the vicar's theory blog 2004 -2006

Were the wise men fools? Or just clever simpletons? Or perhaps they were just superstitious astrologers. At least they were clever enough to work out that the new star that appeared in the sky was connected with a new King of Judea – or so they thought.

In any case they found their way as far as the Judean capital, Jerusalem, and started asking questions. Politically charged questions. Perhaps it was better that they didn’t know that the reigning Judean King was not regarded as really legitimate. Their questions about a new King being born had the potential to undermine the shaky foundation of his rule.

Questions can do that. Christians often experience it when people ask us questions we cannot answer. But sometimes questions need to be questioned. People can ask questions based on false assumptions or mistaken ideas. Lots of the questions we are asked about the Trinity, for example, are like that. How can there be three gods? How can three be one? These are false questions and need to be challenged.

Questions about science and faith are often like that as well. But Christians can also use questions in bringing the gospel to others. Secular world-views are built on inadequate foundations – that is they ignore the presence of God. So, many practices and attitudes and policies of the secular world are based on false or inadequate assumptions. Sometimes Christians have to question these assumptions for themselves – so that they don’t get caught up in practices or beliefs that clash with a Christian world-view.

A form of the Magi’s question may be useful, “Where is the one who is born Ruler of the World?” Where does he fit into the discussions or policy or practice? I am reading a book about sustainable development which takes issue with some of the environmental activists who want to preserve the environment against degradation etc. Many Christians are sympathetic with these kinds of aims and invoke the Bible mandate of Genesis 1 and 2 in support of caring for the environment.

However the Bible may not be able to be squeezed so easily into such a narrow focus. The author of the book suggests that the Ruler of the World may also have an interest in how to feed the billions of people who are starving, not just preserve the forests. This debate is complex of course, but it is one in which Christians should question and examine the assumptions of world-views they are asked to adopt.

If the creator has joined himself to his creation in the birth of Jesus, it suggests that God was quite serious in being with us. In fact if Jesus is God with us in this sense, then it is possible that something completely and outstandingly new has occurred. But in what way are God and humanity together in the person of Jesus? Maybe Jesus was just two personalities living together in the one body?

There seems to be no evidence that Jesus is a kind of split or multiple personality, as though sometimes the God personality comes to the fore and sometimes the human is the one people are dealing with. As the gospels report it, Jesus seems to be a stable integrated person.

So how do the two natures –God and human – exist together? We could think that they have become fused, or completely mixed so as to form a third reality: so that Jesus is neither God nor human but something else. Or more likely we could say that the divine nature has swallowed up the human so that only the divine nature is there – but residing in a human body.

But neither of these theories will do. Being human is more than having a human body. We say Jesus has a real human nature as well as the true nature of God. And that these two natures are united in the one person of Jesus so that they cannot be separated. But that they are united in a way which does not confuse them or allow them to be absorbed into each other. United and distinct but not separated. That is the way to say it.

Is such a thing possible? Could God unite himself with humanity and still remain distinct from it? In a way this helps us understand God’s relationship with the creation. He has created it, he is different from it, but it is dependent on him and only continues to exist because he holds it in being.

The incarnation does not contradict the way the creation exists. In a sense the human and divine natures fit together because one is always dependent on the other for its existence.

So what? we may ask. So the birth of Jesus says something very affirming about human existence, created humanity. It suggests that despite the fall and despite God’s judgment on the core human activities in his world, he has not abandoned either the creation or the humans he has made. The corruption of the creation is not God’s final word.

Joseph must have woken up from his dream with a spinning head. His fiancé was going to have a baby – he already knew that, and he knew he was not the father. In his dream an angel told him that the child was from the Holy Spirit.

Matthew tells us that this was to fulfil the scripture that referred to a child called Immanuel. But this child was not going to be called Immanuel – he was to be called Jesus (or Joshua). But in some way he was Immanuel.

Was he really God with us? And does that mean he was also God? Luke also tells us that it was the Holy Spirit who caused Mary to become pregnant. He says the child will be called the Son of God.

But in what sense? Later some of his own people asked Jesus why he, a human, made himself God (Jn 10.33). Is this the way to explain who Jesus is? Was he a man who made out, or pretended, he was God? Or was he a man who was made into a divine being because of his holiness? Or was he a man who was so full of the Holy Spirit that it was as though he was God?

A few centuries later Athanasius said that they should have asked the opposite question. “Why have you, being God, become man?” Another possible way to understand who Jesus is, is to see him as God who has taken the form of a human. That is, that he is not really human, but just appears as a human, as though God was disguised, or wearing the shape of a human so humans could see and understand him. This way of thinking allows us to think of God as one, but taking different forms at different times.

But neither of these ways of understanding is right. Both have been condemned as heresies from the time of the New Testament –especially by the ecumenical Councils that produced the great creeds.

Athanasius’ question asks why God became man- not why he appeared in the form of a man. John says the Word became flesh. The great Council meeting at Chalcedon in 461, said he was, “truly God and truly man, … of the same being with the Father according to the Godhead, and … of the same nature or substance with us according to the Manhood; in all things like us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Bearer of God, according to the Manhood…”

Which suggests that God was quite serious in being with us. In fact if Jesus is God with us in this sense, then it is possible that something completely and outstandingly new has occurred. The creator has joined himself to his creation. But is that what happened? Maybe Jesus was just two personalities living together in the one body?

