Skip to content

General Assembly: A Memoir

October 8, 2014

imageHi everyone… I’m just back from five days in a strange country. It goes by the title of the General Assembly of the PCANZ. Now I need to write about it in order to move on. Otherwise it will possess me.

Some of the nicest people I know are New Zealand Presbyterians. And spending five days with them is always a delight. There was probably more celebration than anything else. It was richly multicultural with a deep bicultural vein running through it all. Our leader (moderator) for this particular jaunt was the passionate and poetic Andrew Norton. Music was a delight – lifting the roof on several occasions. One particularly spine tingling performance by a Auckland Chinese choir of a piece called Lord Have Mercy will stay with me for a long time.

imageThe Keynote Speaker was Steve Taylor. He was the other highlight of the gathering for me. Both his insights and his means of communicating were equally memorable. His theme was “Hospitality: Your Place or Mine?” He reflected on receiving hospitality at “their place” based in the sending of the 72 In Luke 10 and then on hospitality at “our place” based on Luke 14 and “throwing feasts” and finally on Luke 19, Jesus constant cross-cultural engagement, drawing on the short movie “The lost thing”

And yet the contrast between the celebration/keynote addresses and the debate couldn’t have been more extreme – from the sublime to the ridiculous at times. The subjects up for debate varied widely from internal ecclesiastical matters to broader socio-political matters. If you were there and I miss out something you feel was important, please don’t be offended. These are just the things that stick in my memory.

I will summarise some of the more internal decisions that I can recall:

  • We agreed to allow congregations (north of the Waitaki) to upgrade their buildings to 34% rather than 67% of NBS
  • We agreed to a system which will to free up some of the significant wealth of the PCANZ tied up in buildings for mission projects (Who could disagree with this?)
  • We declared ourselves a “cross-cultural church” (What else could we be with a gospel of “reconciliation”?)
  • We agreed to change the model for representation at the General Assembly to one based more on the individual members within a Presbytery rather than on congregations. (This seems to be inconsistent with the idea that the congregation is the fundamental unit of our mission and that membership is first of all in a congregation and only secondly in the PCANZ, therefore not transferable. There may well be an issue for further theological reflection here.

Turning to some of the broader issues we addressed:

  • Mr Paul Barber moved that “the GA call on political leaders to commit to active initiatives to promote peace through non-violent conflict resolution and to oppose armed conflict.” The motion was lost.
  • Dr Glen Pettigrove gave an inspiring presentation in support of including the Belhar Confession (a significant reformed confessional statement arising out of the struggle against Apartheid and prophetically addressing issues of racism) in the list of authoritative statements of our reformed heritage. The motion was lost. (I heard two arguments in opposition i. this statement could potentially used to support the cause of homosexuals ii. this statement comes from a different context … (i.e. Like all such statements on our list)). For me this was truly the low point of Assembly. The thought that we could reject Belhar for these reasons makes me want to walk away from the PCANZ.
  • Rev Dr Bruce Hamill and Rev Anne Thompson presented a proposal to (among other things) request Presbyterian investors and members to divest from the fossil fuel industry (from i. Coal, Oil or Gas Companies listed on the NZ Stock Exchange who’s main business is the extraction and/or production of fossil fuels and ii. the 100 largest global coal companies and the 100 largest oil and gas companies.) The Assembly agreed. This was the high point of the assembly for me.
  • Rev Hamish Galloway, in one of two moments when he showed significant and impressive leadership, moved that the group of motions on sexuality, leadership and marriage be addressed by a special commission rather than debate at Assembly. The motion was lost and I added my name to the dissenters.
  • A motion in the name of Penelope Stevenson, to uphold a minister’s “freedom of conscience” in relation to officiating at any marriage was withdrawn. I have no idea why this happened and would have liked to know. In anticipation I had prepared the following little speech to offer, but the opportunity never arose:

