Parable of Wheat & Tares - living with differences

Wheat and Tares – living with differences

“Let both of them grow together.” Matt 13.30

So the man rushes to stop this forlorn figure from throwing himself off Chelsea Bridge.

‘Why are you trying to end it all?’
‘I’ve nothing to live for!’

‘Don’t you believe in God?’
‘Yes I do.’

‘Well that’s great - so do I! Are you a Jew or a Christian?’
‘A Christian.’

‘Me too! Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?’
‘A Protestant.’

‘What a coincidence - so am I! Anglican or Methodist?’
‘Anglican.’

‘Who’d be anything else! Does your church use the Prayer Book or Common Worship?’
‘Common Worship.’

‘Amazing. So do we! Traditional Language or Contemporary language?’
‘Contemporary.’

‘Die heretic!’

Most Christians have so much in common and yet they let so many things tear them apart and divert them from building the Kingdom

Today’s Gospel is one of the many Kingdom parables of Jesus. Remember that Sunday School definition of a parable? - an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.

And remember too that all parables have one main point. They are not allegories where you try to find meaning in every part.

It reminds me of the Welsh preacher who was getting into a lather as he described hell (not at all what this parable is about) as a place where “there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth”. A little old lady pipes up from the back – “what if you haven’t got any teeth?” “Teeth will be provided!”

So what is the main point of this parable? Well it’s not primarily about Church discipline, or church order. Matthew 18 gives instructions about how to deal with disagreements in the fellowship.

And we must also remind ourselves that the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark calls it the Kingdom of God) is about how God exercises his kingly rule, how he operates in our world here and now. The Kingdom of Heaven is not the Church, although it includes the Church.

So this parable is about that constant temptation to try and do God’s work for him; to decide who are really on the side of the angels.

And then when we’ve decided, to drive out those who are not one of us – one of God’s chosen; to dig up the weeds and consign them to the flames.

Jesus reminds us that God is patient, and although judgement will come, it will come in God’s time and in God’s way. “Let both of them grow together”, says Jesus, “until the harvest.”

Now this is not to say that we shouldn’t lock up murderers, or throw out the church treasurer who has been fiddling the books.

It’s about those areas where we have to make judgements, but where we cannot always be sure our judgements are correct.

Let’s bring this home to what’s been happening in our own Anglican Communion over the past few years and to the divisions that are already evident as 230 bishops stay away from the Lambeth Conference.

Christians disagree and fall out about nearly anything and everything. Although to be fair, this could be said about any group of people who hold strong religious, political or philosophical views. It is part of the process by which fallible human beings come to hold some common group identity, like being socialist or conservative, or Anglican or Baptist.

A key part of this process is the way in which we handle the differences, and the degree to which we demand conformity. This is at the heart of the present controversies.

Despite all the sensationalism that we read in the papers, the history of Christianity over 2000 years, running parallel to the development of the modern democracy, has demonstrated a growing degree of inclusiveness in handling differences, and a lessening concentration on exclusiveness.

We only have to look back a century or so to see how we excluded Jews and Roman Catholics from full participation in society.

Now this greater inclusiveness is not surprising, as arguably it was the Reformation in Europe in the 16th century which provided the conditions for democratic nation-states to thrive.

Some Conservative Christians such as those who met at GAFCON in Jerusalem last month, regard all this as the rottenness at the heart of liberal Christianity. They caricature Christians like many of us, as believing so little that we have no Gospel to proclaim!

Whereas, thoroughgoing liberals interpret any demand for conformity as an affront to the great god of individual freedom, and democracy with a capital D. They caricature the conservatives as mindless and arrogant.

Over 16 hundred years ago Augustine tried to give a rule for dealing with the squabbles of his own century:

[In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas,
In omnibus autem caritas.}
In essentials unity, In debateable areas liberty,
But in all things love.

The current debate here and in the States, focussed on human sexuality and the role of women, is a debate about whether this is something ‘essential’ to Christianity or whether it is a debateable area.

On the role of women as priests, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion has put structures in place (or in the case of women Bishops, is putting arrangements in hand) to allow for freedom of conscience. It’s not always a comfortable state of affairs, but with Christian charity it has allowed us to move on with the main agenda.

