Liturgy of the Dance

Texts: 2 Samuel 6.15; 12b-19; Ephesians 1.3-14; Mark 6.14.29

I’ll never forget the first time that I went to one of those massive dance parties that the gay community organises here in Melbourne around Easter.  Having agreed to accompany a friend of mine, I soon learned that there was more to dancing than just dancing, for the whole event unfolded according to the rubrics of a long-established ritual.  As with any half-decent liturgy, the preparations for our participation began well before the event itself.  At 3 o’clock, I assisted my friend in removing his excess body-hair and then moisturising.  At five o’clock we showered, shaved, re-moisturized, and applied the golden tanning-lotion that would make our bodies look tastily Latin.  Then we donned our vestments—loose jeans and muscle-shirts—all the while making our way through a sumptuous bottle of red. 

Having prepared ourselves thus, we made our way to a tasty little pad in Fitzroy for what I have come to see as the Gathering Rites and the Liturgy of the Word.  Arriving at 7.30 pm precisely, my friend and I were greeted at the door with smiles of recognition, hugs and kisses, and an introduction or two.  Climbing the stairs, I remember entering a room which can only be described as  . . . soothing.   You know, the lights were low, and the music was gentle.  I was new at this, but the gathering tribe greeted me kindly.  Everyone was smiling.  Everyone had a drink in their hands.  Over the four-hour dinner that followed, I was gently questioned about who I was and why I had come.  They discovered I was a minister, so I spent the evening listening to confessions and homilies from lapsed Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and atheists.  Very spiritual it was, very spiritual indeed.  In the background, the pace and the volume of the music seemed to rise with the spirits of the people.  There was laughter, the telling of stories, even some singing—a kind of longing or supplication for that which had not yet arrived or come together in our lives. 

At 11.30pm, the Liturgy of the Sacrament began.  Handing over their offerings, each received from the host a half-tab of ecstasy.  (As a mere catechumen, I did not feel I could accept).  Asking why the ecstasy was strictly necessary, I was told that it was all part of the experience.  If one did not take the ecstasy, it was more difficult to give oneself to the dancing, to be taken out of oneself by the music.  The ecstasy, they said, helps you to lose yourself, so that yours fears and anxieties slide away into irrelevance.  It also gives you the stamina to dance until dawn.  “You’re not going to make it without this stuff,” they told me.  So, off we went in our taxi to the dance. 

From the moment we started across the tarmac to the warehouse, there was a buzz in the air.  People were excited, very excited.  From all around, from every angle, bodies were pouring into this huge cathedral-like warehouse where the heady concoction of electronic rhythms, dazzling lights, and writhing bodies was beginning to work its magic—the magic, that is, of turning 9000 individuals into a communion of bodies which moved as one.  In there, you see, it was too loud for talk or conversation.  Here the words shared earlier in the evening had to take on other forms, mainly the form of The Dance.  In the Dance, everyone communicated with everyone else through the presence of another, the presence of music.  Music became the great mediator and host.   Everyone moved together, at once initiating and responding to the impulses of the bodies which were nearest.  As the night went on, I drank deeply of that music, at times even feeling that the Music and I had merged to become the same entity and that, in the same movement, a genuine communion with these other human beings (usually very different to me) had become possible as well.  I was intoxicated.  

But my friends had been right.  By about 3 am I was running out of puff, so much so that I was barely able to register the arrival in my personal space of a celebrity, a real celebrity.  Magda Zubanski!  (She’s very short!)  By four, I was completely whacked and ready to leave.   So I said my farewells and left, while my new friends continued their ecstasy-enhanced worship.  As I left the rhythms behind and set out on the long walk back to Clifton Hill, the chill morning air brought me back to myself.  The sense of being intoxicated subsided.  And I found myself asking a question, of myself or God, I do not know. Was this Dance I’d encountered just an escape from the pain of life, an escape into the drug-assisted nothingness of an egoless communal; or was it, rather, the arrival of a more divine Self, a Self which puts to death, for a moment, the ego’s self-obsession, so that we are enabled, if only for a moment, to catch a glimpse of what Love might make of us?

That question returned to me again as I read this extraordinary passage from 2^nd Samuel, the story of David’s dancing before the Ark of the Lord.  For David, like so many young men and women in our community today, had a great deal of pain in his life.  Snatched from the simple and, well, un-complex, life of a shepherd on the hillsides of Israel, David became embroiled in the complex personal and social politics of his time.  On the basis of his miraculous defeat of Goliath, captain of the enemy Philistines, Israel’s King Saul had taken David to himself as a mascot for the fighting men, a symbol of the presence of Yahweh in their midst.  Indeed, Saul came to love David as his men did.  Yet, as David took to fighting in more conventional ways, and succeeded more and more as a leader of men, Saul grew jealous and afraid.  What if David grew hungry for the throne?  What then?  So Saul began to plot against David’s life, timidly at first, but more madly and boldly as time went by.  Eventually, David had to become a fugitive from the very King he had loved and honoured.  In his distress, he found a loyal and loving companion in Saul’s son Jonathan, who helped David to escape Saul’s net on more than one occasion.  The love between them was sealed with a covenant, we are told; indeed their love for each other surpassed the love between men and women.  We are told that too.  So when David is finally forced to a guerrilla war against Saul, and Jonathan is killed along with his father, David is shaken to the core.  In reading this story of David’s early life, one cannot help but think that he was caught up in events over which he had very little control, even to the point of being forced to do that which he dreaded most.  So, as David dances ecstatically in the midst of this wild and musical procession to Jerusalem, it is possible that he dances as a man would if he wanted to escape his life.  Could it be that he dances in order to forget the pain of his conflict with Saul, and the grief of his loss of Jonathan?  Could it be that he dances, like so many of our young people today, in order to escape himself?  Maybe so.  Maybe so.

Yet we are told by the authors of this passage - indeed, David says it himself - that he dances “before the Lord,” before Yahweh the God of Israel.  The authors want us to understand that the dance of David is a form of divine worship, a dancing which was not unusual in Israel, particularly if one belonged to the traditions of the prophets.  Earlier in the story of David we are told that he spent considerable time hiding out with a particular order of prophets who lived at Ramah under the leadership of Samuel.  It was common at that time, we are told, that the prophets would fall into ecstatic trances when the Spirit came upon them.  Their bodies would convulse as a sign that it was God who directed their speech as well as their bodies (1 Sam 19.18ff).  The dance of David owes something to this, I suspect.  Those who saw him would have understood that he danced as an oracle would, that the movement of his body and the cries of his rejoicing should be taken as a word of encouragement for the people from God.  As the Ark was processed into Jerusalem, so the Lord’s own favour would return to his embattled people, to undergird and support his servant David in all that he did on their behalf.  All the more so because this prophetic message is presented within a priestly and liturgical framework.  David danced in an ephod, we are told, which is amongst the most sacred garments of a priest.  He also offers sacrifices for sin and well-being before the Ark, as a priest would have done.  The message is clear.  David’s dancing is, at one and the same time, an act of worship and a message from God.  In the priestly persona he prays to God on behalf of the people.  He cries out with their longings for peace and prosperity.  In the prophetic persona, he becomes at the same time an oracle for God, one who addresses the people with a word of assurance and promise. 