Last Sunday at the Youth Family Service at South Jakarta one of the plays was about whether you can get real and complete forgiveness by trusting and believing in Jesus. The young people concerned said this was the case. I know this because I asked them.

The difficulty is in trusting Jesus. Of course one can say, “This is a true statement. Jesus died for me so I could be forgiven.” But the person who does believe this also believes in Jesus, not just in the statement. And once a person believes in Jesus, then their life is lost.

Because to believe in Jesus is to believe he is the Lord and Ruler of all, to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given. It is to believe that his death for our sins was also the great act of his Kingly power. That he saved us because he was the Lord.

Believing in him as Lord means obeying him as Lord. On Sunday I asked some of the young people whether they could trust Jesus with their hand-phone, or guitar, or university course, or marriage partner, or career, or ….

When we come to Jesus he asks us for our hand-phone, our money, our car, our house, our family, our career, our future. He demands everything. And then when we realise we have nothing left except ourselves he then says he wants us too. So our life is lost and all that we have – given over to our new Lord.

He gives us his life, lives in us by his Spirit, says we are now his servants. Our hand-phone, guitar, university course, career are all his to use for his purposes.

Except that some of us say we believe the statement but don’t want to lose our life. We want to retain authority over our car, and house and career (well, as much as one can these days). Presumably we want to do a deal with the one who has all authority in heaven and on earth – basically by rejecting his authority – and thus also rejecting his life.

Weird thinking, because the life lost is replaced with the life of Christ himself. That does seem like a better deal.

But some think it is worth a try – to retain partial authority over their life themselves. To try to juggle two masters. And the reasoning is understandable – we know much more about our life than Jesus does. We know what will be best for us, what we want and what we like, what we don’t want and what we don’t like. Quite rational thinking really - if you are a three year old. But what a loss.

“With regard to the Da Vinci Code (allegedly based on fact) how can the church justify keeping Christians in ignorance of the missing gospels until this book was published?”

In 1945 a dozen or so ancient texts were found at Nag Hammadi in upper Egypt. They turned out to be a variety of Gnostic writings and included the Gospel of Thomas. In recent years another text which was known indirectly was discovered – the Gospel of Judas. It is estimated by some that by the end of the second century there were up to 20 writings calling themselves gospels (even a gospel of Adam). As was customary at the time these works were generally pseudonymous (ie they were named after a famous person, but no one thought that person had actually written it – although they may have thought it expressed the teaching of that person).

Many of these writings were known to us only because other writers referred to them. As more archaeological discoveries have happened, more of these texts have been discovered. However many of them have been available in English for a long time (the gospel of Thomas, for example, has been available in bookshops for decades). Nowadays most of them are available on the web.

What happened in the first few centuries was that great debates developed about the truth of Christianity. One of these debates was focussed on teachings which became known as Gnosticism. You can see the beginnings of this debate in the New Testament, especially in the letters of John. Gnosticism offered the possibility of special knowledge (hence its name). Put simply this knowledge had to do with the nature of reality as essentially spiritual. Many of the Gnostics taught that this teaching was so profound that only certain people could understand it and be admitted into its mysteries. However its popular form made a distinction between spirit and matter, the spirit being good and matter being unhelpful and not connected with the experience of the divine life.

At a common level this allowed some to say that because the body and matter were not able to participate in God’s nature or salvation, it did not matter what you did with it. So any kind of bodily or sexual sin was OK (quite a neat theological argument). At a more significant level the basic ideas of Gnosticism called into question the incarnation (could the divine Son really have become human? –see 1 John). And it was about the nature of Jesus that the real debate revolved.

The early Christian apologists (defenders of the faith) such as Irenaeus led the debate which finally resulted in the great ecumenical councils of Nicea (325) Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451) making statements about the nature of Christ and of God. The Gnostics were rightly excluded from the body of the orthodox because their teaching destroyed the centre of the Christian faith.

"How do you explain the conflict between the Old Testament and the New Testament, eg “an eye for an eye’ versus “turning the other cheek” etc?"

There are quite a few occasions when the Old and the New Testaments seem to be saying different things. There are a couple of ways of explaining this. In the example quoted above, Jesus himself points out the contrast (Matt 5.38). The trouble with the ‘eye for an eye’ law was that it did not go far enough, although it was a big improvement on what went before. We sometimes look back at these old laws and think they are barbaric, but in fact they were attempts to bring justice to practices that were unjust. In this case the practice of payback was often excessive (two eyes for an eye) and these laws (and other laws such as Hammurabi’s) made sure the punishment fitted the crime.

However Jesus went further. There are many examples in Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount) where Jesus shows how the heart of the law had to be fulfilled in a quite different way. This leads to a second way of explaining some of the differences. Jesus said he had come, not to do away with the law, but to fulfil it. There is a strong understanding in the NT that the things described, foretold, pictured, and pre-figured in the OT come to their completion or fulfilment in Jesus.

Another way to say this is that what God reveals about himself and about humans is revealed progressively. Little by little God tells us about himself. Little by little he shows is what we are to be like. He does this in ways that are appropriate for the knowledge people already have. As the revelation progresses so more is understood. This means that at any period of biblical history we may not yet have been told all that there is to know. So in the case of retaliation it is not so much that the earlier teaching is in conflict with the later, but that the later one is giving a fuller explanation of it. It means also that we need to keep reading through the bible to see what the full story is about.

