Author: empower

by Chris Eyre

The text of a sermon presented at the Bowers Allerton Mission Hall

Sitting in front of the television a couple of nights ago, the news came on. There was a report of another suicide bombing in Palestine – and I thought “I don’t want to hear any more about this” and turned over to watch something which didn’t make me think, which didn’t challenge me, which didn’t make me want to do something about this terrible situation. I’ve done the same with many news reports – perhaps we all have.
I don’t know if any of you have yet seen “The Passion of the Christ” (the new film by Mel Gibson) – I haven’t myself, though I’ve heard a lot of reports of it. I understand, though, that it focuses very much on the sheer barbarity of the end of Jesus’ ministry on earth, and I think as we move towards Easter, when we will be remembering that particularly, this is something on which we would do well to reflect.
Crucifixion was perhaps one of the most barbaric punishments ever invented. It tortured as it killed, and usually it killed fairly slowly – there are reports of people living two or three days nailed to a cross, or a tree. Generally, it was apparently eventually suffocation which actually killed, as the position put increasing pressure on the lungs. The Romans were skilled at this, though, and provided ropes to bind the arms in order to prevent the body from falling as a result of the nails tearing through the flesh, and often also put a kind of peg in so their victim would be able to hold himself up longer – and suffer longer.
Over the next few weeks, we may see and hear the nails being knocked in, we may hear the cries of anguish, we may see a man reduced to the ultimate agony – and we may do this whether or not we see the film. It is the most harrowing moment of all of the gospels, the day when Christ said “it is finished”. It is the start point of Easter, our remembrance of that death and the glorious resurrection which followed.
I did recently attend a performance of “Jesus Christ, Superstar” at the Theatre Royal at York. Again, I don’t know whether any of you have seen a production, but this I can definitely recommend.
The words “Jesus Christ, Superstar, do you think you’re who they say you are” echo in my mind. What do we say Christ is?
I’ve talked to you on my last visit about the Creation and Adam, and, in a way, what I’m going to say follows on from that – you can regard this as “Part II” if you like. Actually, I’m going to link in to quite a lot of what I’ve said previously, so forgive me if there’s some repetition. [Ed. We may publish that prior sermon at a later date, but we believe this will stand on its own for now.] The reading was the beginning of John’s gospel. Now, I think it’s clear that in this passage “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. … and “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” we have the pinnacle of the understanding of Jesus.
In Acts 2:22-24 Luke tells us that Peter said “Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” Snipping everything between that and Acts 2:33, Peter continues:- “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear”
We have, in the preamble to John’s gospel, a very different picture. The Word made flesh……. having been in the beginning with God, and being God. Can this be the “man attested to you by God”? Are we talking about two entirely different concepts?
Which brings me back to “Jesus Christ, Superstar”. Who was Jesus? What was Jesus?
We ascribe a large number of roles to him. He was, obviously, a man. He was a healer (among the other mighty works and wonders and signs which Peter talked of). He was a teacher, a preacher, a leader.
He is also (to some at least of his followers and to us, but, sadly, not to much of Judaism) the messiah, the prophesied deliverer of the nation of Israel.
“Superstar” deals, in part, with some of the expectations of his followers at the time, and I think many of these were based on messianic prophecy. Some expected a military leader (two of the disciples were associated with the “Zealots” – and one was called “Zealot” in the bible – and the Zealots were a group of what we would now call “freedom fighters”, though the Romans would probably have called them “terrorists”) – someone who would liberate the nation of Israel from the oppressive rule of Rome. Some expected the apocalypse and the intervention of God on earth in person, with Jesus playing a central role. Most, I suspect, expected that he could wave a magic wand and produce what they thought he was aiming at.
But what I think he was aiming at was bringing others to his conception of God. I hark back to the Sermon on the Mount, and his impassioned statements about the Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God). In a world where (in modern terms) most people had a faulty dial-up connection to God, Jesus had broadband. He knew that it was possible to have communion with God on a daily, an hourly, a minute-by minute basis – and I believe that is what he meant by the Kingdom of Heaven.