“Moderator, I support this motion. And in so doing I want to say something about the difference between an evangelical church and a legalistic one (because I believe this debate touches on the heart of what it means to be church). An evangelical church is founded on and defined by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a church has rules… But these rules are merely for the purpose of good order. They are not and ought not be absolute. They are not of the substance of the reformed faith. There must always be room for freedom of conscience and the possibility of conscientious objection to these rules and to any statement the church makes which is not a confession of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If these rules and statements, which are not our confession of the gospel become absolute in this sense,then we have become a legalistic church. If you want to remain an evangelical church and not merely a club, I urge you to support this motion”

  • Mr Paul Barber moved a motion to affirm the leadership of “people in gay, lesbian, bisexual, or de facto relationships or in Civil Unions”. Early in this debate Rev Hamish Galloway gave a powerful speech neither supporting nor opposing the motion. He spoke however about the wrongness of this mode of discernment and addressing these issues. He announced that he was putting down his voting cards and leaving the Assembly for the observation gallery. I and 1/3 of commissioners joined him there. Leaving just 200 still debating. There was considerable emotion and the Moderator himself was visibly distressed.
  • Three motions to ensure that Ministers “may only solemnise a marriage for the union of a man and a woman” (via special legislative procedure, adopted ad interim) were then presented by Rev Stuart Lange and Rev Martin Macaulay. The word “solemnise” was introduced as a legal term referring to what a state approved celebrant does. During this debate I decided, with some hesitation to return to the floor. However, the moderator was keeping debate to a minimum and I did not have the opportunity to offer the following short speech:

“In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is no male and female” (Gal 3:28). Not even the great complementarity of male and female defines the new world of life in the body of Christ. What there is according to the writer to the Ephesians is a practice called marriage which signifies the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church. (Eph 5:32)… Both a witness to Gods love and a practice in which we learn to love, in all the intimacy of our bodily existence, our nearest neighbour. I oppose this motion because I do not want to deprive homosexual people of the opportunity to share in this witness, this asceticism, this practice in holiness and hope. Jesus made the reform of a range of institutions into an art form. I believe he is calling us to reform our understanding and practice of marriage, not to set it in ecclesiastical concrete. I urge this assembly to remember the spacious love of Christ.”

And so it all ended on Tuesday afternoon with many of us exhausted and semi-depressed (as usual) in spite of all the celebrations and energy with which it all began

Authority and Obedience (sermon)

September 27, 2014

Matt 12:23-32  Phil 2:1-13


By what authority are you doing these things? When challenged like this Jesus doesn’t answer directly… Instead he ends up offering them a parable about authority… about the nature of authority.


“A man had two sons” we are told. He gave both of them the same command. As a Jewish father he has authority over his sons. His culture, tradition, society all give him authority to command his sons.


The first son acknowledges that authority and says Yes… but does nothing. The second son rejects that authority, rebels, but later does what the father asks.


For the first Son, although the authority of the Father is acknowledged, although he says Yes, this authority is not internalised. It may be that he never intends to act, and is deceptive… or it may be that he simply never gets round to it. The command exists somewhere out there on the periphery of who he is and what he is doing with his life… so for all it’s external authority it has no internal authority for him.


Authority is not merely something someone has by virtue of the way society works, by virtue of being the boss, by virtue, or, in this case, being a Jewish Father – external authority. Deepest authority is given from below by those who follow… its internal.


Interestingly, the one who ends up demonstrating that the Father’s command is truly and internally authoritative… the one who ends up doing the will of the Father, is the one who initially says No (the Rebel), but does get round to it. … he is the obedient one.


Here is where the challenge of the religious leaders gets thrown back in their teeth. Jesus compares them to the first son… for whom doing the will of the Father is a duty… but not a passion, something they say yes to… but ultimately don’t get around to actually doing.


Crooks and Whores,… says Jesus will get into the kingdom of heaven before the religious leaders. They may say No at first. They may appear to be the nay sayers… but there will be crooks and whores who will do the will of the Father because its their passion, because it has internal authority for them.