In this case, Jesus and his apostles say, don’t take revenge at all, don’t payback evil for evil. Instead bless your enemies, do good to those who harm you (Matt 5.43; Romans 12.14-21). So it is not so much about explaining the conflict between Old and New, as understanding the development of the story so that we behave in line with the end of the story and not an earlier stage.

Heading into guilt territory without a map. Many conversations travel like that. Including ones we have with ourselves. It is easy to do. Just think of something you read in a book, or heard in a sermon that you are not measuring up to. Or something you really want to do, be, or achieve that you aren’t.

There are many traps for the keen Christian. Do you read the Bible enough, desire more spiritual power, help the poor? The list is endless. And there are just as many traps for ordinary humans that have been set by parents, teachers, big sisters, books, movies or famous people.

You can tell you are in guilt territory when you start to feel guilty, inadequate, or as though you do not measure up. The value of having a map is that you can work out where you are. There are different kinds of maps of guilt territory, but the best is the Christian map.

It is best because it has two features not one. Other guilt maps can identify what the guilt is, (ie where we have not measured up) although some are so blurred and general that even that is not always clear. What they don’t have is an effective exit strategy.

The Christian map will clarify whether we are actually in guilt territory or not. That is very helpful because often what we are discussing is not about real guilt or failure at all, but about mistaken or wrong expectations - sometimes imposed on us by others. The Christian map is also very precise. It will tell you exactly where you are, ie it will identify real guilt as far as God is concerned.

The other crucial feature of the Christian map is that it always has an escape route clearly marked. Some other maps are actually traps because they keep the person wandering around inside their guilt. The Christian map always identifies, in real time, where the exit is.

Where can you get this map and do you need help to read it? The map and the helper come together. It is not conscience, since our conscience uses the map (and may be still using the wrong map). The map is what God has revealed in his Word and the helper is the Holy Spirit who helps us work out just what exactly it does mean.

This week some of our leaders have been discussing the nature of a gift. Can a gift be given without strings attached? Can it be given to benefit the receiver without any benefit bouncing back to the giver?

Or is a gift meant to improve the relationships between two people? Does it require payback? Those of us who have started to think of Christmas (sorry to remind you if you were avoiding the thought) know that this is one of the Big Questions. What is the right kind of gift for this relationship and what kind of gift will I be given? The two gifts have to balance each other otherwise we will both be embarrassed. If the gifts fit the relationship and are similar in “gift weight” then the relationship is strengthened.

I knew of an institution where the staff practised “secret giving”. That is, people gave gifts anonymously to others, so that the person did not know who had given the gift. I think this was meant to be a form of encouragement from their “secret friend”. And no doubt it was in most cases. It is a bit like anonymous donations and gifts where the giver presumably does not want to have any reciprocal ties to those receiving the gift.

But usually gifts are meant to strengthen relationships. Sometimes this is in the context of a family or institution – especially where the higher ups give gifts to those lower down. The gifts are meant to strengthen loyalties. Other gifts come with more obvious strings; gifts that are meant to repay favours, or to win favours.

Sometimes these favours are the main focus of the giving and no other relationships are formed or strengthened by the gift. In fact gifts given in return for a favour or service are the least complicated when it comes to relationships. Both parties can walk away from each other after the transaction is complete. This kind of gift is sometimes not really a gift but a payment, and sometimes it is a payment for something illegal and thus a bribe.

But humans seem to have a desire to give gifts that are more than mere payments, or anonymous donations. We seem to be designed to give gifts as a way of expressing and thus developing relationships. It is not surprising, I suppose, if you think that the whole creation is a gift to us who live in it. All the good gifts God has given us are expressions of his relationship with us and his desire to have a relationship with us.

“Up from the grave he arose, with a mighty triumph o’er his foes…” So goes the chorus of an old hymn. This and many other Christian songs celebrate the victory of Jesus over death. One of the oldest goes back to the prophet Hosea, “Where, O death, is your victory?, Where, O death, is your sting?”.

Death is that impenetrable mystery. Although many try to find some proof of life beyond death, the truth is that dead people are really dead. When Joseph and Nicodemus took Jesus down from the cross and put him in the tomb, he was like all dead people – strangely and frighteningly without life, utterly dead.

It is a shattering thought that God who created life with so much variety and brilliance and energy, also allows that life to come to an end so that what was once alive now no longer has any life, nor the possibility of life.

But, according to Hosea’s song, the Lord said he would ransom his people from death and redeem them from the grave. The truly astounding thing is that when Jesus burst his three day prison, as the more recent song (ahb302) says, it was because death could not possibly keep its hold on him (Ac 2.24).

No wonder the disciples were amazed and confused and overjoyed and doubting, all at the same time. Although John thinks they could have expected it – it is just that they did not yet understand the scriptures that referred to him being raised from the dead.

But if the disciples were full of joy, what about the angels at the tomb? Did they announce the fact of his resurrection to the disciples in an excited voice? It is a bit like the situation we are in. They knew what was going on. It wasn’t a surprise to them like it was to the disciples. It is no longer a surprise to us any more than it was a surprise to Peter when he preached on the day of Pentecost.