I also think that this is what is really meant by “Son of God”, which is the next category in which we place him. This is not exclusive – in Deuteronomy 14:1, we see “You are the sons of the Lord your God”, applied to the whole nation of Israel. We are all sons and daughters of God.
And yet, we face the scripture “only begotten son of God” in John. It cannot, in the face of other scripture, mean “only son of God”; the clue has to be in the word “begotten”. I’ll pass over issues such as the virgin birth here, and suggest that the word would be better thought of as “intended”.
We also have the concept of Jesus as mediator (one of the possible meanings contained in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life; no-one shall come to the father save by me”. In Hebrews 5:5, he is described as a high priest.
So, we have man, healer, teacher, preacher, wonder worker, messiah, mediator, high priest, Son of God. . . .
And we add redemptive sacrifice. “Lamb of God, who bears the sins of the world”. Saviour, redeemer.
But John actually goes further than this. He links Jesus with the Word of God, and with God himself. “In the Beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God”, and “And the Word became flesh and dwelt with us”. Jesus is God. We hold to a trinitarian doctrine, that there is one God in three persons, father, son and Holy Ghost.
Son of God and God, then.
And one thing more – he is also described as the “new Adam”. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:45 says “Thus it is written ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit”.
This takes us back to where we were the last time I spoke to you. Then, I talked of the story of Creation being the story of God creating the universe out of his own substance; all of material reality being of the “stuff of God”. This is very much the image given by some of the great Christian mystics – Meister Eckhart, for instance, said “Thou shalt know him without image, without semblance and without means, – ‘But for me to know God thus, with nothing between, I must be all but he, he all but me’ I say, God must be very I, I very God, so consummately one that this he and this I are one is…..”.
If you want a more prosaic version – Eckhart is definitely carried away there by the power of his personal experience of God, and his language is not easy – consider for a moment Matthew 25:34-40: “Then the King will say to those at his right hand ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me’. Then the righteous will answer him ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me’”.
Think of this – that this is more literal than it might appear, that what you do to another you are doing to Jesus: God in immanence, in his creation is the whole of creation (and, of course, more besides). Creation out of the “stuff” of God renders all things God – and of this Jesus is the pattern. I see things very much as the mystics do; when I read the commandment not to kill, I read it as not to kill because what is killed is a part of the living God, and extend it to every living thing. When I read the Great Commandments – briefly, to love God, and to love your neighbour as yourself, I see these as two formulations of the same thing. With the passage from Matthew, what I do to my fellow man I do to God – but when I squash a fly, I am doing it to God as well.
And then think further. I spoke of the nails being driven into the hands and feet at the beginning of this: in every negative action we do towards another, we are driving in another nail. Christ lives in humanity, and humanity in general, not just in Christians, and is crucified every day, every hour, every minute somewhere in the world. He is starved, beaten, shot, mutilated, abused, imprisoned in actions we take against others all the time.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son – yes, but more than that, God poured himself into his creation at the beginning. The Word was made flesh from the beginning, and that flesh is the whole of creation.
And in my thinking, together with many of the mystics, Christ; God; the new Adam also lives in every part of the remainder of creation, and what we do to that beggars description. When an animal is vivisected, when we pollute the earth on which we live – these things too we do to God, we do to Christ.
I preach Christ crucified: I preach God crucified on the cross of the universe – crucified from the beginning, and crucified still. In all our actions in the world, we may be knocking in another nail – and we probably are knocking in another nail. And yet, God gave himself that this should be possible.
God so loved the world.