With regard to gay laity and clergy, we have lived with wonderful Anglican fudge and English reserve, so that we know it is tolerated in many of our churches, positively welcomed in others, and is complete anathema in some.

This too is often an uncomfortable state of affairs, but like all growing pains, it must be endured with patience.

Of course each side in these disputed areas thinks the others are the weeds. If we could just get rid of them we would have a much better harvest.

But the teaching of Jesus makes it clear that there can be no ‘pure’ church; no wholly good nation. And this is because it is made up of men and women like us who in our own lives reflect the parable of the wheat and tares.

Paul put it this way in today’s epistle:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8.22f)

We are imperfect creatures in an imperfect church in an imperfect world. “Get over it!” says Jesus.

Now this is not an excuse for not bothering, for not striving to be better people; for not helping to build a more loving church and a more equitable world order.

But it is a cry from our Lord to be generous and patient and slow to make judgments about others. For like the Flower Pot Men (whom many of you remember) by making friends with little weeds, they may blossom into beautiful flowers who become our friends.

We should pray for the Bishops gathered in Lambeth over these weeks, and for those who have not gone.

And we must look to ourselves, that we don’t start identifying people as weeds that we would be rid of.

Edwin Markham’s verse is a good reminder of the royal way of love, the way of the kingdom:

They drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win
We drew a circle that took them in.

“Let both of them grow together,” says Jesus.

Inclusion

Inclusion and living with differences

“Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” James 3.18

In America – I’m sure this could never happen in England! - there was a feud between a good catholic Episcopalian priest and his very evangelical organist, who loved Moody and Sankey Gospel hymns.

The first hint of trouble came when the priest preached on the need for change and the organist chose to sing "We Shall Not Be Moved."

Trying to believe it was a coincidence, the priest put the incident behind him. The next Sunday he preached on the need for increased giving, and was not amused as the organist led them afterwards in the hymn "Jesus Paid It All."

Sunday morning attendance swelled as the tension between the two built. A large crowd showed up the next week to hear his sermon on the sin of gossiping. The organist struck up with "I Love To Tell The Story?"

There was no turning back. The following Sunday the priest told the huge congregation that, unless something changed, he was considering resignation. The atmosphere was electric as the choir set out on the old Gospel standard "Why Not Tonight."

Other local churches were empty the following week as people crowded into the church to hear the resignation sermon. The priest explained that Jesus had led him to the church and now Jesus was leading him away. The organist could not resist it: "What a Friend We Have in Jesus."

Divisions in a church and divisions between churches are all too common and, despite the jokes, are really very sad. They are a major hindrance to the mission of the church. But they have been around since before Apostles like James wrote their letters, trying to heal the differences that were opening up in the early church – the ‘fights and quarrels among you’ (4.1).

Today’s OT reading is about prophets plotting to kill another prophet – Jeremiah. And the Gospel is about competitive ambition amongst the disciples?

Of course, Christians disagree and fall out about nearly anything and everything. Although to be fair, this could be said about any group of people who hold strong religious, political or philosophical views. It is part of the process by which fallible human beings come to hold some common group identity.

A key part of this process is the way in which we handle the differences, and the degree to which we demand conformity. Like cliffs, the real dangers come at the edges.

The history of Christianity over 2000 years, running parallel to the development of the modern democracy, has demonstrated a growing degree of inclusiveness in handling differences, and a lessening concentration on exclusiveness. This is not surprising, as arguably it was the Reformation in Europe in the 16thC which provided the conditions for democratic nation-states to thrive.

Fundamentalists regard all this as the rottenness at the heart of liberal Christianity. They think that General Synod will soon be including the Devil in the Holy Trinity so as not to make Satanists feel excluded!

Whereas, thoroughgoing liberals interpret any demand for conformity as an affront to the great god of individual freedom, and democracy with a capital D.

Over 16 hundred years ago Augustine tried to give a rule for dealing with the squabbles of his own century:

[In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas,
In omnibus autem caritas.}
In essentials unity, In debateable areas liberty,
But in all things love.

The current debate here and in the States, focussed on human sexuality and the role of women, is a debate about whether this is something ‘essential’ to Christianity or whether it is a debateable area. The vitriol that all this has sometimes released is all a long way from the prayer of Jesus ‘that they may be one’.