That initial amazement changed into a deeper and more profound joy and understanding as the meaning of this event began to unfold. There is no doubt that the resurrection of Jesus dominated the message of the apostles, but not because of its surprise value. Rather the resurrection of Jesus publicised who the great King was, and pointed to the only one who, having conquered death himself, now held out the promise of eternal life to all those who trusted their life (and death) to him.

It is very in-your-face, this strange name for the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. It is actually an invention of the English. At first the day was called Pascha after the Jewish Passover, but this name was used for Easter from the 2^nd century (leading to a mistranslation in the Authorised Version of Acts 12.4). Early Christians also called it the Day of Preparation which meant Friday, the day before the Sabbath in Jewish tradition. Later other names were used, the Day of the Lord’s Passion, the Day of Absolution, and the Day of the Cross.

The 1549 Prayer Book referred to it as Good Friday. Before this time Fridays were not always regarded as good. Even now, if this day is celebrated as a kind of re-enactment and we enter into the gloom and distress of the first disciples, it does not seem very good.

Certainly the day of Jesus death was a day of darkness and gloom. The disciples were probably in great distress (although some at least stayed with Jesus through the whole ordeal). And then there was the little group of underground disciples – men of action - who emerged into the light long enough to give him a decent burial (instead of him being thrown onto an open rubbish tip).

Did Jesus think of it as a good day? Undoubtedly. One of his last statements was that it was finished. He knew he had come to the completion of his life and mission. Indeed his mission reached its climax that Friday. At last he was lifted up from the earth and the drawing of all people to himself could now begin. This was the great servant who was giving his life as a ransom for many.

It was in his death that the great glory of the Father and the Son was seen. In a way the reputation of God hangs in part on this death. Because it was through Jesus’ death, that the distinctions of holiness between the people of Israel and Gentiles, and more fundamentally between humans and God were broken down. Because Christ died for our sins, all of us, Jew and Gentile alike, are able to have the same access to the Father by means of the same Spirit.

Cranmer was right. That Friday was a splendidly good day. Humans were reconciled to God, our sins were atoned for, peace was made between us and God.

This must be one of the famous sayings of history. One of the few things Pilate is known for. But how did he say it? Those who have to read John 18 in church know the difficulty of choosing how to say it.

Often readers ask the question in a cynical unbelieving voice, to reflect the idea that Pilate did not believe truth could be discovered, at least not in political life, and perhaps not at a philosophical level either. Others read it in a way that suggests Pilate wanted to know the truth but despaired of being able to. Some think Pilate was a committed pragmatist and did not want to know anything about the truth. No doubt there are other choices as well.

Jesus was answering a question about his kingship, was it political (no) or other worldly (yes). So why was he there? To testify to the truth, he said. But not just to testify but also to reveal the people who were on the side of truth. He said you could tell those people by the fact that they listened to Jesus.

So probably Pilate wasn’t on that side. Although he did listen a bit, and was in two minds about what to do with Jesus. He wanted to free him because he thought he was innocent. But he listened to the political voices as well.

But what truth could Jesus tell Pilate? Presumably, something about another kind of kingdom, an out of this world kingdom. Or at least a kind of truth from outside. If he came into the world specifically to tell about the truth, then perhaps his truth was about things from outside the world.

Interesting idea! Lots of modern people want to know about ideas (even if not truth) from outside their experience of the world. The really useful thing about Jesus is that he tells you about the Creator God who is outside of creation. And he tells you about him from within the intrinsic relationship he and the Father have within God.

That is, he does not testify to the truth as an outside observer, but as the one who himself is one with the Father. So he reveals truth, not as a philosophical idea, or as some kind of empirical certitude, but rather as the very essence of reality itself.

The question, “What is truth?” has an unexpected answer if you listen to Jesus.

On Saturday morning March 21, 1556, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer went to University Church Oxford to listen to a sermon by the Provost of Eton, Dr Henry Cole explaining why he should be executed even though he had repented.

He had been in prison, at first in the Tower of London and later in various places in Oxford since September 1553, soon after Queen Mary took the throne from Queen Jane who had succeeded Edward VI. Mary was the child of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, whose marriage Cranmer had annulled in 1533 (making Mary legally illegitimate).

In the two and a half years since the coup, Cranmer and two other leading bishops, Ridley and Latimer, had been subject to a number of debates trying to persuade them to change their minds, or to ridicule their beliefs. Two issues were dominant. One was about the presence of the natural body of Christ in the Holy Communion. The other was whether the Pope or the Queen was the head of the Church in England.

Cranmer had already been convicted of treason and sentenced to death by the Parliament. But these three leading lights of the Reformation were powerful figures in a battle to wins the hearts of the people of England.

Mary was a Catholic Queen and although she used Henry’s laws to make changes to the Church of England, as soon as she could she restored the Pope’s authority over not only the church but the nation as well. Cranmer objected to this saying that one could not swear oaths of loyalty to both Queen and Pope. One of the oaths would have to prove false.

Just before the death of Edward the “Black Rubric” had been added to the Holy Communion service of the 1552 Prayer Book. It concerned kneeling to receive the bread and wine and stated that no adoration could be intended because the elements “remained in their very natural substances” and the natural body and blood of Christ remained in heaven. This became the heart of the other great issue Cranmer had to defend.