Let’s turn our attention now to the other readings. This little bit of Philippians, scholars think, is a very ancient Christian hymn, older than any of the writings of the NT, any of the gospels or any of Paul’s letter. It is a little hymn which tells us more than anything else what lay at the heart of Paul’s new faith in Jesus and how the very first Christians understood it.

Let me read just the hymn part:

[Jesus] was in the form of God. He didn’t think it was robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave servant, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, listening to God to the point of death — even the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee would bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every language would fully agree that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In a nutshell it tells us that Jesus was a man under the authority of his Father. He was in the form of God his Father. Not in any way seeking a higher status, but equal with God, completely lacking any sense of rivalry with God and yet… at the same time under the authority of God his Father. How does that work if someone is equal, yet under authority? It works if the authority is not some external system. It works if the authority is totally freely given by the one under authority. It is about internal authority.


The hymn envisions Jesus as obedient to God… And the word itself is worth noting. Obedience comes from two old english words meaning ‘listening towards’. The Greek is the same. It says Jesus ‘listened to God all the way to his death’. Jesus and the Father were on the same wavelength… all the way down.


And how did he express this equality with God… Philippians says, because he was in the form of God, he expressed that divine form, by pouring himself out as a servant of others… listening to God in a way that led directly to his crucifixion. For this according to Christians is what God is like. This is the form of God in our world.


This is the Christian revolution… humility, self-giving, servanthood, the cross … is the very form of God. This is the life of God that the resurrection of Jesus celebrates and announces. This is the form of God that, according to the hymn, will be acknowledged by every language group. Not Caesar, nor his army, not his athletes, nor his array of heroic deities, but Jesus… is the Lord… the Lord Servant of all.


Which all sounds very grand and orthodox, doesn’t it… but for Paul it is intensely practical.

If then there is any encouragement in Christ [Paul writes] If his love provides any relief, any partnership with the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete by thinking along these same lines, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Have the same frame of mind that was in Jesus, the Anointed One.

For Paul, to be a Christian is to be caught up into the obedience of Jesus… we can he says “work out our own salvation”. We too can share in this amazing life of servanthood in relation to one another and obedience to God.


How? Paul says, because ‘it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both in what you intend to do and in what you actually do’.


To my mind this brings us back to the two sons… This business of getting intentions and actions together… like the Son who said No but in the end acted… this business is God’s work. Internal authority.


I wonder which son you tend to identify with. Are you more like the ‘good’ son, whose first instinct is to say Yes? Or are you the rebel, whose first instinct it to say No?


Either way the good news is that God changes human nature… changes people and communities … so that they they pour themselves out for others, rather than contain themselves safely under their own control. God changes people and communities so that they no longer aspire to be like Caesar … on top of the world… but to be like Jesus, under the world, bearing the world in love. God changes people into the form of God.


This is the Gospel of Christ.

The Generous God and the Evil Eye (sermon)

September 20, 2014

Matthew 20: 1-16Evil_Eye


The kingdom of God is like a sower planting seed, or like the seed, or like a king dealing with his servants or today like a surprising example of employment relations.


Jesus is full of metaphors to describe the ‘realm of God’s rule’. That fact alone is interesting. It’s interesting that he needed to use strange images. Images that took time to understand. Images that stretch the world as we know it. He was someone with an imagination which is far from tamed by reality. Someone who is being constantly misunderstood and yet whose parables and teaching lured people on, puzzled them, surprised them. If you’ve got the parables all sorted then you probably haven’t thought about them for very long. Jesus uses parables because his God is a strange God and his kingdom is a strange kingdom.


So just when you thought you were free from politics… Jesus tell us a story about employment relations… sorry folks but this is the gospel for today!


As I read it, it occured to me that you could read this parable from the left or from the right.


You could say that according to the parable the kingdom of God is best expressed by an employer who gives everyone an equal standard pay – what the parable calls ‘the usual daily wage’ regardless of how much work they have done. A living wage perhaps? The kind of socialist utopia that might encourage everyone to turn up late for work perhaps? No incentive. From the right this scenario seems deeply problematic. Those who have worked all their lives to make ends meet and get ahead and put bread on the table, end up in the same situation as those dole bludgers who haven’t worked hardly at all and arrive at the end of the day.