Dancing, I suggest to you tonight, is therefore a potent symbol of the gospel covenant as we experience it in our worship.  It can become, for us, the double-performance of both human prayer and divine address.  On the one hand, the Dance can expresses our deep desire and longing to be free of conflict and grief and sorrow and oppression.  I believe I witnessed that longing in the dancing of the gay community that night in the docklands—the longing of a people still deplored and feared, not least by many of our churches and the families who inhabit them.  One can also see something of that spirit in the dance scene from The Matrix Reloaded, when the whole of the people of the city of Zion dance out their longing for salvation from the machines that are coming to destroy them.  On the other hand, the Dance can become an icon or oracle of God for us, a material and fleshly way by which God calls us to turn, in repentance, to accept with empty hands God’s gracious offer of mercy, forgiveness, and healing.  In the image and experience of the dance, then, God shows us a profound mystery.  The mystery that theologians call Christ, or the Paschal Mystery.  In Christ the man, you see, all the pains and griefs and longing of human beings are lived out in a life of total prayer, a prayer offered to God as one who hears, and loves, and saves.   Yet, in Christ, we also learn that the griefs and longings of human beings belong to God first of all.  For Christ is God amongst us, living our griefs and dying our deaths, that we might also die to our fears and our sins, and be reborn to a new kind of live altogether.   Christ, in his Spirit, continues to live amongst us in the church, living our prayer and praying our life until earth and heaven are reconciled, and all are finally free as Christ is free.

The Dance of David, then, is an important symbol of both our Christian gospel and our Christian experience.  Like all good symbols, it should be taken literally.  That is, it should be lived in the body as well as spoken about in conversation.  For when I go dancing with my friends, I experience something of my own pain and longing.  I long for a world in which, for example, gay Christians are accepted not only as priests and ministers, but more importantly as human beings, capable, and worthy of, the giving and receiving of love.  Yet, when I go dancing with my friends, I also hear and experience something of God’s good news.  That despite everything, Christ has died our death that we might die his.  In the experience of the Dance, God invites us to leave our selves, selves full of pain and bitterness and malice, behind: to nail that self to the cross with Christ, that we might rise into the joy of the children of God and share in the ecstasy of the divine dance of love, which is the true liturgy of the redeemed.

Of course, dancing is not always unambiguously good, as the gospel reading shows.  There the child Herodius loses herself in the dance, only to be possessed by the evil intentions of her mother toward the prophet, John the Baptist.  In a similar way many of our young people, in losing themselves to the dance, make themselves the victims of unscrupulous people - sexual predators and drug dealers, with all their sordid intentions.  Still . . .   I would witness that the Dance, if it is a dance before God and in the power of the Spirit, really can save us.  If we can lose ourselves in the worship of Christ, then Christ will come to fill our emptied egos with good things, with his own self, a self which has passed through the waters of despair, and now dances in the freedom of God.  In this new ballroom of grace and promise, we join the dance of God’s own self—forever ceding ourselves for the other’s sake, and yet receiving truer, kinder, more loving selves from the other in return.  And so I say to you, finally, tonight.  Lose yourselves in the Dance, and the Dance will become the source of your rejoicing. Both now and in the life to come. Amen

Garry Deverell

This sermon was first preached at South Yarra Baptist Church in 2003.

The Wind Blows Where It Will

Texts:  Isaiah 6.1-8; Psalm 29; Romans 8.12-17; John 3.1-17

When we choose to give ourselves to God in baptism, thus calling on Christ to come and live with us by the companionship of the Holy Spirit, we also choose to cede, or put aside, our right to do whatever we would like.  When we choose to live God’s way, we also choose to die to our own way.  In the language of John’s gospel, at baptism we are re-born ‘from above’.  We cease to live according to the many wills associated with our first birth, whether those of self or society.  We start to live according to the unfathomable will of the Spirit, who has mid-wived us into a broad new land, a land in which the only thing that matters is the utterly extravagant love between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit—a love so broad and deep that it spills out into the world of human beings, inviting them to love and be loved as the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father.  At baptism, according to John, we are caught up in the wild and excessive love that is the divine will of the Spirit, a will and a way that cannot be domesticated.  ‘Like a wind that comes and goes according to a hidden purpose, so it is with everyone born of the Spirit’, says John.  When we are baptised, we vow ourselves to a God who might take us in directions entirely opposite to the ones we had planned ourselves. 

Take Isaiah, for example.  It is likely that Isaiah was originally a priest or a Levite, a male member of that tribe of Hebrews who were given no land in Israel but set aside, instead, to serve Yahweh in the worship of the temple.  The Levite, even more than other Israelites, could expect that life would unfold according to a particular plan or pattern.  In early childhood he would begin to learn his father’s trade.  At his father’s workplace, the temple in Jerusalem, he would learn how to keep the altar fires burning, how to slaughter beasts for religious sacrifice, how to lead the temple rituals and shepherd the people in their religious observances.   He would also learn the law of Moses by heart, and take his turn preparing meals for the other temple servants.  At the moment he was born, this was the life prepared for Isaiah, a life of service in the temple of Yahweh.

But one day, while he is going about his duties (perhaps he is polishing the silverware or some other rather humble task), Isaiah is suddenly caught up in an extraordinary vision.  He sees Yahweh himself, awesome and kingly, a presence which fills the whole temple.  Isaiah immediately falls into a fearful panic, for he knows the stories of Moses very well.  He knows that Yahweh does not show himself to sinful mortals, for they cannot bear the purity and truth of his holy gaze.  ‘Woe is me!’ he calls out. ‘I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live amongst a people of unclean lips’.  This is another way of saying, ‘I honour the Lord with what I say, but not with what I do.  My people and I are liars.’  Isaiah was right, of course, for if one reads the rest of the book that bears this story, you will discover that the Jewish nation was in pretty bad shape at the time.  On the one hand, the Jewish people made quite a show of going to the temple to worship, and of keeping the many feast days and festivals that marked the history of their liberation by God from Egypt.  But the moment worship was over, the nobles, the politicians and the landowners would go back to what they did with most of the time, that is, increase their wealth by stealing small farms on the edge of their existing lands, squeezing their workers for more production at less cost, and bribing the bureaucracy so that their plans and schemes could go ahead with a minimum of interference from the law.  As a Levite, it is more than likely that Isaiah himself was caught up in all this bribery and corruption.  For the Levites doubled as a kind of civil service for the aristocracy.  They handled the affairs of state, as well as the apparatus of the temple.

So at the moment he has the vision, Isaiah knows that he is done for.  For in the searing light of God’s glorious presence, the shadows hidden in darkness come to light as well.  Isaiah knows that there is little point in hiding what he is, or what his people are.  Covenant-breakers.  Liars.  Cheats.  Exploiters of the weak.  Yet, God has not come to do away with Isaiah, or even to chastise him.  Why chastise a person who is already aware of their darkness?  No, God has come to change the course of Isaiah’s life.  Taking a burning coal from the altar where sacrifices for sin would have been made day after day, a seraph, one of God’s servants, touches it to Isaiah’s lips and says:  ‘Your guilt has departed and your sin is blotted out’.  In other words, 'I know jolly well that you are a liar and a hypocrite.  But you are forgiven.  From now on your lies have been burned away.  From now on, your lips will speak only the truth.’  For what happens then is this:  that Isaiah the Levite, whose life had been pretty cosy and predictable up until now, is suddenly called to become a prophet, a man whose speaks the truth to kings and priests and businessmen, and cops a fair bit of flack for his trouble.  ‘Whom shall I send, and who shall go for us?’ says the Lord.  And Isaiah, who can hardly believe that he is still alive, responds in the classical manner of prophets from time immemorial: ‘Here I am; send me!’

Now, in the Christian grammar of baptism, it is not only special people like prophets who are called to live and speak the truth.  It is all of us, all who are born by water and the Spirit into the realm of God’s love.  For at our baptism, we encounter a God who knows jolly well who we are—sinners who betray God, others and self every day of the year.  Yet God is not particularly worried about who we are at that moment.  In baptism, certainly, we are forgiven our sins; they are washed away just like dirt from a grubby child.  Yet God has more in mind than the miracle of forgiveness.  God also wants to change our lives, from the inside out, to give us a new vocation in life, a new purpose.  Like Isaiah the prophet, who was called to speak the truth whether it is fashionable to do so or not, every baptised Christian is also called to live a new life, a life determined not by what we want, but by what God wants.

The difference between life with God, and life without God, is simply this, you see:  that life without God leads to death; but life with God leads to yet more life.  That is why the apostle Paul calls Christians people of the Spirit.  ‘Spirit’ can also mean ‘breath’, the very breath that animates our bodies and make us alive.  In that sense, all who live are spiritual beings.  Yet, in Christian perspective, one can be alive and breathing, and yet destined to run out of breath because one is not plugged in to the true source of life and breathing, the Spirit of God, the very Spirit who not only animated the daily doings of Jesus of Nazareth, and also raised his dead body into the radically new life of resurrection.  What God wants to do for us, then, is exactly what God did for Jesus.  God wants to fill us so full of the life of his Spirit, that there is little left in us of all that is dying or dead.  God wants to catch our lives up into the life and energy that is the extraordinary love between the Father and the Son.  God wants us to let go of everything that holds us back from the giving and receiving of divine love.  God wants us to receive this love, the love that is the Spirit, and make it real in the world through what we do and what we say.

You will remember that I spoke, a couple of weeks ago, about what the love of God looks like in practise.  I spoke about God’s love as a three-fold movement of solidarity with the weak, hospitality toward the stranger, and the costly giving away of one’s life that another soul may grow and flourish.  What I also implied at that time, I will say more explicitly this morning.  That the one who loves others in this manner, is also loved in this manner by God.  The power that makes it possible for us to love others in this way is the very power that loves us in this way.  This means that, for Christians, there can be no fear that we shall somehow be depleted or used up by our loving.  Not if we are also believe that we are loved by God, and especially by God as he is embodied in both the rituals and relationships of the Christian community.  For the Spirit who comes to dwell with us is the Spirit of life itself, life that is always enough and never runs out.  That means that no matter where this Spirit take us, or whom the Spirit puts in our path, there shall always be life and love enough to go around.  As long, that is, as we are willing to live the life of the Spirit, and not simply the lives that we might choose for ourselves.

I conclude with this. If you are baptised, you belong to God, and the Spirit of God has come to dwell with you.  You have given yourself into the hands of God, and God is absorbing you into the life and love that circulates, like the energies of a dance, between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  But God is not a bully.  The power of love is a power that can be refused.  If you resist God, he with plead with you, and argue, and remonstrate forever.  But God will never make you do what you do not want to do.  That is why the promises of baptism need to be renewed day after day.  Each day, when you get out of bed, God promises Godself to you once more: to love and to cherish you, to lead you into the freedom of the children of God.  But that cannot happen without your say-so.  The humility of God is such that God requires our agreement to move forward, a promising that responds to God’s own promising with faith and trust and obedience.  My prayer on this Trinity Sunday is that God may give us grace to so surrender our lives, that the life of God may come to flourish in our hearts and in our world.

Garry Deverell

Come Holy Spirit, renew the church

Texts:  Ezekiel 37.1-14; Acts 2.1-21; John 15.26-27; 16.4b-15

“Mortal, can these bones live?”  That is what God asked Ezekiel as the prophet was taken in a vision to look over the valley where Jerusalem had made its last stand against the Babylonian armies.  The valley, we are told, was full of the bones of Israel’s finest—young men who had been sacrificed to their king’s greed—bones from which every trace of flesh had been removed, so that now they gleamed white in the sun.  But the vision of Ezekiel was not really about the fate of an army a hundred years before.  It was about the great sorrow that continued to undermine the hopes of Ezekiel’s people even now, as they languished in the cities of their enemies and tried to forget what had happened to them.

“Mortal, can these bones live?”  That is also a question that a senior minister of our church asked about his own congregation this week.  It is a question I often find myself asking about the church at large.  The title I chose for our service today is ‘Come Holy Spirit, Renew the Church.’  For it is not only the 'world', but the church as well, that stands in urgent need of  God’s renewal.   The main reason why this is so might be summed up like this:  the church stands in as much need of renewal as the rest of the world because the rest of the world has colonised the church.  Or, to put it another way, much of the church now thinks and feels and believes as though it were not the church, but the world.  Let me give you some examples of what I mean.

According to the New Testament, the church has been given a mission: to bear witness to the crucified and risen Jesus in both word and deed.  This witness is to be a public witness, a witness that everyone can see and hear and touch and taste.  If the witness is not public, then many will never encounter God’s lament about the state of our world, nor his word of grace and promise for a future that is better for us all.  The witness is also to be a common witness, a witness that the church renders as a community of people who have together discerned , through prayer and a listening to the word of God, how it is that God would have them share the gospel with their community.  More and more, however, the church is succumbing to a rather different understanding of its mission, an understanding that derives not from the pages of the New Testament, but from the imaginations of conservative governments (and I include the Blairite style of Labour in that as well).  For what neo-liberal and conservative politicians have successfully sold the church, over the past 150 years, is the idea that Christian faith and mission should be expressed not through a public communal witness, but privately and individually. 

Think about it for a second.  Why is it that most of our children and grandchildren do not, in any way, participate in the life of a congregation of God’s people, and yet continue to claim that they are Christians?  Why is it that so many of the people who request baptism for their children are quite immovable in their belief that it is possible to be a Christian without actually doing any of the things that the New Testament suggests that Christians actually do?  Or, to bring things a little closer to home, why is it that congregations no longer even try to identify a common mission in which all the members of the church will participate with both their time and their talents?   Why is it that most of us settle for privately conceived and executed modes of support for this cause or that?  In both cases, the answer is fairly clear, I think.  That the church has bought, holus bolus, the secular state’s understanding of religious faith or mission: something that you believe in the privacy of your own mind and home -  not something that you enact and perform in common with other people, or put at the centre of your public engagement with the world.  In this, the secular state has been extremely successful in rendering the reality and mission of the church largely invisible.  If we can only imagine ourselves as private individuals, if we can no longer even comprehend what it might be like to be part of a communal mission that is visible and effective in the world, then we are no longer the church, but simply functionaries of the neo-liberal imagination.  We are no longer the church, but the world.

A second example.  Some of you may be aware that we recently handed over the management of our Pre-School to an agency of the Uniting Church called UnitingCare Connections.  We did so at the direction of the Synod, which was itself following a directive from the government that there should no longer be any independently run Pre-Schools.  All Pre-Schools are now required to run as clusters, under the umbrella of a common management agency.  It’s cheaper and more efficient that way, or so the argument goes.  Since becoming part of UnitingCare Connections both the local committee of management as well as the staff of our kinder have been treated with little more than contempt.  Not only has Connections failed to manage the Pre-School in a competent manner, it has done so without caring.  There is little to no evidence that Connections gives too hoots about the children who come to the Pre-School, or the staff who teach the children, or the local committee members who work their butts off to keep the whole thing running.  And unfortunately this is not an isolated incident.  Over the past six months I have heard about similar experiences right across the church.  As UnitingCare moves in to take over local ministries and missions, usually with the promise of ‘lightening the load’ for local people, local people are being deprived of their capacity to share in the mission of the church.  Local workers are being sacked or ‘let go’—both those formerly employed by the church, and those who work hard as volunteers.  And why is this happening?  Let me suggest that this is another example of the church being colonised by the world.  As UnitingCare grows, as it takes on more and more governments contracts, it is quickly absorbing what remains of local ministries and missions.  In the process, it is also absorbing what remains of a New Testament styled church, gathered around the Eucharist and the word of God, and transforming it into an economically-driven instrument of the secular state.  UnitingCare is now doing to local churches and ministries what the Boards of Education of our former Methodist and Presbyterian denominations did with church schools—handed them over to the secular imagination so that every trace of Christian faith and practice is finally removed.  So the church is in pretty bad shape all round, I reckon.  And I know this is so because my colleagues, younger people like myself who have been in ministry for ten years or less, are at the point of collapsing under the weight of it all.  The weight of a church that is no longer behaving like a church.  The weight of the incredibly harsh opposition they feel when they do what they are called to do, preach the gospel of Jesus in word and deed.  The weight of inertia and denial and despair.

‘Mortal, can these bones live?’  Can the spent bodies all about, that speak of the church’s failure to be the church, ever be raised up and redeemed?  Can the church ever become the church that the New Testament promises and envisions?  More humbly, can even the Uniting Church begin to look, in reality, something like the church described in its own Basis of Union ?  Well yes, it can.  Against all reason or expectation, it can.  And it can, not because it believes in itself, not because it has generated a new vision for new times or developed a wonderful new program to render itself more attractive to the consumer culture of our times.  No, the wreckage of the church can be redeemed because of Pentecost, that is, because God does not abandon us even when we abandon ourselves.  

When the people of Judah languished in their shame and their grief in the great cities of Babylon, God sent forth the breath of his Spirit.  He raised up prophets and leaders like Ezekiel and Ezra and Nehemiah—prophets who were able to speak the truth about the failure of the people certainly—yet they were also able to speak of the burning hope that God had placed within their hearts, a hope for that future of peace and joy that God had promised of old.  What strikes me to the heart when I read these prophets is this—and it encourages me in my own ministry—is that God places a word of faith and hope on their lips, and compels them to speak and to act according to that gift, even when they, themselves, feel as though all is lost.  When their hearts lament, their lips speak of a glorious future.  When their bodies are weary, their voices nevertheless speak of God’s future as though it were already present.  In this way, the prophets wear in their own bodies, at one and the same time, both the truth of where the people are at that moment, and the truth of where God would take them.  In this they are like Christ himself, whose crucifixion, in John’s gospel doubles as the moment at which the times are overturned, and a new world begins.

‘Mortal, can these dry bones live?’  Yes they can, because God sends the Spirit upon any church that is willing to wait, patiently, for the breath of life, the dunamis or dynamism, than comes from God alone.  If we try to deny the impossibility of what we face by pretending that all is well, or that things are not as bad as they seem, then we shall continue, of course, to live in the imagination of the secular state.  We shall not realise our great need of God, the God who alone sends forth a Spirit that is able to give life.  We shall continue to believe that we can generate such life for ourselves.  Note that in John’s gospel, Jesus speaks of the Spirit as one who throws into relief the confusion of the world with regard to what is right and wrong, and what is just and unjust, and about who God is.  The Spirit comes to demythologise all our fantasies about a humanity that can fulfil its destiny apart from the truth that is revealed in Jesus Christ.  The Spirit comes to uncover the lies we tell about ourselves:  the lies about privacy and individuality.  The Spirit comes to create in us an imagination that is able to resist the confusions of the world in which we live, to form us into a people who are able to live out a communal imagination, and testify to this imagination visibly, that is, before the prevailing powers of this world.  The Spirit comes to unweave the web of lies into which we have all been spun, and replace it with the word of truth, who is none other than Christ himself.

‘Mortal, can these bones live?’  Yes, they can!  If we will finally come to the end of ourselves, if we will stop trusting in the gods of this world, and renew our trust in the God of Jesus Christ.  Yes they can!  If we will allow God to renew our minds and hearts in the image of his Son.  Yes they can!  If we will stop resisting the Spirit, and decide to put out the welcoming mat instead.  Yes they can, yes they can, yes they can!

This sermon was preached at St. Luke's Uniting Church on Pentecost Sunday, 2006, in the midst of a very controversial takeover of our local kindergarten by UnitingCare Connections. You can probably tell that I was not impressed with the way in which this was done!

Love and revelation

Texts:  Acts 10.44-48; 1 John 5.1-6; John 15.9-17

This morning I want to lead you in a criminally brief meditation about love.  ‘Love’ is a word that has almost come to grief in our modern world.  Used so often, and with so many different interests and agendas, it is in danger of becoming empty: no more than a vacuous vessel into which both speaker and spoken-to may pour any kind of meaning they like. 

Depending on the context, love turns out to mean so many things.  In Hollywood, love is a feeling of euphoria, a chemistry between people which (like the weather) can come and go.  While that euphoria is around, life is great.  But when it departs, there is no longer any reason to persevere with a relationship. In some sections of the Australian military, love seems to mean being willing to stick by your mates even if your mates are using and abusing you.  Love means keeping silence while your ‘mates’ do with you as they will. It means remaining loyal to people who actually hate you. In the middle-class suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, love so often means no more than ‘being nice’, that is, keeping up the appearance that we all get on with each other (even though we don’t) or pretending that we have a common view of the world (when actually we don’t).  Love, in this context, means to avoid talking about anything that may raise our passions, for fear that the other person’s passions may come back at us in unpleasant ways.  This is ‘love’ as the avoidance of difference, or conflict, or strong emotions, or the possibility of working toward a common truth.  Love is being polite, even to the point of living a lie. I suspect this is the creed of many of our churches as well.

The Christian meaning of love is rather different.  Christians are not bound to love after the manner of our many secular religions.  Christians have been freed to love in a very particular way: the way of Jesus, the Son of God.  Where the secular versions of love are as manipulable and as whimsical as the many contexts in which they appear, the love of Christ has a strong and consistent content in any place or time.  Why?  Because love, in the Christian lexicon, is not something we may define and embody according to our usual lights.  It is a way of life that comes from before and beyond us, from the God whose very being is love.  It is a way of life that is nevertheless available to us in our human bodies and cultures by the action of the Spirit, who permeates and suffuses the Christian community in exactly the same way that she permeated the life of Jesus, the Son of God, when he lived and died amongst us more that 2000 years ago.  The meaning of Christian love is therefore tied, not to the constantly shifting fashions and fabrics of human culture, but to the living story and character of a particular man:  Jesus, the Son of God.

John the Evangelist has Jesus say this, and I quote:

As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love.  If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love . . .  This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.  No one has greater love than this:  to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.  You are my friends if you do what I command you.  I do not call you slaves any longer, because the slave does not know what the master is doing.  Instead, I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have learned from my Father.

I want to make just three observations about this extraordinary passage.  First, that the love of which Christ speaks does not wait for human thinking or culture to fill it with meaning.  No, the meaning of this love is always already established:  it is an imitation of Christ’s radical form of friendship, the willingness to lay aside one’s own life in order that another’s life may flourish.  It is, in the words of Paul Ricoeur, the apprehension that the other person has a claim on me, and that I am no longer responsible only for myself, but that I share in the responsibility to ensure that the life of my brother or sister is able to flourish as well, to become what God intends that it may become. 

A second point now.  The language of laying down one’s life refers, of course, to a particular history:  the real event of Christ’s crucifixion.  It should be remembered, however, that the crucifixion represents not just the love of a singular man at a particular time, for a particular community.  The crucifixion is a sign in the world of the love of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit for every single creature, in every time and place.  The cross enacts in human history what God is like, and will always be like, for eternity:  sheer love.  We are talking here about the love of the Father for the Son, and the Son for the Father; the love that is able to welcome and cede its place to the other; the love that is willing to lose that another may win; the love that able to long for another’s flourishing and give that longing both form and body.  All that Christ did in the world, he learned from his Father.  Now the Father and the Son have come to us anew in the Spirit, that the love which properly belongs to the Father and the Son may be spread abroad in our own, oh-so-human cultures, relationships and bodies.

A final observation.  The love of God, as I have been saying, is not without substance.  It has form and shape and a particular history in the world, and that is really what the language of ‘commandment’ is about, in this passage.  We are commanded to love not because God is a bully and we are his slaves.  On the contrary, as Jesus says here, we are no longer slaves but friends; but this is only the case insofar as we are willing to love.  The command to love, you see, is also (and somewhat paradoxically) the means by which God frees us from our bondage to self.  If we did not love, we would still be slaves to all that we are apart from Christ—a series of basic, and seemingly irresistible, drives-toward-power derived from DNA, from family, from our peer environment, or where ever.  In love, however, we learn to listen for another voice, the voice of God, who alone knows how it is that human beings may flourish.  The command to love is therefore, in its most basic form, an apprehension of the pressure God exerts towards our freedom, our liberation towards a life lived not only for ourselves, but for the people around us as well.  The command to love reminds us that love cannot be what we want it to be.  Love can only be what God is.

So then, let us love one another.  Not after the manner of fashion or convenience, but after the costly manner of God in Christ.  Let us love one another as if we had a claim on each other.  Let us love as though nothing else really mattered.  And whatever we do, let us not turn love into that kind of law that is unable to forgive and set free.  For the love of God is the capacity to forgive most of all.  Let us therefore love and forgive each other from the heart, just as in Christ God has loved and forgiven us.

I lay down my life

Texts:  1 John 3.16-24; John 10.11-18

In the passage we read just now from John’s gospel, Jesus is addressing his Jewish opponents. ‘I am the good shepherd’ he says, ‘because I lay down my life for the sheep that I know and love by name.  You, on the other hand, behave like the hired hand who runs away when the wolf comes by, because he does not love the sheep and cares not for their fate.  The life I lay down, I lay down by my own choice.  But I will take it up again.  This power I have received from my father.’  This morning I should like to dwell for moment on this sense of volition we get in John’s gospel around the death of Jesus, that Jesus somehow chooses to lay down his life, and that he does this out of love for his disciples. 

It is difficult for we moderns to really understand why the crucifixion happened.  On one level, of course, we know exactly why it happened.  Jesus got himself into trouble by being incredibly naïve, by seeking to upset the carefully negotiated détente that existed between the Roman state and the Jewish authorities.  Jesus died because he was a starry-eyed idealist who could neither comprehend nor accept the real-politik of his time.  From that perspective, the perspective of historical and political ‘realism’, the more theological explanations for his death seem rather odd.  That Jesus died for our sins.  That he chose to die out of love for sinners.  That his life was given to exhaust and destroy the power of sin and death over our human future.  Journalists are completely lost with it all, as a review of the film version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe revealed a few years ago.  ‘What I have never understood,’ says the journalist, ‘is why Aslan, or Jesus, had to die.  If God loves us, why would he need some kind of blood-sacrifice?  Why doesn’t he just forgive us and be done with it?’  Even bishops and theologians have trouble understanding it all, as regular readers of our esteemed denominational newspaper will have discovered.

There are, of course, good reasons why we find the death of Jesus difficult to understand.  One of them I have mentioned before in this church.  Affluent westerners now live at a great distance from the rather sobering fact that life comes from death.  Indeed, we have become afraid of death because we have forgotten about its connection to life.  When we lived nomadic or agricultural lives, we were much more aware of the connection.  We saw that the beasts that provide our meat had to be slaughtered.  We saw that the plants that produced the grains for our bread had to die in order for us to harvest their fruits.  We saw that the land became fruitful again by ploughing in the dead remains of the harvest.  When you buy your food from the supermarket, when medicine has all but removed that daily certainty that death is around the corner, it is difficult to see that life itself comes at a cost, the cost of other life.

At one level, then, the theology of the death of Christ reflects upon a simple biological fact:  that life itself is very costly, that the aliveness of one is made possible only by the death of another.  Theologically, there is a sense in which this is true even with the doctrine of creation.  Here the creation only becomes possible, is only able to come into existence as something other than God because God is willing to undergo a kind of death, the death of God’s right to exercise sovereignty over the creation.  If God retained that right, you see, then the creation would be no more than an extension of God’s own mind and will.  It would always do what God willed it to do.  It would not be God’s other.  What God apparently chose to do, though, was to expend his power to create a power other than his own, a power that is able to choose a way other than that which God would have chosen. 

But note the way that theology has already complicated, here, the simple sense that the nomad or the farmer has that death is somehow necessary to life.  For what God does , in giving us life, somehow transcends the simple categories of necessity, of cause and effect.  What God does is introduce the wildcards of love and volition, which means that life and death are no longer a matter of necessity alone, unfolding according to a pre-programmed genetic imperative, but of choice, and especially the choice to love.  The death Jesus dies is not, therefore, to be understood only as some kind of necessary death, a death like that of the beast which is slaughtered (against its will) to feed the tribe.  His death certainly does feed the tribe, let us make no mistake about that.  What are we doing at communion, if not to participate in the food and drink that is able to give us the life of the kingdom of God?  Yet, let us be clear, this life is given us not because we take it from Jesus, against his will, but because he has chosen to give it.  Out of love.

There is a sense, then, in which the crucifixion simply manifests in human history what God has always been about: love.  And what is love?  According to the Johannine corpus, love is what God is as trinity, a community of service and care.  It is hospitality, the willingness to make a home within one’s own life for someone who is other than oneself.  It is solidarity, living the sufferings of another as though they were one’s own.  It is sacrifice, the laying down of ones own powers, one’s own capacities for life, that they may be taken up by another.  It is to centre oneself on helping another to come alive, in the faith that life shared is the best life of all. 

Perhaps our difficulties with the death of Christ come down to this, then.  That we moderns have become strangers to love, and especially to its costs.  Over and over we are told that love is something other than what Christ would teach us.  Over and over we are told that love is a contract or convenience that is fine while it serves our own interests, but can be legitimately done away with when it begins to cost us somehow.  Over and over we are told that love is about feelings of euphoria, a drug to help us cope with the pains of life.  As such, when love itself becomes painful, we are better to ditch it.  Over and over we are told that laying down one’s life for another, and especially for the stranger, is irrational.  Life is about securing yourself against the misfortunes of others.  Life is about comfort, no matter that our comfort deprives others!  Today elections are won or lost on this platform.  Is it any wonder that we struggle with the death of Jesus, then, a life laid down for another!

The good news of Easter is that life shared, life laid down for others, creates a new kind of life altogether, a life hitherto unimagined in the history of the world.  In the mystery of divine love for the world, the self-centred egotism that has destroyed human life for millennia is itself destroyed and done away with, absorbed, as it were, into the death of Christ so that the usual cycles of human relating—our cruelty, indifference, violence and greed—is not only interrupted, but done away with altogether.  You might not believe that this is so, if you look at the world we live in.  But what God gave us, in the time he spent amongst us in the flesh, was a glimpse into the reality of God, a reality yet more real than that reality we usually experience, a reality that is close enough to change our world if only we will believe and live our lives accordingly.  Faith, you see, is the place in which God’s reality (which is sometimes called grace) arrives in the world.  It is the place where love finds soil enough to flourish.

I pray for the faith of the people of God, that we shall be able to resist the rationalism and cynicism of our world, and let love in.  I pray that we might summon faith enough to love each other as Christ has loved us.  

I am myself

Texts:  1 John 3.1-7; Luke 24.36-48

When, in Luke’s version of the story, the risen Jesus first appears to his closest friends and companions, they are not entirely convinced that he is Jesus, the man they had known and loved.  At first they think he is a ghost, some kind of other-worldly apparition who has come to harm them.  They start to believe only after Jesus has said, ‘Look, I am not a ghost, I am myself’ and invited them to touch the wounds in his hands and his feet. A few moments later he eats some fish in the presence, again to show that he is himself, ‘in the flesh’ as it were.  This story, and the one before it about the encounter on the road to Emmaus, have always intrigued me.  Not because of their apparently miraculous elements (I have never really struggled with the idea that God can do miracles) but because they model for us that rather paradoxical process by which Christian selves become yet more themselves by dying to themselves.  So, that is what I should like to talk about this morning: becoming who you are by letting go of who you are in order to become a new self that is like the risen Christ.

According to Luke’s story, Jesus was not always himself.  Which is not to say that he was not recognisable as himself.  His name was Jesus, he was a son to his mother and a brother to his siblings.  He grew up in Nazareth and learned a trade, which he then used to support his family.   Everyone who knew him over a period of years could have identified him as himself, even if they had not seen him for some time.  Even after his baptism by John in the Jordan, even after Jesus left his home town in pursuit of a new and dangerous vocation, Jesus was recognisably Jesus.  And yet.  And yet Jesus had not yet become entirely himself.  Even at the point of his death on the cross, Jesus was not yet what God had promised he would be.  He was not yet the risen one, who could shake off the power of sin, evil and death.  He was not yet the new kind of human being that the disciples encounter in our story: a flesh and blood person who could nevertheless appear and disappear as though he were no longer subject to the powers of time and space.  For much of Luke’s story, then, Jesus is not yet himself in the sense of having become who God had destined him to be. 

Crucially, in the story, Jesus is only able to become truly himself by letting go of a whole heap of cherished dreams about his future, some originating in his own imagination, and some in the imagination of others.  His mother, being a Jewish mother, probably hoped that Jesus would become a successful lawyer or rabbi.  She, and he, had to let go off that dream.  His friends and companions hoped that Jesus would become a political leader, a leader who could oust the Romans and restore the fortunes of Israel.  They, and he, had to let go of that plan.  And from the story of the garden of Gethsemane, we can surmise that Jesus himself would really have preferred to live rather than to die, to retire quietly to some regional synagogue perhaps, rather than to suffer the wrath of the Jewish Council.  Yet, in the end, he makes a crucial decision which makes all the difference.  ‘Not my will, but yours be done’ he says.  He says that to God, his Father.  And by that decision he lets go of his own hopes and dreams in favour of his Father’s hopes and dreams, which enables God to complete the process of his becoming.  By this death, Jesus becomes the Christ, the one anointed by God to bring a new kind of life in the world, a life so new that most of us still have trouble coming to terms with what it all means.

But that is how it is for all of us, as well.  We shall never be truly ourselves until we are able to let go of ourselves—the usual hopes and dreams planted in us by family, friends, and media—grasping, instead, the self that God wills and promises for us, the self that is Christ.  The Christ-self, as the 1^st letter of John tells us, is ‘righteous’.  Not ‘righteous’ in the sense of a self-interested hiding away from the rest of the world or a sitting in judgement upon it.  No, the Christ-self is righteous in the sense that Jesus was ‘righteous’—an engaged embodiment of the mercy of God, a tough kind of love that is centred on other people and refuses to simply abandon them to the powers of death, despair or banality.   According to John, we shall never be entirely ourselves until we are like the risen Christ, the new human being, the revelation of what God intends for humanity in general.  ‘When he appears,’ says John’ we shall be like him’.  This is God’s promise, but like all God’s promises, it is not a promise that can be fulfilled apart from the choices we make.  God created us for freedom.  To become who we are, we must choose the path that Christ would choose.

Ego eimi autos . . .  I am myself.  That is what the risen Christ said to his disciples.  And we shall only be able to say that ourselves if we are prepared to do what Jesus did, to take our baptism into his death seriously as a very real dying and a rising.  We shall be ourselves when, by faith, we have allowed Christ to take away the fear of what others may think, and the desire to conform to all that is conventional or common-sense.  We shall be ourselves when we are prepared to risk both security and sense for the sake of a gospel of outrageous love.  We shall be ourselves when we stop believing that there is nothing we can do to transform this crazy world of economic and scientific rationalism.  We shall be ourselves when prayer has become a more familiar habit that watching TV or surfing the internet.  We shall be ourselves when we are able to attend to the needs of others (‘needs’, note that, not ‘wants’), even if that means putting aside what we think we might need for ourselves.  We shall be ourselves when we are able to surrender ourselves to Christ and say ‘not my will, but yours’.  Now, I am very aware of not yet being myself. And you, I know, are aware of it too.  But in faith I believe that Christ will complete the work that he began when I was baptised.  He will do it for you to.  If only you will surrender.  If only you will let go.

Easter in Ordinary

Acts 2. 14, 36-41; Psalm 116.1-4, 12-19; 1 Peter 1.17-23; Luke 24.13-35

Well the times have come full circle and we find ourselves in the Easter season once more.  Like last year, and the year before, and the year before that, we sing the Easter refrain 'He is Risen!' and crack open the symbols of new life and fertility:  Easter eggs, Easter bunnies.  And they remind us of the new life which came with Christ’s resurrection, just like last year, and the year before that, and the year before that.  And we get up early on Easter morn and sing the Easter refrain 'He is Risen!' and crack open the symbols of new life and fertility:  Easter eggs and Easter bunnies.  And, well, the times have come full circle and we find ourselves in the Easter season once more.  Like last year, and the year before, and the year before that, we sing the Easter refrain 'He is Risen' with hearts full of joy, and crack open the symbols of new life and fertility:  Easter eggs, Easter bunnies and . . .  do you get the feeling that I’m going around in circles?  Do you get the feeling that the record is stuck, and you’ve heard it all before? 

Friends, what I have done just now is reflect back to you what I myself hear at Easter time just about every year.  I hear the resurrection of Christ being tied to the cycles of nature, to the return of fertility, to the flowering of flora and fauna in the European springtime.  For that is what the theology of the resurrection has become in our culture: an affirmation of the Eternal Return of that which we saw last year, and the year before, and the year before that, and so on.  Here the Christian meaning of the resurrection has been collapsed into that old pagan celebration of Oestre, the Anglo-Saxon god of fertility, whose advent is celebrated with the cyclic return of the sun to warm the world and awaken the life that lays dormant in the soil.   This Easter celebrates what Nietzsche called ‘the eternal return of the Same’, the irrepressible tendency of nature to repair and replace itself; but more seriously, of human beings to want what they have always wanted, to believe what they have always believed, and to know what they have always known.  It is an Easter in which the rhetoric of ‘new life’ is just a figure of speech, because nothing new is really possible.  The circle returns, endlessly, to where it began.  Which makes me think that perhaps the best symbol of this modern Easter is not even the fertile bunny or the egg of new life, but the Big Mac.  Because each time you have one, it tastes exactly the same as the one you had last time.

Of course, the Feast of the Resurrection has absolutely nothing, nothing I say, to do with the Eternal Return which is 'Easter'.  On the contrary, the resurrection of Jesus is about the in-breaking of something which is so new, so different, so unheard of, that, strictly speaking, we cannot even describe it.  It is, as Jürgen Moltmann says, an event entirely without comparison or analogy.  It is an event which shatters every established pattern, every expectation, every shred of comfort and certainty we may have had about the way things are.   It is like the T-Shirt which I bought at a U2 concert a few years back which said “Everything You Know is Wrong”.  It is the explosion within Sameness of a reality which is totally and radically other than anything that we could ever think or imagine:  it is the arrival of God.  And the purpose of this interruption?  To change things.  To change things so entirely that we will never again become captive to all that is predictable, or ‘necessary,’ or ‘fated’.  When Christ rises he does not rise, like Lazarus, to a life lived as it had been lived before.  When Christ rises, he rends not only our hearts, as Peter says in his Pentecostal sermon, but also the very fabric of the way things have always been, so that God’s creatures may never be slaves to the Same ever again.

Here we find ourselves inside Luke’s story of the Emmaus road.  Like us, the travelling companions live in that time after the resurrection.  The women had been to the tomb and witnessed its emptiness, but scarcely able to understand what had happened themselves, find that they cannot make themselves understood amongst their male companions, who remain trapped inside their cycle of despair.  And that is where we find the companions as they begin their journey.  Like many of us, they had lived though a cycling of highs and lows: their messianic hope had been shattered on a Roman cross.  Yet it is here, within the circle of despair, that the Christ chooses to meet them. 

Now, having joined them, Jesus, listens to their woes.  We would expect that of him, would we not?  But then he does something rather surprising.  He begins to preach to them from the Scriptures, but not in the mode of most of the sermon’s I’ve heard, which do little more than confirm and comfort me in circle of that which I already know.   No, this is a profoundly dis-confirming preaching, which first castigates them for their lack of faith in the prophets, and then proceeds to deconstruct their Scriptural knowledge so radically that the meaning of the same is utterly and irreversibly altered.  The results were, I imagine, terrifying.  Suddenly the disciples begin to see that everything they had ever known and believed was wrong.  Yet despite the upset, there is something in what Jesus says that compels them to hang onto him. 

So when they urge Jesus to join them for the evening meal, he consents to do so.  And there he does something which really dislodges their expectations.  In a careful repetition of what he had done at the last supper, Jesus takes bread, says a prayer of blessing, and breaks it so that all gathered may eat.  At that moment, we are told, the companion’s eyes are opened.  They recognise that the stranger is Jesus, their friend, the crucified one.  And yet he is not that one.  He is radically different.  He is risen.  If that isn’t weird enough, Luke then tells us that in that precise moment of recognition, at that very nano-second, Jesus then vanishes from their sight and is seen no more. 

Turning to each other in wonder and excitement, the disciples declare to each other the way in which their hearts were ‘burning’ within them when they heard the word preached.  Note the word: ‘burned,’ as in purged by a bushfire, not ‘warmed’, as by a cosy open fire on a winter’s night.  The disciples rise from where they are and return to the place of despair and forlorn logic from which they came.  They return to Jerusalem with a distinct and special mission:  to declare and confirm that Christ had indeed been raised, and that he had make himself known to them in the breaking of bread.  Which is to say, they returned to Jerusalem to dis-confirm the logic of the Same which held sway there, to interrupt and fragment its omnipotent power by the burning presence of all they had glimpsed in the risen Christ.

Now, this is a strange and wondrous story by any standard.  So strange and wonderful that I am certain that almost everything I intend in speaking about it tonight is not quite right.  But this is how it is with the resurrected Christ.  He comes to us as the word that is strange and in/credible, not conforming to the logic of what we know and experience to be real and trustworthy.  He comes to us not to confirm what we know or to reinforce our sense of what is good and noble and true.  He comes to change all that, to show us, in the blazing light of his risen glory, that the Eternal Return of the same is killing us.  Slowly killing us, but killing us all the same.  And who can doubt this word?  Hasn’t life become genuinely banal for us in this neo-pagan world of circles?  Hemmingway wrote famously that most people live lives of “quiet desperation”.  He was writing about himself, of course, a man who was constantly on the look-out for new experience, something which might cut across the boredom of his life.  The writer of Ecclesiastes complains that all is ‘vanity’, by which he means that human beings, despite all their apparent thirst for experience, tend to look only for that which may be easily integrated into the logic and the framework which is always already there.  But Christ is raised to shatter that logic, to undo the idolatrous gaze that works such vanity into all that is seen and touched and felt.  Christ is raised to set us free from such a thing.

This I believe, and this I declare to you today.  But I want you to note two important implications of this belief.  And these reflections are guided directly by Luke’s text.  First, resurrection belief is sustainable only if one believes what Luke says about the disappearance of Christ at the very moment that we recognise him.  Remember what we heard from Moltmann. The resurrection is an event without analogy.  No matter how much we try to understand and describe him, the risen Christ will always and everywhere elude and elide our grasp.  We see him as in a glass darkly; he is a flash of light at the corner of our eyes, which, if we turn to take squarely into the full ambit of our gaze, will disappear into invisibility.  The Celtic tradition speaks of the Christ who always comes in the guise of the stranger, a stranger who is gone even before one realises who he was.  In precisely that mode, the Emmaus story tells us that no matter how ingenious our resurrection accounts and theologies become, they will certainly not secure a Christ who may be domesticated for our own use and purpose. 

Which leads into my second point, and a rather perplexing one at that.  Perhaps you will have noticed how Luke structures his story after the model of a first century worship service?  First there is a Gathering of companions, who come immediately from the circle of despair, and they are joined there by Christ.  Then there is a Service of the Word, a recounting of the Scriptures and a preaching; and it is Christ himself who does this; yet he is not recognised by those who hear.  Then there is a Eucharist, where Christ is again the anonymous presider who breaks bread, blesses, and share it with his companions.  And then there is a Mission.  The disciples, having finally discerned the risen Christ, are then driven out by the burning in their hearts to dis-confirm and question the logic of the world from which they came.  What is Luke telling us in all this?  Simply this: that the risen Christ ministers to us in the gathered worship of the Christian church.  That he reveals himself to us in the reading of Scripture, the preaching of the word, and in the breaking of the bread. 

But how can this be?  How is it that this ordinary human language of worship may become the language of Christ?  Didn’t I just say to you that Christ comes to interrupt our language and to un-say all that we might say of him!  Well, there is a great mystery here, a mystery very much at the heart of everything I am trying to do in my own journey through life.  And a mystery tied very much to the mystery of Christ himself, who, in the incarnation, is said to be God in an ordinary human life.  Perhaps all that one may say about this mystery is something like this:  That in the human language of Christian worship, Christ himself arrives in the midst.  Not to confirm what we intend to say, but rather to so dispossess our symbols of the meaning we intend, that, somehow, even as we say it, we hear it said back to us with a meaning not our own, in an inflection and tongue not our own, so that our hearts burn with confusion, and terror, but ultimately with the holy joy of people who are being liberated from their bondage to the same old thing. 

I pray to God that Christ may do just that, even with what I have said to you this morning.  Maranatha!  Come Lord Jesus, come!

I want to acknowledge the work of three other theologians of the resurrection in the composition of this sermon: Ebarhard Jungel, Jean-Luc Marion and Nicholas Lash.