However, our Lord himself points the way forward in all our disagreements.

In the teaching of Jesus there seems to be a breadth of inclusion for all imperfect disciples (and we all are imperfect disciples) who nonetheless do good. So in Luke 9.49-50:

"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."

On the other hand, there is a renunciation of those who regard themselves as doctrinally correct, but who nonetheless do evil. Luke 11.23 “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.”

When we do see exclusion in Our Lord’s teaching, it is based on what we might call the ‘big’ ethical issues.

Thus in the sermon on the mount, Our Lord is looking for Kingdom living among his followers, for "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.' (Matthew 7.21-23)

But notice the ethical issues are broadly-based, and come under Our Lord’s summary of all ethics: ‘Love God and love your neighbour’, what James calls in the previous chapter ‘the royal law’. It is doing as you would be done by; it is in showing compassion and mercy to the poor and the downtrodden; it is healing the sick and visiting the imprisoned.

For you and me this means that in our relationships with other Christians, other political persuasions, other religions, and so on; we should be generous and inclusive wherever possible.

The Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus and James urge us to be preoccupied with poverty, oppression, injustice, abuse; and to exclude from our society those who foster these scourges.

So how do we deal with our present divisions?

Well, the Bible is certainly our guide, but it has been interpreted in so many different ways concerning what are the essentials’ and ‘non-essentials’. That’s why there are well over 12,000 registered Christian denominations, all with their own particular interpretations of the bible. We presume too much when we presume to know the mind of God in interpreting every jot and tittle of Scripture. As the Orthodox mystic put it: “Man’s walls do not reach up into heaven.”

As the not-so-mystical Edwin Markham put it:

They drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win
We drew a circle that took them in

There is not even any infallibility within the good old C of E, for Abp Rowan is not a Pope. And attractive as the idea of a Pope might be to some, we all know from our Roman Catholic friends that he is quietly ignored when it suits! (Newman, 1875: ‘conscience first, and then the Pope.’)

However, Scripture overall presents a test – not always simple – but indicative of the way we should go.

And remember that belief always precedes action. Orthodoxy should always lead to orthopraxis.

So: Is what you believe about God enabling you to love others, with kindness and good deeds? Is it leading you to a place of personal acceptance and freedom? Does it foster hope within you?

Or: Is what you believe leading you deeper into self-absorption and self-righteousness; an inability to give yourself in love to others; and an underlying fear of life and of others who are ‘different’?

I hope you are within the first category. For it is within this secure context, with not a little humility, that we come to deliberate and pray about the ethical dilemmas of our day and culture, using the minds God has given us and the knowledge we have thus far gleaned to study his Word.

And it is to this Table, where the bread and the wine speak to us of the Love of God, that we come because we may, and not because we must;
we come because he first loved us and gave himself for us;
and we come in love and charity with our neighbour, forgiving as God forgives us, and living affectionately with our differences. This is righteous living, that produces a righteous church, society and world.

“Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” James 3.18

Abiding in Love

Abiding in Love

“God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.”
1 John 4.16

Love is the powerful theme of today’s epistle and it relates of course to the Gospel, for abiding in the vine is to abide in the love of God and to bring forth the fruit of that love.

Even the Acts reading of Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch reflects the love of God driving the infant church out of Jerusalem and to those who traditionally had been shut out from the love of God by a bigoted religious establishment.

It reminds me of a little verse by Edwin Markham which captures the essence of John’s teaching in his letters:

They drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win
We drew a circle that took them in

St John takes the two great apostolic foundations of the Christian faith - the incarnation and the atoning death of Christ - and clothes them in love. He uproots them from the realm of pure doctrinal necessity and plants them in the fertile soil of God’s great love for us.

Listen to his words: “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.” (v10)

And then he draws the blindingly obvious conclusion from this: “Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another.” (v11)

Now we might have expected him to conclude “Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love him.”

But no! Since God is love, both in essence and attitude - both in who he is and in what he does - then the fact that he is in us, through the mystical union of his Holy Spirit; this finds expression in our love for one another.

This is God’s ultimate purpose, the perfection of love as John calls it. He wants to reproduce his love in us so that we can pour out our love to others and so bring them into the circle of God’s embracing kindness.