by Henry Neufeld

Many people in the pews don’t understand the controversy that surrounds this issue. Some think they do, but have misunderstood what the debate is about. This essay is not intended as a contribution to scholarly debate, but rather as an explanation to the general public as to what the issues really are. Though I have a definite point of view I believe you can read this essay, gain some insight into the problem, and still end up disagreeing with me.
Some people prefer the term “gender accuracy” but I continue to use gender-neutrality, because that is the term most people in the church pews think of in connection with this issue. It is also part of the second and third issues that I list.

Multiple Issues

There is not a single issue of gender-neutral language, with people divided into “yes” and “no” camps. Rather there are at least three issues involved.

1. The issue of gender references in Bible translation, where the reference of a Bible passage is (probably) to people of more than one gender.
2. The issue of gender in references to God or angels as used in the Biblical text.
3. The issue of gender in references to God or angels in modern liturgical language and in common speech.

Gender References in the Bible

There is a great deal of agreement amongst scholars about a number of references in the Bible in which one can clearly determine the gender of the persons referred to. In these cases, translators search for the best option to represent the actual persons referenced. If it is a group of men and women, modern usage usually requires some indication, such as “brothers and sisters” rather than “brethren,” or something similar.
More controversial is the use of “he or she” instead of just “he” or the singular “they,” which were all deprecated by English teachers a few years ago, but have become nearly standard. These issues have an impact on how well various audiences understand the Bible, but they do not represent theological positions as such. Some people complain of political correctness when certain terms are used; others are annoyed when the sisters are not included. Let me suggest that this is a matter of preference. If you don’t like modern gender-neutral language, choose a Bible translation that doesn’t use it and find a church where the dialect spoken reflects your preferences. It’s not worth fighting over. (For help choosing a Bible version, see the Energion.com Bible Translation Selection Tool.)
More controversial still is the idea of “male representation.” To understand this issue consider the difference in translation of Psalm 1:1 between the ESV and the NLT:
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; (ESV)
Oh, the joys of those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or stand around with sinners, or join in with scoffers. (NLT)
In order to avoid the gender specific language, the translators of the NLT have changed the singular reference to a man to a neutral and plural “those.” This changes the gender reference, but it also changes the number. There are those who believe that this dilutes the meaning, that there is an intention here to hold up a single man, definitely not a woman, as the example of the person who obeys God and is blessed. The ESV sticks with the gender specific and singular form.
I chose the ESV and the NLT because those two translations are both done by evangelical translation teams, which makes it clear that this is not a liberal vs. conservative argument.
Again, while I understand the issue, let me suggest that the best way to approach this is to choose a Bible version that is translated in the way you prefer. Nobody is deceiving anyone. The NLT translators, and others, such as the TNIV team, believe that the best way to convey the meaning of this verse is to present it in a gender-neutral fashion, keeping it clear that either a man or a woman who obeys God would be blessed. The ESV translators are sticking with the number and gender in the source text, assuming that people will understand that the blessing is not limited by gender, but believing that the spiritual position of the male is important and must be preserved.
(Note that I don’t know the theological position of each of the ESV translators. Some of them might simply prefer the more literal rendering, despite some possible loss of communication, or might also not believe that there is that much loss of communication with the exclusively male pronoun.)
All of these issues relate purely to translation. There is no question how Hebrew and Greek represented mixed groups of men and women. The question is how we express the same thing in English, being faithful to the source texts, and also being accurate and clear in the way we communicate.

Gender Language Referring to God in Translation

Most Bible translators will quickly tell you that they do not believe in modifying gender language used in reference to God. This issue becomes confused with the first issue. I am frequently asked when teaching whether the NRSV is that “gender-neutral” Bible. Normally people are referring to various efforts to change terminology used in reference to God, modifying he to she, or to a combination of masculine and feminine pronouns, or referring to “Mother-God” instead of “Father God.” But the NRSV did no such thing. All of its modifications of gender language fall into the first category I listed above, and are hardly more radical than those of the evangelical NLT.
This type of language with reference to God should be clearly distinguished from translating simple references to persons or groups of people. The vast majority of Bible translations are not nearly so radical. There have been a few experiments in translating references to God in the Biblical text, but none of these occur in mainstream versions. Despite the fact that if you put “gender neutral” and “NRSV” into Google, you’ll get multiple pages of listings talking about the “gender neutral NRSV,” the NRSV only deals with references to groups of people and does so quite well.
It is because of this confusion that many people would like to change the terminology, using “gender accurate” for the instances I noted in my first heading, but saving the term “gender neutral” for this second area.
For historical reasons, I would suggest that translating the scriptural references to God using modern gender neutral terminology is inappropriate. The writers of the Bible used masculine references to refer to God; they understood his role using masculine metaphors, and we should not obscure this historical fact.

Gender References to God in Modern Liturgy

But what about references to God by feminine terminology in modern liturgy or in common conversation about God? One of my favorite authors, Andrew Greeley, regularly uses feminine pronouns and other references to God in his novels. I do not find this in any way offensive.
Why do I find gender-neutral translation of references to God in the Bible offensive, but not modern use? The issue is both historical and experiential. Historical, in that it is simply a fact that metaphors for understanding God were largely masculine in Biblical times. We should not hide from facts of history. But it is also experiential in that it is extremely valuable to understand that our experience with God can change and grow, and that we can learn to understand God under new terminology and new metaphors. When we try to make modern people out of the prophets, we tend to obscure this fact. We don’t have to change their experience in order to celebrate our own, developing experience.
So while I would object to alteration of references to God in a Bible translation, I am not disturbed by such references in modern liturgy. I would add one note, however. Those who change the image of God to a purely feminine one are, I believe, losing just as much as those who see only masculine aspects to God. Don’t let fear and bad examples of men in your own life prevent you from seeing the masculine aspects of God’s character.

Summary

Let me simply suggest that the issues of Bible translation can be easily solved by choosing the Bible translations that we use wisely. If certain language does not communicate well with you, don’t use versions that use that language. At the same time, don’t force others to use only versions that communicate best with you-they may be very different from you.
In liturgy, we need to make sure to both communicate, and allow the worshippers to worship. Liturgy can either help people get closer to God, or it can stand in the way. We simply need to look at how individual church members can best worship, and try to facilitate their experience with God as best we can.
For more information, see What’s in a Version, a pamphlet from Energion Publications, or the book by the same title and author, What’s in a Version?

Henry Neufeld is the owner of Energion Publications and the editor of this eZine. He has BA and MA degrees concentrating in Biblical Languages, and has done post masters work in Linguistics.

by Chris Eyre

The text of a sermon presented at the Bowers Allerton Mission Hall

Seeing all the coverage about Israel and Palestine, and doing some background reading, a thought came to me.
Yasser Arafat is a son of God.
Shocking, isn’t it? Whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of the current conflict, Arafat is a long time terrorist, and his followers (if not he himself) have been responsible for the deaths of a lot of innocent Israelis.
But bear with me. In Matthew’s gospel, we read “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God” (Mat.5:9). Chairman Arafat was once a joint recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. And he’s a male child, so he’s a “son”. Stands to reason……
I think, following that, that we’d all want to take refuge in the passage from Ezekiel (Ezk.18) in the reading “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered” (Ezk.18:24). To be fair, I’d also suggest that it’s about time that those in Israel read and took to heart the wording of that chapter. There are too many fathers who have eaten sour grapes (Ezk.18:2), and too many children whose teeth are set on edge (Ezk.18:2). That passage marks the point where Judaism abandoned the concept that the sins of the fathers were visited upon the children (Ex.20:5, Ex.34:7, Num.14:18, Deut.5:9, Jer.32:18) and was a precursor to the development of the Judaism which became Christianity.
So, perhaps, for a brief period, Chairman Arafat was a son of God and would have been received into the Kingdom of Heaven (or the Kingdom of God – I don’t make a distinction between them, and where Matthew says “Kingdom of Heaven”, Mark says “Kingdom of God” when describing otherwise the same saying). Perhaps, at some time in the future, that will be the case – we can hope and pray so.
Matthew also tells us Jesus said that the poor in spirit qualified (Mat.5:3). Those persecuted for righteousness’ sake (Mat.5:10). Those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, visit the sick or prisoners (Mat.25:34-37, Lk.12:32). Luke tells us “Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the most high” (Lk.6:35).
So we have a promise. These actions will deliver the Kingdom to us. Jesus reinterpreted for us the standards which Ezekiel talked of, including especially charity (Ezk.18:16), and added the foundation for the commandments – that we should love our neighbour as ourselves (Mat.23:39).
So what is the Kingdom? We hear that it’s a pearl of great price Mt.13:35), as well as a grain of mustard seed (13:31), a leaven (13:33), a treasure hidden in a field (13:44), good seed (13:24), choice fish (13:47), the new and the old from a treasure (13:52), a good return on investment (18:23), given in fullness irrespective of our worth (20:1). Confusing…….we should obviously look for it, but what will we get?
Paul writes “For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as I am known”. (I Cor.13:12). What we hope for is a glimpse of God as He is, a connection with Deity, a foundation for our existence. And this is indeed a pearl of great price and a treasure. Seeing through a glass darkly is accepting the grain of mustard seed which can grow, accepting the leaven which will raise our spirits. Clearly, this is something which we cannot comprehend without experiencing it, and we will experience it only in part.
Mind you, Matthew also tells us Jesus’ words “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mat.5:20)- but that may say more about how he felt about the Scribes and Pharisees than it does about what we need to reach the Kingdom.
More seriously, though, he says also “Except you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven”. (Mat.18:3-4). Has the promise been taken away if we can’t manage to abandon all our adult attitudes?
No, I don’t think it has. I think Jesus speaks here from the absolute knowledge that, before God, we will inevitably react as little children.
Now, when will this happen?
Is it to be when we die? Is it to be when Christ comes again?
I don’t think it has to be. In Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels, Jesus speaks of the Kingdom being at hand several times, as does John the Baptist before him (Mat.3:2, 4:17, 10:7) – but this is often interpreted as talking of an event which hasn’t happened yet. I think that’s not a correct reading. Luke tells us Jesus promised “There are some standing here who will not taste of death before they see the Kingdom of God” (Lk.9:27) – and this was nearly 2000 years ago!