Or you might, on the other hand, look at this parable in terms of rates of pay. If you think of it that way the employer in fact gives everyone a completely different hourly rate. Blatant inequality. In terms of the labour they do some end up being paid very highly – like the bank CEO $1000 an hour or so for looking after money – and the disability care worker on the minimum wage for looking after people all day. From the left this scenario could look equally problematic. The one who starts work in the morning on effectively a low hourly wage can see only blatant inequality.

Either way it’s unfair. The kingdom of God is unfair.


The left talks a lot about inequality. The right talks a lot about incentives. Important issues though these are… Jesus has a different perspective altogether.


For Jesus the landowner is a model of generosity – since the story is about the kingdom of God we might say that the landowner is God. And there is nothing in the story about the landowner needing labourers… we take that for granted… but in the story the landowner goes back to the market place and finds people ‘standing idle all day’. The landowner is not so much addressing his own needs here… especially as the day gets nearer evening… as he is concerned about the people with nothing to do. In Jesus take on the story its all about the generosity of the landowner. The key phrase comes at the end. “Are you envious because I am generous?” In the Greek it is “Do you have an evil eye because I am generous.”


For Jesus underneath the issue of unfairness there is a deeper issue… the issue of envy, the issue of the evil eye and its relation to the generosity of God.


In the story the generosity of God creates havoc. But Jesus places the problem clearly on the side of the disgruntled workers not the employer. The problem is not the unfair employer, the problem lies in the perspective of the employees


What does it mean, asks Jesus, to live with a generous God?


What about the God who makes the rain to fall equally on the just and the unjust? Unfair, sure, but generous!


Let’s think about the heart of God’s generosity… The place where we see it most clearly. Here’s a clue… it’s not the rain.


What about the God who does the work of redeeming the world, suffers the consequences and brutality of human violence, lives among us for our sake, in order to reconcile us to God and gives us the generosity of forgiveness? Jesus…, if you think about it, (if we were to put Jesus in this parable) Jesus is the worker who was up at the break of day, doing all the work, so that we might, late in the piece, share in God’s work in the world. If we are in this story of the generous God, it is as those who turn up afterwards and get to share in the benefits.


The sheer generosity (the bible calls it grace) of God unsettles the world. In this case the workers develop what the story calls the evil eye. Rather than see the generosity of God for what it is, they see instead what their neighbour receives and somehow they see someone less deserving of generosity than they are. We may have arrived late on the scene… but it turns out there’s always someone who catches our attention who has arrived later than us and is less deserving of generosity than we are.


Rather than responding to generosity with a generous attitude to those we are tempted to consider less worth of generosity than ourselves… we start to worry that they are getting more than they deserve.


The evil eye, sees the neighbour rather than the generosity of God. It seems to me that we live in a world governed by the evil eye. What would happen to marketing if our world was not driven by envy? What would happen to our constant need to upgrade our cellphone and thus to grow the economy? According to the evil eye, we need a car appropriate to our social group and our suburb. We need the right kind of clothing and housing for the same reason. A thinker called William Cavanaugh likes to point out that we are not materialists… we are not attached to material things. We let go of one new thing the moment the next new thing that our neighbour has or our television reminds us we need. What we want is constantly on the move. And this evil eye keeps the economy running and growing. Envy at the heart of the marketisation of all of life.


It’s human nature you might say.


But the point about parables of the kingdom… is that Jesus seems to believe that human nature can change, that the kingdom of the evil eye might be surprised by the generosity of God. Jesus believes that human nature can change. That’s unusual! St Paul agreed with Jesus on this. “If anyone is in Christ… there is (present tense) a new creation”.