In October 1555 Ridley and Latimer were burnt at the stake in Oxford, in full view of Cranmer. Pressure on him increased. By January he had signed the first of six recantations. Two expert theologians were brought in from Spain to argue with him, gradually wearing him down and shaking his confidence. Finally, knowing that he had no hope of a reprieve, he signed his last and most thorough denial (but like some of the others it was probably written by his opponents). It was witnessed by the two Spaniards, which provoked demonstrations of outrage in London when it was discovered.

By then Cranmer was a broken man, and returned to Catholic rituals, ceremonies and confessions, partly helped by the friendship of a Catholic servant who became his only friend near the end. But on the morning of his death he had a visit from one of his sisters, a convinced protestant. What happened at the church later that morning may be attributed to her encouragement. Because after the sermon by Dr Cole Cranmer delivered a prepared confession which the authorities had read. But at the end he changed the text and denied all his recantations, rejected the authority of the Pope, and affirmed his former belief about the real presence. He was dragged away, and as he was being burnt at the stake put his writing hand into the fire first.

We say that Christmas is about God the Son becoming human. But now that Jesus is back in heaven is he stuck with his humanity? Or did he leave it behind when he ascended? Or perhaps he took it with him, but has quietly disposed of it since?

Or to say it another way, having become human, could he reverse the process and no longer be human? Is he stuck with it forever? What is the relationship between the eternal divinity of the Son of God and his humanity?

One way to think of the question is to ask about the relation of the Creator Son and the creation? We say in the Nicene Creed that it is through him that all things are made. But if he is the maker of everything, has he made it all so that it can exist independently from him? Certainly there is a real autonomy in the creation, so that many of the things that are made can reproduce themselves, and some can intentionally modify the creation.

But autonomy is not independence. The creation is a dependent creation. It is in the Son that all things hold together (Col 1.17). Were he no longer to hold them together, they would cease to exist. This is another way of saying that creation is a product of the will of the Son. It is not independent, and it is not self-sufficient. It is contingent on the will of the Son.

The humanity of Jesus is likewise part of the creation. This is one of the profound mysteries of the incarnation, that Creator and creature have somehow become united, an idea that flies in the face of Greek philosophy and almost every religion including Monism. Because the humanity of Jesus is part of the creation it continues to exist (as you and I do) only because of the will of the Son.

Far from being stuck with his humanity, the Son willingly retains it. The Son keeps his humanity not just because that is the only way it can exist, but also because that is part of the way in which humanity is redeemed, how it is reconciled to God.

And not only humanity. The creation was facing decay, but by uniting himself with humanity, the Son has given a promise of redemption, not only to humans but to the whole of his creation.

If the Son disposes of his humanity we are lost. But he has taken humanity to himself so that we can share his life and glory. It all depends on him. But him we can trust.

Quite strange that story about the Magi from the east. They appear to be astrologers, or astronomers who interpreted the movements of the stars in non-scientific ways. Although in this case the science produced quite astounding results.

But was it just a coincidence, a kind of happy accident? The bible is not easy to interpret that way. There are no accidents, as Puddleglum once said. Their science led them to the capital of Israel which was not quite where they needed to go. But it did lead them to the currently reigning King who wasn’t too pleased with their news. Strange that he didn’t send guides with them to Bethlehem (to spy out where the child was).

The story has lots of interesting political perspectives but is that the whole of Matthew’s story? Why are we told this story? What meaning does it have for anyone apart from the men from the east? Perhaps the politics is the big story. Certainly the arrival of the Magi brings the story out onto a bigger stage. No longer is it just a family story involving Mary and Elizabeth and their relatives. Inadvertently the Magi bring the birth of Jesus to the attention of the authorities in Judea, resulting in a brutal slaughter.

They show up the corrupt politics of King Herod. He is interested in protecting his position. They are interested in worshipping the new King rather than Herod. But what gain is it to them to offer gifts to the ruler of another nation? Do they want a favour in return? Are they setting themselves up to fast-track their own investments or trade? They would not have been the only ones who tried such a thing.

Perhaps there was no intention to profit. Perhaps they were not mercenaries or traders. Perhaps they were just people who recognised that a very great person had been born. Maybe they did not know too much about the whole thing, after all they had to be told about Bethlehem as the place where the promised great King was to be born. Maybe they were just offering respect and homage to someone they recognised to be greater than themselves. Unlike Herod.

And unlike those who want to protect their own position and so refuse to worship the great King. And unlike those who think that religion is a way to wealth, or fame, or power, and who refuse to worship the King for his own sake.

In some western countries a backlash is developing against the sanitising of Christmas, actually against the suppressing of Christmas or perhaps we could say its hijacking. It has been hijacked in many places not so much by commercialism as by an intolerant secularism which claims non-believers will be offended and have their rights diminished if the true story of Christmas was to be on public display.

Despite this and many other attempts over the years to suppress Christmas (some even by well meaning Christian leaders themselves), Christmas survives. Which suggests there might be more to it than just a special baby. Or that what is special about the baby might be what keeps Christmas going.

The story is that the baby was the son of God. A real human baby, but son of God as well. Some may object that this is fanciful. But there is a more serious problem. It is not just that the baby was son of God, but if he was the son of God, why was he born in the first place? Why did God need to become a human? Why did he want to become a human?

The answer to those questions is quite shattering. No wonder some want to keep this story out of the public eye. Why did God send his son?

Peter’s opinion was that, “When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways." (Acts 3:26).