People are often concerned that they don’t believe the right things. And it’s good to study and to expand our understanding of the faith. But John brings it all down to earth.

He presents a simple test. Is what you believe about God enabling you to love others, with kindness and good deeds? Is it leading you to a place of personal freedom?

Or, is what you believe leading you deeper into self-absorption; an inability to give yourself in love to others; an underlying fear of life and commitment?

Of course it’s never quite that simple. There will always be our daily failures and inadequacy.
There will always be room for improvement. There will always be adverse circumstances and impossible people. As the old doggerel puts it:

To dwell above with those we love
O that will be glory;
But to dwell below with those we know
Is quite another story!

But, John concludes, that if our belief in, and love for God results in a practical love for others, then we will not fear God or man.

I have always remembered the verse that follows our text in 1 John 4.17. ‘Perfect love casts out fear’. At a wedding where I was best man, a pious absentee sent simply that biblical reference in a telegram. But without checking, I quickly turned to John 4.17 and read out: “Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband!’"

John urges us to believe in the evidence we see with our own eyes: our love for one another. He urges us to believe that we need have no fear. God is at work in us.

On the other hand he gives stark warning to those who would ignore the Christian’s primary mandate to love God and love others. There is no peace for the loveless heart. It is doomed to the turmoil of fear and distrust.

This first epistle of John is an open letter to the church, with a message very pertinent for our present age. It calls for Christian loyalty, love and understanding as we try to work out our faith in a changing world.

The gnostic deviations of the first century had led to various groups who seceded from the apostolic band. They often claimed that they loved God more than those they had left behind.

Although John admits debate on certain issues, he makes it clear that in one area, and one area alone, there is no room for compromise. There is nothing to debate. He writes:

“Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.” (vv 20f)

It is the merciful who will know that God will be merciful to them. It is those who forgive who know that they are indeed forgiven. The example for us is the God ‘whose property it is always to show mercy.’ Or as John Donne put it in that Christmas Day sermon (1624):

God made Sun and Moon to distinguish seasons, and day and night, and we cannot have the fruits of the Earth but in their seasons; But God hath made no decree to distinguish the seasons of his mercies. In paradise the fruits were ripe, the first minute, and in heaven it is always Autumn, his mercies are ever in their maturity.

In following Christ we were never promised by our Master an easy life, or a successful life. It is hard to live in charity and peace with all. But we were promised a full life of inner peace and unspeakable joy.

The opening lines of that Hugh Grant film of a couple of years ago, Love Actually, capture it well:

“General opinion's starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed - but I don't see that - seems to me that love is everywhere.
Igniting laughter, wreaking havoc, breaking hearts, daring commitments, forcing choices, catapulting spirits, forging inroads, creating risks - ecstatic, exciting, unexpected, unwelcome, inconvenient, inexplicable, inelegant, unequalled. Love, actually, is all around.”

In that multitude of ordinary moments of everyday living, with all its messiness and uncertainty, still there is a quiet music in our soul that reminds us that we are loved, and that in loving we fulfil our highest destiny.

And that is why this central act of Eucharist is an invitation to communion with God in the costly sacrifice of Christ, as well as a communion with each other.

Welcome Jesu,
Deep in my soul forever stay;
Joy and love my heart are filling
On this glad Communion day.

“God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.”
1 John 4.16

Ascension Day 2004

Ascension Day

"until the day in which he was taken up, he spoke of the things, pertaining to the kingdom..." Acts 1.3

So the man rushes to stop this forlorn figure from throwing himself off Blackfriars Bridge.

'Why are you killing yourself?'
'I've nothing to live for!'
'Don't you believe in God?'
'Yes I do.'
'What a coincidence - so do I! Are you a Jew or a Christian?'
'A Christian.'
'What a coincidence - so am I! Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?'
'A Protestant.'
'What a coincidence - so am I! Anglican or Baptist?'
'Baptist.'
'What a coincidence - so am I! Strict & Particular or General?'
'Strict & Particular.'
'What a coincidence - so am I! Premillennial or Amillennial?'
'Premillennial.'
'What a coincidence - so am I! Partial Rapture or full Rapture?'
'Partial Rapture.'
'Die heretic!'

Christians disagree and fall out about nearly anything and everything. Although to be fair, this could be said about any group of people who hold strong religious, political or philosophical views.