Jesus finishes with the comment that ‘The first will be last and the last will be first’. He could be interpreted as saying simply that the current inequality will be reversed. That those who have the world’s wealth now will be poor and vice versa. Same situation, different people in power. Or he could be saying something much deeper with this revolutionary statement. It could be that the generosity of God will so transform human nature that both the rich and the poor will become generous as God is generous.

















Combating Cynicism at Election Time

September 20, 2014

Greetings cyber friends, it’s beautiful sunny day for an election, here in Dunedin New Zealand. I have just been out to cast my vote against the principalities and powers (and by that I don’t mean a political party). A few days ago I wrote an ‘editorial’ for our church newsletter… here’s a foretaste for you who are not a part of Coastal Unity Presbyterian, Dunedin:Edward_Snowden

Last night I watched ‘The Moment of Truth’ starring Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald and whistle-blower Edward Snowden. It was both entertaining and disturbing. I’m not sure that it persuaded me to vote for Kim Dotcom, but it did make me wonder about the world we live in. They say truth is the first victim of war. But what happens when people believe they are living in a constant state of warfare? I fear that some of us end up sinking into a kind of cynicism in which public accountability is regarded as a lost cause and we end up being unshockable and feeling powerless.


Recently our gospel readings have been parables. It seems that Jesus was constantly wandering around casting out stories – strange stories about the everyday world, yet stories that surprise us, stories that suggest a world very different from the everyday world we know, stories about the kingdom of a God who is strange. On Sunday we had a story about a king who forgave an absurdly large debt. That was surprising. But the real surprise was when the forgiven servant was completely unaffected and walked out the door and refused to forgive his fellow servant. This coming Sunday the kingdom of God is compared to an employer whose idea of fair payment catches us by surprise. He gives those who do only one hour’s work the same wage as those who work all day. In this kingdom there’s no proportionality between the payment and the work. The employer treats the wage as a kind of gift and reserves the right to be as generous as he wishes with his gift. For those who worked all day this is offensive. For those who began in the evening this is a gift that they know they don’t deserve. In this kingdom, if you feel you deserve a place you’ll never be happy and if you know you don’t you’ll be free to enjoy it and share what you have.


Every so often when I read the gospels I get excited and hopeful about the world and think maybe something different is possible. In particular I hope that God might actually be at work to create a small piece of this strange kingdom of gift and forgiveness. I start to imagine that there might be something called ‘church’ hidden in the world, in spite of all my cynicism about the world. One of the verses in scripture that stirs this hope in me is 2 Corinthians 5:21 in which Paul tells the folk at Corinth that the community of Jesus might become ‘the justice of God’. Paul writes ‘For our sake he [God] made him who knew no sin [i.e. Jesus, the one who lived in complete love for God and neighbour] to be ‘sin’ [the scare quotes are important after all he was different from this screwed up world to the point that he was treated as sin by that world], so that in him we might become the justice of God.


Its the end of that verse that excites me. Is it possible that we here in Coastal Unity might become the [odd] justice of God. Is it possible that the ‘gift-economy’ of Jesus’ parables might find its way into our lives?

Joining the Dots

August 19, 2014

Genesis 45: 1-5           Matthew 15: 10-28canaanite woman


Our OT reading is the most extraordinary ending of the most extraordinary story. To appreciate that I think we just have to put ourselves in Joseph’s head for a moment. Imagine we were making a movie of the Joseph story… imagine the flashbacks as Joseph recognises his brothers arriving in Egypt to beg for food.


Flashback to the sunny day in his childhood when he arrives in the fields where his brothers are working… sent by his Father to see how the older brothers are. Instead of a friendly greeting from his older brothers, his role models, he is violently attacked and tied up. He has no idea what is happening for they have seen him coming and sprung it on him. And now he is tied up in their midst while they argue over whether to kill him. One of his brothers defends him and argues that he should be left to die in a pit rather than killed. So they strip him naked and put him in a pit to die. Then another of these delightful brothers comes up with the bright idea of selling him as a slave to some passing Egyptians. This they do and off he goes into slavery. I don’t know how many of you have seen 12 years a slave. In the story a free man is sold into slavery by some con artists he doesn’t really know. Imagine what is must feel like to be sold into slavery by your brothers.