Paul’s theory was that, “…when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. (Gal 4:4).

Or to say it more strongly,” For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,” (Rom 8:3).

As for John, he said, “God's love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (1Joh 4:9).

Scary isn’t it? John saw and testified “that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.” (1Joh 4:14). But why would you want to keep that hidden from the public?

So Isaiah said about the child who would come to multi-ethnic Galilee. Light is a great help to people who are in the dark, especially people who are in the dark about God.

Some people think that they can light a fire (or use a torch) to find God in the darkness. But one might just as successfully use a torch to find the sun at midnight. Of course God is not in the darkness. If he was there it would not be dark.

Others may think that the light of God is provided so that we can find our way around. Perhaps that is because we think it is like a tool that can be used to light up other things. But the Bible thinks it is the light itself which will be seen by the people in the dark. And the reason is so that they can see the light itself. So that God himself can be known by people who are spiritually in the dark.

But how can we be sure that Jesus is this light? One way we could approach this is to look for some kind of proof that what he said is true, maybe some kind of logical, scientific or historical proof. But while logic, science, and history will give us strong confirmation of the truth of Jesus' claims, the truthfulness of his claims does not depend on these outside referees. There is no higher court of appeal than Jesus to which we could go in order to check out his claims. If we put our rationality above Jesus' own word, we have put ourselves above him.

The simplest way is to look at the light. If he is the true light that shines in the darkness it ought to be fairly obvious – at least for those who look into it. Looking into the light means allowing Jesus to reveal God to us, in his way, with his words. We must let into our minds what Jesus has said and done. Then we will see the light. Then we will see God.

Is Christmas really a kids’ event? Certainly there are many aspects of the story that children enjoy, even if it has been romanticised and sentimentalised. And everyone likes babies I suppose.

But a lot of the stories read more like women’s stories, especially as Luke tells them. Two pregnant cousins spending three months together until the first one gives birth, is a grown ups story, full of adult themes which are probably beyond the understanding of children.

And as for the men, many probably feel a bit like Zechariah, unable to say anything, and feeling excluded from the women’s world.

But the Bible narrative does not support such exclusion, or ignorance. While Luke does not give much attention to Joseph, Matthew does. Both Joseph and Mary are told more or less the same things. They are told adult things to do with the future tasks and role of their son.

Luke includes a group of ordinary male workers in his story. They are given information about the child in such a way that they are terrified. It is interesting that men should be terrified, especially men who are used to the dark and protecting their animals from predators and thieves. One imagines that down at the Shepherds’ Crook watering hole for a long time afterward there was much discussion about the terror they experienced.

They were not just frightened, they too were given adult information about the future role of the child, in fact such amazing information that the terror was probably forgotten in the subsequent discussions.

All the adults involved were given profound explanations of who this child was and what he would do. It is a story that can only be fully appreciated by adults.

And yet the shepherds were given a baby sign that what they had heard was true – they would find a baby wrapped up in cloths lying in a feeding trough. There is something very paradoxical about the stories of Jesus’ birth. But then the birth itself is a paradox. The human child of Mary is to be called Son of God – presumably because he was.

There are amazing elements in the story that exhaust the understanding of adults, and yet the story is absolutely suitable for children. It is the great children’s story, about a baby born to be ruler and saviour of the world. Children, as much as adults, can read the story in wonder, and hope, and desire to be part of the kingdom of that child.

Would it make any difference to us if God existed as only one person who showed himself to us in different guises at different times? That is if the Father was not a different person to the Son or to the Spirit. What if they were just the same person who appeared in a different way at different times? Would that make any difference to us?

It would make some parts of the New Testament easier to understand, such as when Jesus says “I and the Father are one.” But it would make nonsense of other parts, such as when Jesus claims to speak to his Father – was he just talking to himself?

One way out of these difficulties is to say that Jesus was not really God in the same way that the Father was. But the New Testament writers will not let us go down that path. The first chapter of John rejects the idea.

So if we try to ask the question in the orthodox way, we ask what difference does it make that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but one God? It makes a difference in that it is harder to understand and explain than some of the alternatives!

One major difference this idea makes to Christianity is that it tells us about the social relations in God. We find it hard to understand this and we only have the small glimpses of it that are recorded n the New Testament, but what we do see is an amazing picture of absolute unity of being and mind that directs the different persons in God to act in different ways to accomplish the purposes of God.

The distinctions between the three persons within the one God, also make possible the most amazing connection between God and the creation. The Son, or Word of God, who was with God and was God, became flesh, took humanity to himself and was born as a human being. The Father did not do this, but only the Son. But the Son who became human was a true human, with the human nature he received from his mother Mary, and he was true God, with the divine nature he always had as the Father’s only Son. These two natures were united in the one person of Jesus.

It was this Jesus who died and was raised and who ascended back to the Father with his humanity. At this point our minds are stretched even further than before, but we understand that in the incarnation, the death, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the Son of God, a most amazing salvation has been carried out for us humans. It has not only rescued is from death and judgment, but it has restored the original state God gave to humans that they should be his image.

In fact it has more than restored the image. We now share the image of the one who was always the exact likeness and reflection of God’s own being. We have gone beyond Adam to share the likeness of the Son himself.

Was Jesus just another face of God? Was this just the way that God appeared for the time Jesus was on earth? Was he another form of the Father, and has he been replaced now by the Holy Spirit? Is the Spirit just the latest way in which God has appeared to humans?