It is part of the process by which fallible human beings come to hold some common group identity. A key part of this process is the way in which we handle the differences, and the degree to which we demand conformity. Like cliffs, the real dangers come at the edges.

The history of Christianity over 2000 years, running parallel to the development of the modern democracy, has demonstrated a growing degree of inclusiveness in handling differences, and a lessening concentration on exclusiveness.

Fundamentalists regard this as the rottenness at the heart of liberal Christianity. They think that General Synod will soon be including the Devil in the Holy Trinity so as not to make the Satanists feel excluded.

Thoroughgoing liberals interpret any demand for conformity as an affront to the great god of individual freedom.

There will always be these either/or people, who operate rather like computers. I sit at my keyboard sometimes and with my mathematical background I think, all this is done with the two numbers 0 & 1; or more simply, with 'off' and 'on'. There is an electric current, or there is not. The computer knows nothing of nuances; there are no middle positions; there is no New Labour in the CPU.

The scourge of good theology has often been this cybernetic polarity; the simple either/or which is rarely illuminating, but can at least serve to point us towards the both/and; the media via for which true Anglicanism is both famous and famously mocked.

At the Ascension of our Lord, the disciples fell into two opposing errors:

The Political Error: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (v.6)

Calvin comments scathingly on this enquiry from the disciples: "there are as many errors in this question as words." (And there are 12 words!)

The disciples still thought, after these three years and all the events of Easter, and Christ's teaching during the past 40 days about the kingdom, that he was to establish an earthly Utopia, with himself as Messiah King.

But if anything, the exact opposite was true. Christ came to show the futility of any notions of rule by absolute authority and power. Power always corrupts.

So as long as human nature is flawed - that is until the end of the cosmos - there will be the need for some form of democracy. Democracy, like the police force, only exists because of human sin.

Democracy is the political way in which we recognise the limits and weaknesses of all human institutions, whether in society or in the church. There can be no Theocracy. Jesus did not stay - he left. And the Pope is but a man, fallible like the rest of us.

Frustrating and imperfect as they are, synods and councils are the safest way forward.

For since Christ has ascended, there can be no heaven on earth. Humanity is not perfectible. Nature and human nature will always be 'red in tooth and claw'.

The Pietist Error - "why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" (v.11)

There are those who are so disillusioned with the Big Bad World, and so daunted by its challenges, that they would rather stand gazing into heaven, hoping for a glimpse of the heavenly Jesus, hoping he will come back to establish an earthly kingdom.

They call people to devotion at the expense of action. They look to the 'then', and endure the 'now' - what 'has to be'..

Like the Calvinist who fell down stairs, got up and said 'well that's got that over with!'

Or in our own tradition, sometimes like the early Gnostics, they make heaven so spiritual and earth so carnal, that it ceases to matter how they live here on earth - for only the spiritual counts. Eat, drink and be merry because all the really important stuff is the other side of death.

Whichever way - excessive piety or careless indulgence - it is not the way of Christ. Since he has ascended, there is a better way.

It is the way of the Spirit. The way of the kingdom. The disciples were sent to wait for the Holy Spirit. At Pentecost he is to give them heavenly power for earthly responsibility.

I was reading that little booklet today by Canon Donald Gray about Percy Dearmer (British Museum Religion) - you can tell I have 101 unpalatable tasks to do when I'm reduced to reading tracts about Percy Dearmer.

He was a great Anglo-Catholic activist at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Like FD Maurice, he was one of the rare High Church left-wingers. We remember him most for his hymns such as 'Jesus good above all others', or translations such as 'He who would valiant be...'.

And I was struck by this sentence about Dearmer: "At Oxford the art master's son began to realise that there were social, political and religious implications behind his natural instinct to celebrate beauty." (p.4)

Dearmer struggled to follow the media via between these two extremes - pious beauty and social action - the same root errors which plagued the disciples on the mount of ascension.

So he pursued God through the beauty of Anglo-Catholic liturgy - his Parson's Handbook was a guide for many twentieth century Catholics. And at the same time, he worked for social justice and to establish the kingdom of God on earth - he became a Canon of Westminster Abbey and set up a soup kitchen there.

Christ, our warrior-king, the priest-victim, returns into his own kingdom. He ascends triumphant, leading captivity captive, commanding us to wait with bated breath for the gift of the Spirit, who will save us from error, lead us into all truth and enable us to live on earth as citizens of the eternal kingdom.

We must be pious and political. We must attend to our prayers and attend to the needs of a broken world. Then we will follow our ascended Lord and his kingdom agenda.

"until the day in which he was taken up, he spoke of the things, pertaining to the kingdom..." Acts 1.3

Inclusion, exclusion, creed

Inclusion & Exclusion

“Whoever is not against you is for you.” Luke 9.50

So the man rushes to stop this forlorn figure from throwing himself off Chelsea Bridge.

‘Why are you killing yourself?’
‘I’ve nothing to live for!’
‘Don’t you believe in God?’
‘Yes I do.’
‘What a coincidence - so do I! Are you a Jew or a Christian?’
‘A Christian.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?’
‘A Protestant.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Anglican or Baptist?’
‘Baptist.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Strict & Particular or General?’
‘Strict & Particular.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Premillennial or Amillennial?’
‘Premillennial.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Partial Rapture or full Rapture?’
‘Partial Rapture.’
‘Die heretic!’

Christians disagree and fall out about nearly anything and everything. Although to be fair, this could be said about any group of people who hold strong religious, political or philosophical views.

It is part of the process by which fallible human beings come to hold some common group identity. A key part of this process is the way in which we handle the differences, and the degree to which we demand conformity. Like cliffs, the real dangers come at the edges.

The history of Christianity over 2000 years, running parallel to the development of the modern democracy, has demonstrated a growing degree of inclusiveness in handling differences, and a lessening concentration on exclusiveness.

Fundamentalists regard this as the rottenness at the heart of liberal Christianity. They think that General Synod will soon be including the Devil in the Holy Trinity so as not to make the Satanists feel excluded.

Thoroughgoing liberals interpret any demand for conformity as an affront to the great god of individual freedom.

In today’s Gospel, Our Lord unwittingly set a controversy going within Christendom that flared into major schism in the 11th century and is still rumbling on today.

In John 15.26 Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as ‘the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father’. In a few minutes, we shall sing in the Nicene Creed of the Holy Ghost ‘who proceedeth from the Father and the Son’ - now where did that ‘and the Son’ come from?

The Latin word ‘filioque’ (‘and the Son’) was not in the Nicene Creed formulated at Nicaea in 325, nor in the expanded version of Constantinople in 381 - more or less what we sing today.

But in Spain in the 6th century there was a particular heresy which accepted that the Holy Spirit was fully God, but denied the full deity of Christ. In order to counter this heresy, the Spanish church started using what is called the Double Procession in the creed - ‘proceedeth from the Father and the Son’.

It was probably the Synod of Toledo in 589 which promulgated this and it soon spread to Gaul and then the rest of the Western church.

Time does not permit on a humid summer Sunday to trace the politics of the ‘filioque’ clause over the next two centuries: the battles, and intrigue the plotting and murder.

Here is Charles Williams summing up the final terrible stages in his book The Descent of the Dove; a history of the Holy Spirit in the Church. (The irony of the ‘dove’!)

An uneasy peace settled down for two centuries; then suddenly Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, provoked the storm. He accused the West of heresy; he closed the churches of the Latin rite. The Popes asserted the orthodoxy of the West and the primacy of Rome; they maintained open in Italy the churches of the Byzantine rite. The Patriarch removed the name of the Pope from the prayers. The Papal legates, entering the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Byzantium, just before the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, ascended through the crowd to the altar, and laid on it the solemn excommunication of the Patriarch and all his followers from the co-inherence of their Christendom. The frontier of a thousand years was drawn on 16th July, 1054.

Of course, there were other issues underlying the Great Schism, but in reality, from the ninth century, the Eastern and Western Churches have gone along different paths.

The appellations which they appropriated for themselves speak of the aims they pursued: the Eastern Church began to call herself Orthodox, underscoring by this that her main aim is to preserve the Christian faith unharmed. The Western Church began to call herself Catholic (universal), underscoring by this that her main aim is the unification of the whole Christian world under the authority of the Roman pope.

The present Pope would like to be the first Pope ever to visit Russia, but the Russian Orthodox Church has so far prevented any such symbolic gesture, and I imagine he will be seeing St Peter before he sees St Petersburg.

This is all a long way from the prayer of Jesus ‘that they may be one’. Our Lord himself points the way forward in all our disagreements.

In the teaching of Jesus there seems to be a breadth of inclusion for all imperfect disciples (and we all are) who nonetheless do good. So in Luke 9.46-50: An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and made him stand beside him. Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all--he is the greatest." "Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."

On the other hand, there is a renunciation of all who do evil however doctrinally correct they see themselves. Luke 11.23 “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.”

When we see exclusion in Our Lord’s teaching, it is based on ethical issues. Thus in the sermon on the mount, Our Lord is looking for Kingdom living among his followers, for "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.' (Matthew 7.21-23)

Even then, the ethical issues are broadly-based, and come under Our Lord’s summary of all ethics: ‘Love God and love your neighbour.’

For you and me this means that in our relationships with other Christians, other political persuasions, other religions, and so on; we should be generous and inclusive wherever possible. At St Barnabas School, where the majority of children are from Muslim homes, I teach and pray the Gospel in a way that will make as many as possible feel included. But as a priest of a Christian School I also want to make sure that at appropriate times they hear the unique message of the Christian Gospel.

It is a scandal that the church becomes preoccupied with, and hostile towards other Christians because of, the filioque clause, or styles of English prose, or gay relationships, or women bishops.

The world has every right to become bored with us for acting like petulant children.

The Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus urges us to be preoccupied with poverty, oppression, injustice, abuse; and to exclude from society those who foster these scourges.

The General Synod took the inclusive way forward when it authorised the new Common Worship. The creed still has the filioque clause, but there is in the appendix, an alternative Nicene Creed, for use ‘on suitable ecumenical occasions’, which omits the filioque.

Sadly, there are not usually such simple solutions to complex issues. But in all our debating, and airing of opinions and differences, there must be a desire to include rather than to exclude; to welcome with the generosity of Our Lord, rather than to turn away with self-righteous bigotry; indeed, to remember the words of Jesus that:

“Whoever is not against you is for you.” Luke 9.50

Future of Christianity

The Future of Christianity
(Intro to a series)

“Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” Col 3 14

It was GK Chesterton who once remarked that: “At least five times the faith has to all appearances gone to the dogs. In each of the five cases it was the dog that died.”

The last two years have seen a number of significant books speculating on the future of Christianity. I suppose the Millennium is a good time to take stock; to look back over our modest successes (from 12 to over two billion in two thousand years) and some spectacular failures (100 Hymns for Today).

Over the coming year I have invited a number of Christian leaders to address us on the subject: The Future of Christianity. And today I want to set the scene and do a little public ruminating of my own.

Alastair McGrath is an Anglican priest, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford and Principal of Wycliffe College. After a brief dalliance with liberal Christianity at theological college, he returned to his evangelical roots and has championed reasonable evangelicalism over the past 20 years.

Just over a year ago he published The Future of Christianity which was both scholarly, interesting and speculative: a rare combination.

He starts by looking at some of the human atrocities of the twentieth century; events like the Armenian genocide, the Communist persecutions, and the churches' failure to confront Nazism.
He argues that the liberal, ‘modernist’ Christianity of the 1960s grew out of these disasters and adjudges that it completely failed to bring people back to faith.

And I would agree that mainline liberalism, has suffered from what Gabriel Fackre calls “Christological heart-failure”. People returned to traditional forms of the faith, and to evangelicalism and fundamentalism.

He concludes that there are four branches of the church which, on the track record of the past 50 years, appear to have any hope for the future: Roman Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism and somewhat more speculatively, Eastern Orthodoxy.

McGrath is not all optimism and worries at the McDoladisation of the faith, whereby it is turned into a slick, easy-to-believe and shallow commodity which has lost most of its historic roots.

Dr Peter Ward, a lecturer at King’s London, takes the analysis of where we’re going several steps further on.

Last week his book came out, entitled, Liquid Church - I can see some of you are already keen to sign up...

You’ve heard of Modernity and the buzzword of the last decade or so, Postmodernity. Ziegmunt Bauman’s recent book, Liquid Modernity (2000), was a new way of looking at the globalisation which is affecting every area of our life together on the planet.

Pete has used this metaphor to look at what is happening in the church. He argues that there is still much solid church around - corresponding to solid modernity - buildings and congregations, parishes and church structures - all the things that have been part of Christianity for centuries.

But then there is a growing pool of Liquid Church - the loose networks of Christians who may or may not occasionally darken our doors, but who feel part of the Body of Christ, connected through informal fellowship, by TV, radio or internet, in alternative worship groups, or simply in association with other Christian friends.

They feel no loyalty to the structures. Some may think they are irrelevant. Others are happy to pop in from work for a lunchtime mass, or turn up on the major Feasts, or just look in out of interest from time to time.

They may go to a mums and toddlers’ group run by a church. They may be one of the tens of thousands who went to an Alpha course but then felt uncomfortable identifying too closely with the church.

Of course Anglo-Catholicism has always had it’s fair share of these. I’ve finally got round to reading Rose Macaulay’s book, The Towers of Trebizond, with that wonderful character ‘the Revd the Honorable Father Hugh Chantry-Pigg’ whom she describes as ‘an ancient bigot who had run a London church several feet higher than St Mary’s Bourne Street’.

The narrator says “I too am high, even extreme, but somewhat lapsed, which is a sound position, as you belong to the best section of the best branch of the Christian Church, but seldom attend its services.”

And then there is that great host of Anglo-agnostics who are out there in the liquid church and occasionally look in.

Pete illustrates three ways in which traditional, solid church, has mutated to try and adapt to the shifting certainties and moralities round about it.

There is ‘Church as Refuge’, where the congregation tries to become an all absorbing sub-culture, with lots of meetings, an emphasis on togetherness and family. This gives a sense of safety, and especially in the United States, mega-churches have grown up, with their own schools, restaurants, bowling allies, gyms, weightwatchers - I have seen the book ‘Slim for Him’.

Then there is ‘Church as Nostalgic Community’. It constantly laments over an imagined past, when rich and poor, young and old, flocked into church. Although there is some truth in this, the facts and figures of the past don’t generally bear it out.

Yet it is a powerful myth the church likes to believe about itself and by constant repetition it avoids having to take into account and act in the light of the very changed circumstances of today’s society.

Finally there is ‘Church as Heritage Site’. Pete Ward writes: “Far from being a turn-off, for some people the weekly visit to church is attractive precisely because it offers a slice of living history... As the tradition of the church is mutated by liquid modernity, the minister slowly turns into curator... Ministers and people are willing to see gradual change, but every effort is made to respect the weight of tradition.” (p.27)

Pete argues that although these islands of solid church will remain for some time yet, it is the liquid church that is growing in Europe and North America and many solid churches are melting into it. Alan Jamieson catalogued this process in his fascinating book, A Churchless Faith.

So what of the future of the church? Well my guess is that in the short-term, say the next 20 years or so, the solid core is going to get a little smaller but more significant. And the broad liquid aurora will become larger - I hope much larger - and slightly more coherent as a loose network, perhaps with solid church acting as nodes of information and tradition, and sustainers of the network.

And beyond that? I have no idea, but I am sure that God does not lose sleep over it.

Nevertheless, all the commentators and future-watchers draw some similar conclusions. Namely, the urgent need for all churches to grow through mission rather than by merely hoping to survive. In this respect all the books offer the same message: evangelise or die.

And another common conclusion is, that we need each other. Those who are spiritually hungry in our world are not particularly interested in denominational labels or styles of worship. If they go anywhere regularly, or drop in occasionally, they will go where they feel nurtured and loved. It is a very basic human need.

In the government guidelines for the relationship between school governors and the Head Teacher, they are described as ‘critical friends’. We cannot ignore differences or pretend we don’t hold opinions, but we must at the very least be critical friends. And this applies within a single congregation, as well as across the denominations and wider.

We have misunderstood the Gospel if we have made it a Gospel of exclusion. Our Lord always wants to include those who seek after God and truth. This is the message of today’s Gospel parable.

To demonise those with whom we disagree, in our own congregation or in another denomination, is frankly unchristian.

They drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win
We drew a circle that took them in
(Edwin Markham)

The Future of Christianity, our adventure into the unknown, can only be in following our Lord’s way of faith, hope and love.

“Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” Col 3 14