Imagine the years of imprisonment… the moments of good fortune which mean that Joseph is finally given freedom and becomes a powerful person. All of this flashes through his mind as he sees his brothers arriving in Egypt now hungry and seeking food.


The urge for justice (for retribution) must have been almost irresistible. And yet in that moment… and isn’t it funny how the most important things seem to happen in a moment… something snapped inside him and he reached out and embraced his persecuting brothers. This is his amazing speech. “Come closer to me. Do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you have sold me here. For God sent you before me to preserve life.”


Ka-ching… the dots are joined for Joseph. He has this vision of God’s purposes. God’s purposes are the restoration of life rather than retributive justice. The crops have been preserved in the barns in the good years. They are now available for life in the tough times. But its more than just having enough food isn’t it. It’s having a life together that’s sustainable, built on forgiveness.


Joseph has an epiphany – a moment of understanding which is a turning point in his life. Have you had moments like that?


I often wonder if Jesus has a moment like that in our NT reading….

He has just been preaching about purity… what it means to be a righteous Jew… I was fascinated this week to attend Richard Bauckham’s lecture series on Galilee at the time of Jesus. Did you know apart from the Gospel there are almost no extant writings from Galilee at the time of Jesus. The nearest we have is a guy call Nittai the Arbelite. And only one of his ‘wise sayings’ remains. Here is what he says:

Keep your distance from an evil neighbour;

​do not associate with a wicked person;

​and do not despair of retribution.


As Richard Bauckham suggested the last line probably means that we shouldn’t give up believing that God will punish the wicked.

This is the context into which Jesus spoke. Jesus challenges the Pharisee version of purity. For the Pharisees it is about separation from certain kinds of unclean things – like pigs, or …. or gentiles. For the Pharisees its all about maintaining a ritual purity – its about things you might put in your mouth or touch. Jesus says no. The calling of God… is not to purity (in that sense) it’s to love… and these two ways of reading the call end up clashing. It’s not about keeping yourself untainted, its about giving yourself to the needy.


And so, having offered this wisdom about the true nature of righteousness, it tells us (v21) that he goes across a kind of symbolic border to a Gentile district – Tyre and Sidon … and a Canaanite woman… an unclean Gentile comes to him seeking healing for her daughter. And as I read this story, it’s like Jesus has worked out this purity thing in his head… but only to a point. He is living out of the righteousness of God within the bounds of his calling to Israel and its not until a woman from outside his world challenges him that he sees the full implication of what it means. The woman is persistent. Jesus and she engage in some quite edgy verbal jousting. “How can I feed the people’s bread to the little dogs (the pets)?” he asked. She retorts… that even the dogs get fed at dinner time. And then it’s like the penny drops… Jesus connects the dots. “Woman, great is your faith!” The Spirit of God has used a persistent woman, a woman in great need and therefore great faith, but a woman from outside the purity of Israel to show Jesus that the call of Abba redefines even the identity of Israel, of the people of God itself… from a people of boundary-purity to a people crossing boundaries in love.

I wonder if it was this experience that inspired in Jesus that classic parable of enemy-love that we call the Good Samaritan?


The woman’s great faith became a vehicle of the Spirit in Jesus journey of faithfulness to his loving Abba. We talk of Mary being the Mother of God. What about the role of this Canaanite woman?


I am struck today by ‘turning points’, by moments when we can suddenly, in the mystery of God’s Spirit, join the dots. Where are those moments in your life?


This week I spoke on a Panel on the Marriage Amendment Act and the Church’s response. And I had a bunch of ideas about marriage but I’m not sure I had really been forced to sit down and prayerfully hold all these things together. This request challenged me to do that, and to do it in a rather scary public way.


I think for many people, the dots only join up when someone actually confronts them. When they discover that one of their children or a friend or someone in their family is gay and this person comes to them and asks them ‘let me be a Christian too’. And we are not sure what that might mean. Sometimes we need our Canaanite woman to work out whether we are really people of purity or people of love.