In other words, are the three persons of the Trinity only three different faces of God? Is it like an actor who plays three roles in a play? For each role he or she wears different make up, but it is still the same actor.

If this is the case then we could say that it was the Father who suffered on the cross, because if this theory is true than there is no difference between the Father and the Son, they are just different forms of the same being.

But if the Son was just the temporary way in which God showed himself at that time, then perhaps he wasn’t really human. Maybe God took a human form but was really God and only apparently human?

Or the opposite is also possible, that Jesus was just a very spiritual man in whom God lived in the greatest way. So God did not become human, rather he just appeared in a human form.

Behind these theories is the desire to emphasis the unity of God and to say that there is only one God who rules over everything.

Christians have always affirmed the oneness of God. Christians have not changed the monotheistic belief of the Old Testament, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

Sometimes Christians have tried to protect the truth from a wrong emphasis. Many of the views mentioned above were attempts to protect one aspect of the truth, for example the unity of God. It was very difficult to say all the truths together. Gradually the church worked out how to do this.

The theories mentioned at the beginning of this reflection were all rejected as heresies. The Nicene creed was one of the ways in which the church tried to express what was true. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity declares “that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. We do not confuse the Persons, nor do we divide the Substance, for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.” (from the Athanasian Creed).

If the Bible is the main test of knowing what is orthodox Christianity, how do we know which books should be included in the Bible? In bookshops today you can buy a Bible which includes the Apocrypha. Bookshops also sell other books such as the Didache or the Epistle of Barnabas which some claim should be in our Bibles. Who decided, and on what grounds?

The Apocrypha is a group of writings that were once attached to the Old Testament. Before the time of Christ they were often found in collections of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) and formed part of the collection of sacred writings of Greek speaking Jews. They were generally not known in the Hebrew Bible. By 90AD a Jewish Council meeting at Jamnia rejected them from the list of books regarded as authoritative, although they were regarded as useful for private study.

The Christian church took over the same collection of Hebrew scriptures that the Council of Jamnia had agreed to (because they were the scriptures that were generally accepted).

The Christians took some time to agree which of their own writings should be considered authoritative (the gospel of John, for example, took a long time to be generally accepted). By the mid second century Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome both mention most of the NT books in our Bible. But it is not until the Easter letter of Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 that we have a defined list of the same books that are now in our Bible. The Western Church at the Council of Carthage in 397 listed the same NT books.

There were three main bases on which decisions were made for the NT books. That the book was written by an apostle or came from the teaching of an apostle; that the doctrine was apostolic; and that it had been generally used and accepted in the church from the time of the apostles.

On this basis writings from the second century, such as the Didache, were omitted from the NT Canon. “Canon”, in this context, means a rule and in this case it means the agreed list of books which were ruled to be authoritative in the church.

At the time of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, in 1546, ruled that the 12 books of the OT apocrypha should be included in the canon of the Bible. That is why they are printed in Catholic bibles. The Church of England (in Article 6 of the 39 Articles) listed the same 24 books as were in the Hebrew Canon but said that the Apocrypha was only read for example of life and not to establish any doctrine. The other protestant churches kept the original list, even though Luther did not think James should have been included. The Eastern Church in 1672 added four of the books of the Apocrypha to its Canon, however in practice it tends towards the Protestant Bible. The Anglican church believes that the scriptures in our Bible “contain all things necessary for salvation.”

About a hundred years after the death of Christ, the son of a church leader on the Black Sea moved to Rome to establish himself as a teacher in the church.

He was one of the early literalists. He took the scriptures at their face value, but he read them with a particular slant. He did not like ideas which made material things seem too important. He had learnt that the spiritual was what was real. So he disliked the Old Testament scriptures – they were too earthy. He generally disliked all Jewish ideas and thought that the God of the Old Testament was different and inferior to the Father of Jesus.

So he deleted the whole of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament from his Bible, keeping only Paul’s letters and some of Luke’s gospel.

At this stage the churches were not sure what to do with Marcion, except that in Rome they expelled him and declared that his teachings were wrong. But it raised the question of how the church should deal with heresy.

The way the church coped in the next few centuries was to develop three protections against wrong teachers. One of these was the development of creeds. The New Testament contains very brief credal statements. But others such as the so-called Apostles Creed emerged as simple and memorable ways of affirming what was true over against the heterodox. Later creeds were more complex as they tried to assert what was true in the face of various wrong interpretations of the Trinity or the person of Christ.

A second approach was to agree on what were the scriptures that Christians regarded as authoritative. Was Marcion right? Gradually, over the next 200 years, all the churches collected the same set of New Testament books and agreed that they were the rule for deciding what was orthodox.

A third line was to establish who the people were who could say what Jesus and the apostles had actually taught. By the time of Marcion all the apostles were long dead. So trust was put in those who had been taught and commissioned by the apostles. Churches thought it was important that they could trace their ministers and teaching back to an apostle. One reason for this is that some of the wrong teaching came from people who claimed to have been given secret teaching from God which no one else knew. A useful antidote to this was to say that if Jesus did not tell his apostles then we do not need to know it either. This idea of apostolic succession was later politicised by the Roman church but the creeds and the canon still provide us with a safe guide to what is orthodox Christianity.

