisions to the Instruments and thesubstitution of the Primates’ Council for the Standing Committee, the changesto sections 4.2 and 4.4 are fairly predictable – indeed they are simplifiedwith the consolidation and omission of sections 4.2.5-8.

4.2 Maintenance ofthe Covenant and Dispute Resolution

(4.2.2) The Primates’ Council shallmonitor the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communionon behalf of the Instruments. In this regard, the Primates’ Council shall besupported by such other committees or commissions as may be mandated to assistin carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to theCovenant.

(4.2.3) When questions arise relatingto the meaning of the Covenant, or about the compatibility of an action by acovenanting Church with the Covenant, it is the duty of each covenanting Churchto seek to live out the commitments of Section 3.2. Such questions may beraised by a Church itself, another covenanting Church or the Instruments ofCommunion.

(4.2.4) Where a shared mind has notbeen reached, the matter shall be referred to the Primates’ Council . The Primates’Council shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may take advicefrom such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature ofthe matter at question and those relational consequences which may result.

(4.2.5) The Primates’ Council mayrequest a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defersuch action, the Primates’ Council may declare that an action or decision is orwould be “incompatible with the Covenant” and may specify relationalconsequences, including a provisional limitation of participation in the Instrumentsor declaring the Province vacant. Final exclusion of a Church shall bedetermined by the Lambeth Conference of Bishops.

(4.2.6) Each Church undertakes to putinto place such mechanisms, agencies or institutions, consistent with its ownConstitution and Canons, as can undertake to oversee the maintenance of theaffirmations and commitments of the Covenant in the life of that Church, and torelate to the Instruments of Communion on matters pertinent to the Covenant.

4.4 The Covenant Textand its amendment

(4.4.2) Any covenanting Church orInstrument of Communion may submit a proposal to amend the Covenant to theInstruments of Communion through the Primates’ Council. The Primates’ Council may seek advice from any other body as it mayconsider appropriate, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the LambethCouncil of Bishops. The Primates’ Council shall make a recommendation on theproposal in the light of advice offered, and submit the proposal with anyrevisions to the covenanting Churches. The amendment is operative when ratifiedby three quarters of such Churches. The Primates’ Council shall adopt aprocedure for promulgation of the amendment.

Mukono, Uganda

1 August 2010

NOTES

[*]Throughout this essay, I refer to the “Global South” as the body of orthodoxAnglicans who look to the leadership of the bishops and churches in Africa,Asia and South America but who come from various regions of the world. Thecoalition represented in Singapore included Anglicans from northern andsouthern hemispheres and those who have explicitly identified with theFellowship of Confessing Anglicans and those who have remained outside it.

[†] Foranalysis of the new ACC Articles and its incompatibility with the Covenant, see“Contrasting Futures for the Anglican Communion: A Transformed ACC and theAnglican Covenant,” at http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/.One small sign of the power of the purse vested in the Standing Committee was aResolution “that there be a two-year gap between the Primates’ Meetings”(Resolution 8, December 2009) This Resolution to reverse a decision made by thePrimates themselves is rationalized on the grounds that such meetings cannot befinanced, but of course it is the Communion Office and Standing Committee thatset budget priorities. The Standing Committee did not seem to have troublefinancing its own special meeting in July.

[‡] Iacknowledge that there are those who think the way to reform the Communion isfor orthodox Provinces to adopt the “final” Covenant text with provisosattached and to amend the text later. It strikes me that this proposal isawkward theoretically and unworkable politically, given the inevitableopposition by the Standing Committee and the commitment of Canterbury to indaba (“keeping everyone at the table”)and his repeated assertion that the Covenant is not intended as a disciplinarydocument.

[§]Throughout this essay, I am assuming that the Communion formed by the AnglicanCovenant will be the rightful inheritor in God’s eyes of Anglican tradition andidentity. Hence the Covenant will constitute the ongoing Anglican Communion.However, it is a distraction at this point to get into branding wars. Hence onecan refer to the “Covenant Communion” to distinguish it from those churcheswhich reject the Covenant.

[**] Clearlythis action may include revising the revisions proposed herein.