I must say though, that when I did that, it was like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle coming together. Jesus was the great reformer of institutions. Jesus didn’t simple reaffirm the traditional definitions. He didn’t say, oh sorry I can’t help on the Sabbath, the correct definition of Sabbath is no work. He said ‘the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He didn’t say, look you will have go to the temple to find God, they have the correct means of forgiveness. No he said, Your sins are forgiven. My body is the true temple. He didn’t say sorry the only way to be righteous is within the nation of Israel, that’s just the correct definition of righteousness. He almost did say that to the Canaanite women, didn’t he. But then, perhaps he remembered the sermon he had just given about true purity. And he embraces this women and her daughter. When the theological pennies start to drop… it ends up meaning reform for all these institutions, these ways of living our life.

And Paul I think opens this up for marriage too.

He says in Galatians,

‘In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (the issue we’ve just had raised by the Canaanite woman), slave nor free (you can see the beginning of the church’s grappling with this in the book of Philemon), and there isn’t male AND female.

The Greek in Galatians 3:28 changes from ‘or’ to ‘and’ and some translations ignore it. But I think (and I’m not the only one) that Paul is making a point. This is a famous phrase from Genesis. ‘In the image of God he created them, male AND female he created them’. In other words this pattern in God’s creating, this complementarity of male and female, as important as it might be for reproduction and other matters, does not define life for the Christian. And so Christian marriage, just like the Christian community, and the Christian Sabbath and Christian purity and so on… might not be defined so much by its biological context as by the call of Jesus on our lives…

For me, joining the dots, this week meant seeing with a clarity that I hadn’t previously appreciated, the call to re-think the meaning of marriage rather than simply re-affirm traditional definitions.

I don’t expect you to necessarily connect the dots with me, or in the same way I have, this morning. For some I expect it will be quite challenging. But if you are interested in exploring further, my presentation is available online at Jason Goroncy’s website ( – Have a read and I would be only to glad to talk further about it at some stage.



August 13, 2014

I recently attended a helpful workshop on Liturgical matters led by the Rev Dr Phillip Tovey from Oxford. He got me thinking about a few things including the ‘kickoff’ (liturgical greeting) and the use of creeds. So this week I tried to merge these issues with a call to worship which is suggestive of a confession of faith. Hopefully the congregation will take on the challenge of putting a bit of expression in.


Call to Worship: a dialogue with questions


              One:   Let us worship God

              All:     Who? 

              One:    The giver of life

              All:      Don’t you mean “taker” too?

              One:    Not at all!

              All:    Our God keeps on giving new life?

             One:    Thanks be to God

              All:     who raised Jesus from his death at our hands

              One:   rebooting the universe

              All:      beginning with his forgiven people 

              One:    renovated in his Spirit

              All:     and poured out in his name.

Three Tales of Brokenness (sermon)

August 2, 2014


Romans 9: 1-5

Paul has great grief for his people – his divided people Israel. He stands on one side of a widening division in Israel. A division between Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah who also ended up being called Christians, and, on the other side of the great divide, those Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah (scholars sometimes call this Rabbinic Judaism).


Paul’s grief is great because the Messiah came to Israel at the end of a long history of divine engagement… of prophets, of promise. He can’t leave that behind. Nor can he, in good faith, leave it to those who do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. It is his history too. He must interpret it in the light of the Messiah. For Paul the Messiah (v 5) is ‘over all’. Jesus is the game-breaker. Jesus changes the world to a new world.


So he finds himself in the middle of a divided people, divided Judaism… Paul, like all Christians, is a Jew… he accepts the heritage of Jewish faith. We too, like Paul, are Jews! Jews for whom Jesus is the Messiah.