When we read Jesus’ teaching in the gospels (Matt 19.1-12) about divorce it seems clear that he is against it. But there does seem to be a possibility that under certain circumstances a person could be divorced and remarried. Although it is surprising that Jesus appears to allow the same thing that Moses allowed after what he has just said.

When we read Paul, he also is against divorce (as is the whole Bible). But Paul seems to recognize the fact of divorce and the possibility of it. His discussion of marriage in 1 Cor 7 refers to the unmarried which may include the previously married.

In our day legal divorce recognizes the break up of the marriage. What the Bible is against is the break up of the marriage, not so much the legal act of divorce. We should not think we have obeyed the bible just because we are not legally divorced. If the marriage has broken, that is the same thing. And that is what has to be and can be forgiven.

But can a person, whose marriage has broken and cannot be put back together again, marry again? Christians have different views about this. Some understand Jesus’ words to mean that the person can marry only if their spouse has committed adultery. Others think this is inconsistent with the rest of that passage and that no divorce or remarriage is possible.

Others who also think Jesus is speaking against divorce think that it applies to divorces obtained for the purpose of replacing one spouse with another (ie using the law to break the marriage). In this case they say that it is not meant to remove the provision of divorce where the marriage has really broken (even Christians still have hard hearts). Nor is it meant to prevent people whose marriages have broken from later on entering another marriage.

The matter is quite complex and Christians have different views about it. As do churches, some of which will remarry divorced people, and others of which won’t.

My own view is that Paul is probably assuming the Old Testament provisions for divorce for marriages which have broken. I think Jesus probably was speaking against serial marriages and opposing the idea that one only needed to find a legal reason to get a divorce. He affirmed the belief that divorce was always wrong and that some remarriages were a form of legalized adultery. But I am less sure that he meant that remarriage was never possible after the break up of a marriage.

When people marry in church they usually make a promise to each other that they will love each other until one of them dies. This is the basis of their marriage. Their whole relationship depends on each of them keeping their promise. But the marriage itself is a union of the two people in body, mind, and spirit.

This is a gracious gift from God for humans, so that the man and the woman together can enjoy a wonderful love and companionship. But sometimes the union between two married people becomes broken. Many times it is only for a short time and they are willing to come back together. Sometimes something from outside the relationship damages the relationship so much that it is no longer a marriage. Sometimes one or both of the people break apart the union God gave them.

If no healing is possible, or no healing is done in time, then the relationship breaks apart and is no longer a marriage. The Bible provides ways in which the woman especially can be protected when the marriage breaks. Divorce was provided for this purpose amongst others. It gives people a status of being unmarried so that they can continue in ordinary society. It is never regarded in the Bible as a good thing, - only a helpful thing for those whose marriages have broken.

But divorce can be forgiven, or to say it in a better way, the breaking of the marriage can be forgiven (because it is not the unforgivable sin). Some may say that forgiveness means that the couple should go back together again. But what have been forgiven are the things that have been done so that the marriage cannot be put back together again.

Jesus spoke about divorce in very strong terms. But part of what he said was in answer to questions put to him by the religious experts of his day. They asked him whether Moses allowed people to be divorced for any reason at all, or only for some reasons. There were a number of schools of thought and they were probably trying to get him to side with one group against the others.

Jesus objected to the game they were playing, which was to find reasons to justify divorcing their wife so they could marry another one. They were not concerned about marriages that had genuinely broken, they just wanted some legal way to get divorced so they could marry someone else. In response to this Jesus said that God’s intention was that people should not divorce at all. That Moses’ rules were only provided because of human sin. Strangely, Jesus’ answer then suggests that he still allows one ground for divorce and remarriage. (Next week: Remarriage?)

It difficult to know how best to speak about the judgment of God. Some Christians seem to make too much of it and appear to take pleasure in describing the terrible fate of the wicked. Others avoid it all together.

The difficulty is that it was demonstrably a crucial part of the apostles’ message. But their message was announced as good news. As a great proclamation of astounding importance. Somehow we need to understand the message of judgment in this context.

So how does God deal with his human enemies? He acts in complex ways towards them. He sends the rain and the sun to bless them. He continues to give them the blessings of life. But at the same time he calls on them to change their ways and their attitude to him. He warns them of dire consequences. And he doesn’t wait for some far off day, but brings consequences to them at the same time as he is blessing them. In some cases he leaves them to the results of their decisions, to reap the fruit of their actions. In other cases he gives them a taste of what is ahead as they experience some disaster or other.

Of course all this could be seen as a futile game since humans continually fall foul of God. God has shown that it is not a game but rather that he deeply desires all his human creation to be his friends and not his enemies. The dire consequences of human rebellion are an aspect of God’s love for his creation. He treats us as responsible people. He takes our decisions seriously. And because he knows we have no way of avoiding the worst of these consequences, he has sent his Son to take responsibility for our choices and actions.

We humans agree with this. We also think humans are responsible. We also think humans should be held accountable for their actions. We also want to see evil removed from our world and from our lives. Although we are sometimes nervous about where we stand with God, we approve of his plan to remove all evil and all evil doers.

Part of the apostles’ amazing news was that because of the death of his Son, God had made a promise to humans that they could become his friends instead of his enemies. That they could receive his pardon. That because they were friends they would not suffer the consequences of enemies. God’s Plan A is to turn enemies into friends through the gospel.