Was he wrong? Were his audience going to die before a second coming (as they clearly did) without his words being fulfilled?
I think not. I believe he was right; I believe some of them did see the Kingdom of God, and indeed entered into the Kingdom of God, within their natural lifetimes. The Kingdom is a thought away, if, indeed, it isn’t filling some of us as I speak.
I’ll assume that anyone who’s looking into space and seems to me not to be concentrating is experiencing the Kingdom at this moment…….
But I’d like to hear some testimony about it from them later.
But I don’t see any promise of when this entering into the Kingdom will happen, just that it will. Maybe not within our lifetimes, maybe at our deaths, maybe at some time after that.
Let me move on to John’s gospel. John has a very different approach and talks of a very different vision from Matthew, Mark and Luke. John records that Jesus said “unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn.3:3) and “unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (Jn.3:5).
I often attend a charismatic church, where they are very keen on the “born again” concept – and it seems to work. I’m not someone who’s gone through the formula of being born again in that way; neither was my father, who most of you will remember, and, I suspect, neither are several others present here today. Those of us who have arrived at faith by other means (and I’m going to come back to that) are going to find it difficult, at the least, to cast everything away and take a new path.
So do we all need to be “born again”? Born twice, indeed? Well, not as a precondition. Look at Saul, on the Damascus road: you’ll remember that Luke writes in Acts “But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the High Priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now, as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said “”Who are you, Lord?” And he said “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men travelling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing, so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight and neither ate or drank” (Ac.9:1-9).
Saul’s heart was filled with anything but humbleness and charity, and he was a persecutor rather than the persecuted. He didn’t qualify under any of the headings I’ve mentioned, but God still gave him a vision, a faith and a mission all in one all-encompassing experience. I’m sure that in the process he was born again spiritually, as I’m sure that in entering into the Kingdom of God each of us are born again spiritually – if not yet, then in the future.
I’m sure you’ve all realised that I’ve now covered three basic ways of attaining the Kingdom.
We can have faith, do those things Jesus stated would entitle us to enter the Kingdom, and rest assured on his promise that we will do so (though we ought to take to heart the passage from Ezekiel (Ezk.18:24).
We can go through the ritual conversion which has been made out of the passages in John I mentioned and others. As I’ve said, it seems to me that this is a fairly effective way of opening a line to the Kingdom. I think John knew this route, having travelled it himself – I see his poetic writing in his Gospel as evidence of this – we all know “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, and we all know “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by me.”
Or, a very few of us may be zapped by God like Saul. We won’t deserve it, but it will give instant access to the Kingdom and change our lives forever. We can’t ask for it, we can’t do anything to encourage it; it will just happen.
Unfortunately, after he became Paul, he didn’t write anything about that experience which might give us a glimpse of it from this great writer. The best I can come up with is from Blaise Pascal, the famous French mathematician, written in his notebook: “From about half past ten in the evening to about half an hour after midnight.
Fire.
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob.
Not the God of philosophers and scholars.
Absolute certainty; beyond reason. Joy. Peace.
Forgetfulness of the world and everything but God.
The World has not known thee, but I have known thee.
Joy! Joy! Tears of joy!”
What Paul does write of at length is his knowledge that, once such an experience has happened, there is no going back, and areas where there is no room for doubt (Rom.12:2 etc.). And that the fruits of the spirit will flow inevitably (I.Cor.12).
Now, I did get zapped like Saul, or at least like Pascal. My father didn’t. He left myself and mum a message which we read after he died, and it was clear that he hadn’t had more than a glimpse of the full possibility of entry into the Kingdom and had many doubts and uncertainties. I wish he had had more; I know that Jesus’ promise means that he now does. I know that that promise means that all can share in that Kingdom, whether we arrive by a life of faith and works, whether we seek an instant transformation with the Charismatics, or whether God just decides it’s time for us to change and changes us without warning.
But, knowing father’s doubts, I’ll pray that we can all enter the Kingdom sooner rather than later, and go through the rest of our lives with the absolute certainty given to John and to Paul.