What a time to be reading this! With a tragic war between the modern Nation State of Israel and Palestinians in Gaza, we too cannot avoid the terrible messiness of this inheritance. There are Christian-Jews (just like us) in Gaza. There are Christian-Jews (just like us) in Israel… there are Rabbinic Jews as well… I could go on. But I simply want to highlight the grief that comes from taking seriously the way of God’s Messiah whose mission was to break down the walls of division.


It’s also an interesting time for us in Coastal Unity to read of Paul’s grief. We too are a divided community. We are divided on how we should use our money and what our priorities as a community are. These are not trivial questions. We are divided in our thinking and our voting. But we are still together in worship. We are not divided bodily. Maybe the only reason we are still together for worship is that we believe that Jesus the Messiah is the one who has the authority to sort out our divisions and bind us together into a common life and common cause. I hope so.


Matthew 14:13-21


In Matthew’s gospel Jesus withdrew… he went to a deserted place. Prayer requires from us a certain kind of space… of freedom from the push and pull of human interaction. Jesus needed to be in the presence of the loving Father and to screen out some of the other presences.


When the crowd finally arrives at this ‘deserted place’ he is renewed in his compassion for the needs of the people. He is full of the Spirit. He heals.


But it is still a deserted place of vulnerability. There are no local stores or infrastructure. The disciples suggest sending the people away to the villages for food. Jesus chooses another way. He challenges the disciples: ‘You give them something to eat’. He challenges the disciples to give when they have next to nothing. ‘But we have nothing here but five loaves and two fish’. It’s a bit of a joke really. 5-10,000 people and just 5 loaves and two fish.


Jesus runs with the joke… again he calls for their willingness to give. “Bring them here to me”. Even though your resources are ludicrously inadequate are you prepared to bring them anyway. “Bring them here to me”.


The joke of course is on their fears. Because when they bring the bread…, and Jesus turns in prayer to his Father and blesses it, giving it, in turn, to his Father…, when the bread is broken and given away… it turns out there is enough after all.


It’s hard not to read gospel stories like this with an eye for the symbolism they use. They were written with that in mind. Twice Matthew uses the word ‘broken’. The loaves are ‘broken’ in the giving and the pieces that remain (12 baskets full – a symbolic number if ever there was one) are also described as broken.


There is a pattern here that needs to be noticed. The broken Messiah provides enough for all. The broken pieces that result from the broken body fill 12 baskets (12 like the tribes of Israel, like the people of God). The new people of God are broken like their Messiah… and given for the need of the world.


Genesis 32: 22-31


Jacob is on a journey back to be reconciled with his brother Esau. He is scared witless. He sends ahead all sorts of gifts… a kind of buffer between him and Esau, signs of his guilt. But before he meets his brother again, he has a bad night on the banks of the river. He gets into a fight with a man… or is it God? At first it just says it’s a man. And then we are told he has struggled with God. Jacob is winning the fight it seems or maybe its just that Jacob won’t give up. In the course of the fight the man (or God?) strikes him on the hip-socket and does him damage. But Jacob it seems pins the man (or is it God?) down and says “I will not let you go unless you bless me”. At which point the man gives him a new name; Israel – the struggler. And Jacob concludes ‘I have seen God face to face and yet my life is preserved”. It seems it was God after all… but there is something comical then about the whole scenario. God, in the form of a man, has been ‘play fighting’ (presumably) with Jacob. God is willing to allow Jacob to persevere in his battle without annihilating Jacob. God loves this struggler and struggles with him. It is as if God knows that Jacob will learn from this struggle. Some people only learn by struggling. But it ends with a reminder. God breaks Jacob’s hip… and he limps off into the sunrise (v31 The Sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip).


He is a broken man. And in his brokenness he has a future. He goes off to meet his long lost and alien brother Esau.


If it ain’t broke… perhaps it’ll never be fixed.


Three tales of brokenness. Three tales of hope. Are you struggling with God? Are you broken? Are we as a people struggling with God? Are we broken?


Do we need to be broken if we are to be true to the Messiah for the sake of the world? Do we need to give our meagre resources, our loaves and fishes into the hands of Jesus to bless and give away if there is ever to be enough?












Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers