Beloved Dust–A Sermon for Ash Wednesday

“Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” As they hear these words, Christians around the world will embark again upon another Lent. That season in the church year focused on the repentance of sins and the pursuit of holiness that begins with a cross of ashes smudged on our foreheads, and continues in fasting of some sort or other for forty days. Although there is no hard rule about what pleasure is to be set aside, its absence, like the presence of the ashes reminds us to consider what it means to follow a crucified Lord. What it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

Coming to understand, own, and practice the claims of the Gospel—that is what discipleship is—occurs between two poles. The negative pole is called “mortification.” It is that “putting to death” of those parts of our selves that don’t conform to the righteousness of God revealed in Gospel and Law. Discipleship (in part) is a lifetime of unlearning those attitudes and habits that come all too naturally to fallen human beings, that appear so natural and wholesome, that are so enslaving.

According to the Christian tradition, seven such vices are the sources of all other moral evil. They are pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth: the seven deadly sins. Of course, this is neither the only, nor a full list. No list—whether found in Scripture or tradition—is final. And this, I think, is deliberate. Listing sins, after all, is a particularly seductive sin for the pious. We quite naturally and accurately spot the sins of others so that we may continue to overlook them in ourselves. Mortification is for individuals. It is not my task or yours to sniff out the sins of others. Tending to our own is hard enough.

Although it is a necessary part of discipleship, mortification is not its sum. The positive pole is “vivification.” The slow process of being “made alive” in Christ, the Spirit-enabled and directed embracing and practicing of those habits and virtues through which our minds are renewed, our bodies controlled, our selves transformed. Think of the duties laid upon believers by God’s law: to love one’s neighbors and to love God. Because the weight of these two commands—if seriously considered—can be overwhelming, we remember that they are not standards demanding perfection as much as destinations requiring progress. “No one will travel so badly as not daily to make some degree of progress,” wrote John Calvin. Let us “not despair because of the slender measure of our success . . . . [Our] labor is not lost when today is better than yesterday. . . .”[1] Good advice.

Vivification is also about learning to receive the comforts of life as gifts from God. It is a process in which our consciences become guided by principles like moderation, patience, and generosity as we learn to rightly to enjoy the gifts of creation: good food, good friends, good conversation, among the most important. And even here, even learning how to enjoy the Christian life, requires “no small progress in the school of Christ.”[2]

Christian discipleship is about dying and living. It is to be on the journey with Jesus to Jerusalem, to the cross and the resurrection. With Jesus, we will prepare to die; with him we will walk into the valley of the shadow of death; and with him, we will begin to live. The journey is intensely personal. But personal isn’t private. Only individuals can live and die, whether physically or spiritually. Christians, at least, need do neither alone.

This journey is one undertaken with others, one begun and ended in community. Dying and living with Christ begins and ends with sisters and brothers alongside us, struggling with us, bearing our burdens as we bear theirs, forgiving and being forgiven, praying with us, for us, and perhaps instead of us. It is a journey undertaken in and with the Church as the Church hears in Word and sees in Sacrament, God’s promise and command.

It seems to me that it locates us in two ways. First, it reminds us that God’s grace is not contingent upon our piety, prayer, or position in life. This is perhaps the most difficult lesson of Lent to learn, given its quite natural focus on sanctification—that putting to death of our old habits, attitudes and actions coupled with the careful nurture of virtuous frames of mind and patterns of behavior. The appropriation of a Lenten discipline may lead us (mistakenly) to conclude that we are, in fact, engaged in an attempt to stake a claim for the gift of God’s favor and the result is either one of two of the deadliest sins.

One is despair. The focus on discipline may well lead some of us to conclude that we are not sufficiently disciplined, that we have not been sufficiently disciplined, that we will never be sufficiently disciplined. And in despair, some of us may conclude that grace is for us, undisciplined bodies and souls, and leave the repentance of Lent for others. And in so doing, we will have missed the point: repentance is not the foundation for grace. Rather, grace is the ground of repentance. Why should we repent? Why should we engage in those disciplines that remind us of our mortality, that expose our sins, that remind us of how far we have to go to attain the full measure of Christ? For no other reason than this: God has already chosen us to be the objects of his love. God has already chosen to lavish his favor on us. It cannot be earned, only received. For the words of the angel to Mary, in her ordinariness, are in fact words to us all: Greetings, Favored One! The Lord is with you! And if, like Mary we can, caught up in confusion, only utter, How can the be? We have the angel’s assurance: With God, nothing is impossible. No one can escape the grace that comes unbidden. And because grace has wholly to with God’s decision to be gracious, no one need despair.

But not all of us despair during Lent. It may be that, having accepted the mistaken notion that repentance is the ground of grace, we commit despair’s equal and opposite sin, pride. That is, we may come to the conclusion that we are, in fact, good enough, disciplined enough, repentant enough. It may be that deep in our heart of hearts, we really do believe that God owes us for our piety, our prayers, our positions of religious respectability. Like another character in Luke’s Gospel, we may, from our position of super-spirituality, look at our struggling brothers and sisters, and say, “I thank you God that I am not like them!” So Jesus reminds us that we are all like the tax collector in that same parable. He who prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” We are all alike on the margins. We are all alike in our ordinariness, in our frailty, and in our sin.

And so lent comes to us again as that occasion where we fast and pray and give in secret; as that time when God might set us free form the sins of despair and pride; as that time when, even as we remember our own frailty, our own mortality, our own sin, we might also remember the grace that has embraced us, redeemed us, and called us to new life in Christ. The grace that grounds our repentance and grants our faith. The grace that reminds us that, even if we are returning to the dust, that dust is beloved by God.

 



[1] John Calvin, “Life of a Christian Man. Scriptural Arguments Exhorting to It,” I.4. Accessed at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/christian_life/christian_life_body.html#CH1.

[2] Ibid., V.5.

Sermon–The True King

The True King

This is the last Sunday of the season of Epiphany. It is that season of the year that follows Christmas, when we celebrate the appearance of Christ. It is also that season of the Church year that precedes Lent, when we prepare ourselves for the events of Holy Week and Easter, when we remember the climax of Jesus’ ministry, grieve his death on the cross and celebrate his glorious resurrection.

Epiphany is that time of year, in other words, that is devoted to reflecting on the identity of he who came at Christmas, of he who died on Good Friday and rose again on Easter Sunday. It is a time for asking just who this man from Nazareth is. And of course, this is a theme that has run through the various Gospel passages that we have looked at over the last few weeks. “Who is this man that he teaches with authority?” asked the amazed crowd on several occasions. “I know who you are: The Holy One of God.” said the demon in the synagogue.

In the story of the raising of the paralytic, which concludes the cycle of miracle stories that we have been looking at, Jesus declares, “So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins, rise, take up your mat and go.”

Now this theme that has lurked throughout the last few Sundays comes in this final passage to the fore. Now we need to put ourselves in the place of the disciples, and the crowds. Now we need to ask again, “Who is this man?”

Who is this man who calls seekers and sitters and skeptics? Who is this man who calls fishermen to fish for people? Who is this man who declares himself to be the enemies of all God’s enemies? Who is this man who claims to forgive sins?

He is the Son of Man—so Jesus himself says when he raises the paralyzed man. Rooted in Daniel 7, it’s a title for a heavenly figure who would in the end time receive from God an everlasting kingdom and the authority to rule it. When Jesus comes preaching that the time is fulfilled, that the kingdom of God is here, that it is time to repent and believe all the while taking for himself the title Son of Man, he is in other words, talking about himself. The Son of Man has come—the time is fulfilled. The Son of Man is reigning—the kingdom of God is here. The Son of Man will judge and forgive and heal and restore. Repent and believe the good news!

Now we must ask, in the glorious light of the transfiguration, what are we going to do with the Son of Man. For now, we have come to the climax to our epiphany journey. With Jesus, Peter, James and John we have climbed the mountain. We have just seen Jesus disclosed, revealed, made known in his glory. The glory of the heavenly Son of Man attested to by both the embodiment of the Law—Moses and the Prophets—Elijah. We have heard again God’s heavenly voice claiming Jesus’ as his Son, authorizing his words, and commanding our assent. Are you ready to make up your mind yet?

And now to say something surprising: It’s okay to be unsure. It’s okay to be just a little worried about this man and the demands he places on your life. Who among us, whether we would class ourselves as Christians of long-standing, or short-standing, or not at all, cannot say that the Gospels have presented a picture of a man that is at once compelling and off-putting. Compelling because he is so attractive, so compassionate, so driven himself by compassion for the everyday needs of everyday people. And off-putting for the sheer power embedded in the words “Be quiet. Come out of him.” Or “I will it. Be Made Clean.”

Which brings us to the second context that we need to be aware of. The first context was our context as contemporary readers of Mark’s Gospel during Epiphany. The second context is the literary context of the transfiguration story in Luke’s Gospel. And once that context is made plain, second and even third thoughts will be seen to be appropriate. Let me explain.

The story of Jesus’ transfiguration in front of Peter, James and John comes just after the turning point of  Luke’’s Gospel. A point at which readers move a series of stories recounting victory after victory to a second series recounting what appears to be defeat after defeat.

In the first eight chapters of Mark, Jesus confounds his enemies. He dispatches demons with a word. He heals the sick, cleanses lepers, he even raises the dead. He bests his critics in debate, leaving them looking foolish. He even displays uncanny powers over the natural world itself, calming storms and multiplying food.

They end with Jesus taking his disciples north to Caesarea Phillipi, to ask them some pointed questions. Who do people say that I am? Who do you say that I am? And Peter, well, Peter gets it right. You are the Messiah, he says to Jesus. You are the Son of the living God.

And precisely at that point, the tone then changes. Then, says the text, Jesus began to teach them that he must suffer. That he would be rejected. That he would be killed and that after three days, he would rise again. The situation has just become very serious, indeed. Yes he is the Messiah. Yes he is the Son of Man. Yes he is the Holy One of God as the demons recognized. But he was going to fulfill this role in a way that nobody expected. His way will be the way of the cross. The way of suffering and death.

The rest of Jesus’ ministry, as it is recounted in the Gospel of Luke, will be so frustrating, so disappointing that we will need assurance that, indeed, we’re not wrong about Jesus. That our decision to follow Jesus was the right one.

So, it’s ok to be unsure as we move to the third context—the story itself. It’s ok to have doubts as we climb the mountain with Peter and James and John. And with them we see Jesus transfigured and revealed in the glory of his father. And with them we see him receiving the endorsement of Moses and Elijah. And once again, we hear God’s voice claiming Jesus as his Son.

The story is designed to show the uniqueness of Jesus as God’s agent. This is made plain at two points. First, having been taken up the mountain by Jesus and seen his glorious transfiguration with Moses and Elijah, Peter is overcome and begins to babble: “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us make three tabernacles—one for Moses, one for Elijah. . .”  and before he can finish his remarks, he is interrupted by the presence of the cloud and God’s voice saying, “This is my beloved Son. Hear him.”  In other words, do not be distracted by Moses and Elijah. Pay attention to Jesus. He is God’s son.

Second, once the cloud disappears, along with Moses and Elijah, the point made by the heavenly voice is underscored. The disciples are to look for direction only to Jesus. Only Jesus, not the great prophet Elijah and not the great lawgiver, Moses, can accomplish God’s plan. At their best, they attest to the One who surpasses them. To Jesus, the heavenly Son of Man.

An altogether haunting passage. Jesus’ transfiguration has given the disciples a glimpse of the glory of Jesus when he comes n the full power of the kingdom of God. But they have been told that Jesus must first undergo the passion before this dream can be realized.

And we find ourselves this morning much in the same place as the disciples did back then. These  past weeks, we have been nearly overwhelmed by the power of Jesus’ words and deeds.

We have seen Jesus’ identity disclosed: he is the heavenly Son of Man, who has been given a kingdom by God, who has been authorized to rule that kingdom by God, and whose reign will never end. The climax of that disclosure is the story of the transfiguration itself. Where Jesus is seen in his glory.

But that picture would be one-sided if we did not go on to stress that Jesus’ way to that glory is not a way of glory. It is a way of suffering. It is a way of the cross. It is a hard way. It’s like the eye of a needle. It’s like a narrow door opening on to a rough path. Few there be, says Jesus, that find it.

You have glimpsed Jesus in his glory. Now, will you follow Jesus to the cross?

The Raising of the Paralytic–A Sermon (Almost) Preached.

This Sunday is the Feast of the Tranfiguration, which gives us a glimpse of Jesus in his glory before we begin the long walk to the Cross on Ash Wednesday.

One of the unfortunate consequences of a shorter Epiphany season is that our sermon series on Mark’s miracles must come to a premature end. So, I’d like to take a little time to highlight what is the climax of the cycle that we have been working through these last weeks, the raising of the paralytic in Mark 2.

 What with all the miracles that have been erupting all around Jesus, the crowds now following him are so large that he can no longer enter a village anonymously. Once ensconced in Peter’s house, the crowds actually prevent anyone from entering or exiting the house.

Some first-century “Holmes on Homes” type men, however, refuse to let the crowds keep them from bringing their paralyzed friend to Jesus. They tear a hole in Peter’s roof (wonder what he thought of that?!?) and lower their friend to Jesus on a mat.

Here, Jesus words are most curious. “My son, your sins are forgiven.” It’s not what we readers would expect to hear and a gaggle of critics actually find it blasphemous. It is Jesus’ response to the critics that is most important. He challenges their assumptions by healing the man and taking the name “Son of Man” for himself.

The Son of Man is an end-time figure from the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. He would be, Daniel says, God’s own king at the time of the end. In taking this title for himself, in healing the man, and most importantly, in forgiving his sins, Jesus makes a startling claim for himself: he is so uniquely God’s agent that he can do things only God can do. This is, of course, the application of his preaching: The Kingdom has drawn near. It is time to repent and believe.

The climax of the miracle cycle, then, is not the miracles. It is that with the coming of Jesus and the preaching the Kingdom, sins are now forgiven and the rift between God and human beings is healed. Not by the strenuous efforts of pious people, but by God’s own Son, who is determined to be gracious.

The question this story poses to us is this: having heard the Good News, will we leave Jesus healed and reconciled to God or will we leave him, as his critics did, still religious yet still unredeemed.

 

Plantinga on the Conflict Between Religion and Science

I am not yet done the book, Where the Conflict Really Lies (Oxford, 2012) but there are some real gems there! I’ll write something more substantial later. For now, here are a couple of points that I would like a little help with.

(1) I undestand Plantinga to be saying that “soft methodological naturalism” (i.e., empirical sciences exclude God from hypotheses not as a metaphysic or theological presupposition, but as a matter of empirical practice) is not inimical to theism in general or Christian faith in particular. Hard methodological naturalism (which does presuppose atheism) is opposed to religious belief. All you need to be a scientist is the former; the latter is a metaphysical claim that is itself unscientific because empirically unprovable.  Do I have him right?

(2)I understand Plantinga’s Argument To Design as continuing his classic position in Reformed Epistemology: Design is something you have to be argued out of–not simply because it is there, but because our brains are structured in such a way as to see that it is there. I understand him also to say that such a position is actually stronger than how Paley and Behe are typically understood. Again, am I reading him correctly?

Plantinga is always a challenge to read–all the logic chopping can be really dry–but I am really enjoying this one!

Sermon–February 12, 2012

I Will It. Be Clean.

Mark 1:40-45

This is the third of four weeks in which we have been directed by the Gospel lesson to one of Jesus’ miracles. Two weeks ago, it was the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue. Last week, it was the healing of Peter’s mother in law from a fever. This week, Jesus cleanses a leper. Next week, he will raise a paralytic. All along Mark’s dominant image for these miracles is conflict, or warfare. Jesus’ entire ministry is a battle against the powers of evil.

It begins right after Jesus is baptized. As soon as he comes out of the water, he is anointed with the Holy Spirit and commissioned as the Son of God by a heavenly voice. Then the same Spirit drives him into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After this battle, Jesus comes into Galilee preaching, calling disciples and healing. Every sermon, every calling, every healing, we are to understand as the continuation of the battle of the Son of God against the evil one.

But it’s a strange kind of battle. Jesus’ only weapons are his words announcing the coming of the kingdom. And the only casualties—if they can really be called that—are people rescued from demonic domination, people restored to health. War is a strange and arresting metaphor for Mark to have chosen as the dominant description of Jesus’ ministry.

Why Mark has chosen to elaborate those miracle stories he does in this opening description of Jesus’ ministry? We have read about three in some detail: A demoniac, an ill woman, a leper. We will read a fourth next Sunday—the paralytic. But we also know that these are not the only miracles that have occurred. We read last week that all the sick and demonized in the town of Capernaum were brought to Peter’s house as soon as Sabbath was over and Jesus healed and delivered them. So, lots of miracles are happening. Why does Mark choose these four? We’ll talk about the paralytic next week. Let us focus on the three we have read thus far.

In the first two cases, the “enemy” which Jesus defeats is obvious. In the synagogue, it was the devil. At Peter’s house it was disease. The many miracles that followed in are similar kinds. What is it about the leper’s cleansing that makes it worthy of elaboration in the midst of all these other healings and exorcisms? Let us look at it more closely.

“And a leper came to him begging him and kneeling, and he said to him, ‘If you will it, you are able to make me clean.’” That’s a rather wooden translation of v. 40. The leper asks for cleansing. He is unclean; he wishes Jesus to make him clean. The key to the whole story is found in this one little word. Clean. What does it mean?

To get our bearings, we have to go the book of Leviticus, where chapters 13 and 14 prescribe various procedures for dealing with skin diseases lumped together under the word “leprosy.” People with various kinds of skin diseases were to be examined by the priest. And, based on the colour of the sore, whether or not it ran or spread, and so on, the priest would pronounce the patient either “clean” or “unclean.”

In Leviticus, lots of things could make a person unclean. People who touched corpses were unclean for a day. Women who were menstruating or who had just given birth were considered unclean until they were ritually purified. To be pronounced a leper was to be pronounced unclean. And to be unclean was to be outside the community. The first two examples—having to remove a dead body from a home or having just given birth—were regular occurrences. There were time limits to be observed and rituals to be followed, but cleanliness would return without anyone giving it much thought.

Not for a leper. A leper was unclean until the symptoms went away. There was no time limit. Not only was it open ended, but it was also frightfully public. The leper was to have his clothes torn. He was to keep his head bare. He was to cover his moustache and cry “Unclean” so that all would know to steer well clear of him. And worst of all, he would live outside the camp.

This is the Old Testament’s version of quarantine. Cut off from family. Cut off from friends. Cut off from the social ties that enabled him to feed himself, his wife, and his children. To be diagnosed as a leper was to turn a man into an outcast, his wife into a widow, and his children into orphans. It was to fracture a family and reduce its members to beggars or prostitutes. That’s what unclean means.

And that’s a very human response to disease that persists. Many remember when HIV/AIDS first became a headline. I recall parents screaming at each other over whether HIV infected children ought to be going to public schools? I remember arguments about whether it could be caught by sharing a cup or a toothbrush? It took forever not only for the facts about just how hard this terrible disease is to catch came out and even to penetrate the public consciousness. That’s unclean.

And a leper came to him kneeling and begging and saying to him, if you will it you can make me clean. Do you hear this man’s desperation? He has grasped every straw. He has spent every hope, every dream. He has nowhere else to go. Do you hear the heart cry of his question? I haven’t touched my wife in years. I haven’t held my kids since they were little. They don’t recognize me anymore. My brothers shun me. I couldn’t help bury my father and mother. At least I can sleep by their graves. My sisters shoo my nieces and nephews away from me as I sit out here and try to scrape together enough scraps to eat just one more day. But if you will it. . . .

“And being deeply moved,” begins verse 41. The verb is an odd one. It describes a deep pain that could just as easily be translated as “anger” as “compassion.” Jesus was profoundly moved—whether with compassion on the man or anger on the disease that had ravaged him and his family or both, the text doesn’t say.

“And being deeply moved, he put out his hand and touched him.” He touched him. Who was unclean. Jesus touched him. He didn’t have to, you know. Jesus didn’t touch the woman with the hemorrhage, in Mark 5. She touched the fringe of his robes. He didn’t even enter the soldier’s house or even pronounce words of healing in Luke 7. He touched this man. This man who had perhaps years before, bared his head, tore his clothes, left his family to live outside the camp. Jesus touched him and said to him, “I will it. Be clean.”

And what does Mark say next? “And immediately,” in a black church I’d be getting Amens right about now. “And immediately,” only two little words. “And immediately,” do they stir you? “And immediately,” do they quicken your pulse? “And immediately,” is your heart racing? “And immediately,” do you want to know how the story ends? “And immediately, the leprosy left him and he was made clean.” And immediately, he could go to the Temple and be declared clean. And immediately he was back in covenant with God and with God’s people. And immediately he could shave his head. And immediately, he could bathe. And immediately he could put on clean clothes. And immediately he could go home. And immediately, he was clean.

That’s why this miracle is included alongside the demoniac, the fever-stricken woman, and the paralytic. With them, it declares just who exactly Jesus’ enemies are. When he recounted the story of  the demon was expelled from the man in the synagogue, Mark was telling us that Jesus’ invasive mission is marked by enmity against those spiritual powers that hold people hostage. When he described the healing of Peter’s mother in law, Mark told us that Jesus’ invasive ministry is marked by enmity against any disease for disease no less than demons prevents human flourishing.  And now, with the cleansing of the leper, Mark is told us that Jesus’ invasive ministry is marked by enmity against anything that would cut anyone off from taking their place among the people of God.

This Gospel lesson is directed to two different groups of people. The first group might be identified with the disciples who were with Jesus on that first preaching tour around Galilee. What do you suppose Simon and his companions thought when they saw Jesus touch the leper? The text doesn’t say. But human nature hasn’t changed. Put yourself in their position. You are walking beside Jesus as you are just leaving a Galilean village and a dirty, smelly, unkempt, physically deformed, man accosts your Rabbi and kneeling in front of him, begins to make a scene. What is your response?  Are you angry? Are you afraid? Are you desperately trying to just wish the situation away? If you are any of those things, you are likely experiencing exactly the same emotions as the first disciples of Jesus, that day.

Now imagine further. As you are trying to think of a way of rescuing yourself from the situation without being disrespectful of this man’s plight, you see your rabbi, your teacher touch him. Things have gone from bad to worse! Jesus has given a measure of acceptance that the Law forbids and at the cost of making himself unclean. We’ve all been in situations where a serious social faux pas has been committed. Jesus has just committed the worst possible social faux pas. Now what will people think?

Does Jesus judge his disciples, us, for reacting this way? No. He just models a different way. He touched the leper. Saint Francis kissed the sores of a beggar. John Wesley set up Sunday Schools to educate children who were working in almost slave conditions in Eighteenth century English factories and mines. Mother Theresa established a home for the dying in Calcutta, India. Tony Campolo gave a prostitute a birthday cake. Why? To bribe them into listening to a sermon? To salve their own consciences? Cynics can come up with all sorts of reasons. But maybe the reasons are far more simple. Maybe it had to do with imitating Jesus. Maybe it had to do with recognizing, under all the judgments that society had already heaped upon them, that these were human beings made in God’s image. Beloved by God’s Son. And worthy of hospitality.

That brings us to the second group that the Gospel speaks to. Maybe you belong to this group. Maybe you would say that you identify not with the disciples, but with the leper. Maybe you’d say that you don’t need good religious folks coming alongside to remind you just how you don’t fit at this or at any other church. You know you’re on the outside. Unclean, to use the language of the Bible.

If that’s you, then hear the Good News. Jesus is already extending his hand to you. Jesus wants to make you clean, to bring you in, to include you among his people, among God’s people. And if some of God’s people can’t see the grace that Jesus extends to you, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the Good News of the Gospel is that you can be made clean. What matters is that the Lord of the Gospel has unequivocally declared himself to be on your side.

“I will it. Be clean.”

Sinema–Hollywood and the Human Condition

People are basically good. It’s a truism drilled into us by any number of self-help books, magazines, talk-show hosts, and pop-therapy. When, from time to time, the wheels come off and people do terrible things to each other or themselves, we are assured that just the right combination of education, medication, and therapy can correct the ignorance, illness, or faulty social conditioning that led to the act. But do we really believe it? Do we think it’s true? Or, do we recognize there something more sinister is at work in human nature?

By profession, I’m a Christian theologian and I often have conversations in which these questions arise. They are made very difficult by the loss of vocabulary that has traditionally helped people like me to get at the problem. In the past, Christians across confessions could use words like sin, evil, and even the language of the demonic and assume a broad cultural context that would make those words understandable to all involved. No more. Even in very socially and theologically conservative Christian churches the language of therapy has replaced the language of sin. Since Karl Meninger’s 1973 exposé of the trend in his now classic, Whatever Became of Sin? the problem has only intensified.

So let’s ask Meninger’s follow-up question: what ought to be done about it? If, as I suspect, there’s something askew in the notion that people are basically good, how do we say so if the language of sin is lost? It’s hard for a theologian to admit what I’m about to do. But here goes. It seems to me that paying close attention to some of Hollywood’s best films could re-teach us the traditional, rich, and incisive language that Christian cultures have used to describe the human condition. Hollywood can teach us how to speak about sin—and indeed how to be sinners again.

The obvious place to start is with Heath Ledger’s interpretation of The Joker in The Dark Knight. The Joker is, as he says, chaos. There is no greater good, no twisted virtue, no dysfunctional childhood or genetic malady that can explain the Joker. He can be described. But not explained. Precisely because explanation requires order and The Joker is about chaos. He is a pristine example of a human being completely given over to the demonic. “Some people,” says Alfred, “just want to watch the world burn.”

Sadly, Ledger’s powerful performance threatens to overpower what the other villain in the story has to say to us. Harvey Dent/Two Face encapsulates the fears of many that the law that grounds and maintains our civil society is ultimately capricious, in the end, subject to the whims of chance. Lawlessness, under a thin veneer of social respectability, is real the real bedrock of human life.

“There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those to weak to seek it.” The words could well have come from The Joker, Two Face, even Batman himself in his darker moments. They come from another Hollywood villain, however: Lord Voldemort. In J.K. Rowling’s world, the mark of a Death Eater—a follower of He Who Must Not Be Named—is the refusal to recognize or to be bound by any moral categories while the true hero is one who recognizes the powerful temptation that such a worldview offers, and resists it, opting instead for the path of love and self-sacrifice embodied in Harry Potter’s mother. To be sure, the line separating the two is often difficult to discern. If Severus Snape teaches us anything, it is that appearances are often deceiving because the line separating good from evil runs not between human beings, but through them.

This is another of Rowling’s themes that has easily been transposed to the screen. Good and evil are viable moral categories, but in real life, it’s nearly impossible to sometimes separate the two. Professor Quirrell—the bumbling, good natured Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher—is actually a servant of the Dark Lord. Delores Umbridge, not too subtly modeled after Baroness Thatcher and a temporary Headmistress of Hogwarts, shows how vicious evil can lurk behind the banal and the bureaucratic. Hagrid, the lumbering giant suspect because of his race, is a faithful and loyal friend. Sirius Black, so long a figure of contempt, is at once noble and too irreparably damaged to be Harry’s father figure.

Still, such complications ought not mask the fact that for Rowling as for Christopher Noland, the real world is a world of virtue and vice. A world of sinners and saints and scores of people somewhere in between. It is a world that cannot be accurately captured by the therapeutic, a world that gives the lie to the notion that people are basically good.

These are admittedly extreme examples. Very few (though, tragically, not few enough) human beings will ever give themselves over to evil to the degree that they will be consumed by it, becoming their own Joker or Two Face or Voldemort. Snape, Quirrell and Umbridge may well be nearer the mark for most of us. Hollywood has other sinners who are more complex, more familiar, and therefore all the more frightening—to me at least. These are sinners who sin precisely because they have been corrupted through virtue.

To be truly wicked, C. S. Lewis said one must have at least one virtue to make one great. However counterintuitive that notion might seem to be at first glance, Hollywood again gives us multiple examples that demonstrate its truth. Think about Saruman as played by Christopher Lee in The Lord of the Rings. (Set aside for the sake of argument the fact that he’s not a human being, but an angel). So driven is he to rid Middle Earth of Sauron—the very same good vocation as that of Gandalf—that he is consumed by it. Through his courage, insight, and determination, Saruman becomes at once Sauron’s ally and rival as he is devoured by the power the Ring. Lewis’ friend and fellow Inkling, J. R. R. Tolkien has it right: studying the Enemy’s methods too much will, whatever the original noble motivation, reproduce him in us.

Or how about Ian McKellen’s Magneto in the X-Men films? Here is a man driven by a quest for justice for those like him. He has survived the Holocaust and various other expressions of human evil on a grand scale and has concluded that justice for mutants will not be found in Charles Xavier’s naïve dream of co-existence between mutant and human. If the mutants are to thrive, they must rule. And so desperate is their situation that they must come to rule by whatever means necessary. Of course, by “whatever means necessary” grants Magneto the permission to do exactly to humans (and in fact, to other mutants) that which he claims to abhor.  “He who fights against monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster in the process.” Good advice from Friedrich Nietzsche, advice Magneto has failed to heed.

My favorite and final example is Michael Corleone, the one Corleone son destined not to go into the family business in The Godfather. “Just lie here Pop. I’m with you now. I’m with you,” says Michael to his father Vito as the old Don recovers from a failed assassination attempt. I have never seen a more moving scene of a son’s love for his father on the big screen. And in that moment, that is so rich in compassion, Michael refuses his destiny and embraces the family business. It is his love for his father and his family, his courage, and his unswerving loyalty that turn him into a ruthless killer, into the next Godfather. As Godfather II closes, Michael has expanded and consolidated his power. We last see him sitting alone in his boathouse. The one thing he loved most—his family—has been destroyed by his own evil, his own twisted sense of family honor. His brother, Fredo, is dead at his command. His wife, Kate has left him. “For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” asked Jesus. Too late, Michael Corleone knows the answer.

Are people basically good? No matter how much and in how many ways we tell ourselves that this is so, it seems we remain suspicious. It just doesn’t square with the world as we experience it. Our doubts find expression not in our churches, but in the stories we tell ourselves at the multiplex. Deep down, most people still know we live in a world where The Joker and Voldemort haunt our nightmares while combinations of Magneto, Saruman, and Michael Corleone run alongside us, and if we’re honest with ourselves, within us. And the only language that does justice to this condition is the language of sin. Human beings are sinners. That’s the bad news. The good news is, only sinners can be saved.

Sermon–Feb 5, 2012

Proclamation, Prayer and Community–Signs of the Kingdom

Throughout this Epiphany Season, we have asked together just what difference the coming of Jesus makes. When the identity of Jesus as King and as God, as Messiah and as Mediator, whether that disclosure is through the gifts of the magi or the waters of Jesus’ own baptism, what changes? Not simply what changed—i.e., what changed back then. But also what changes—what does it have to do with us? How are our lives different?

We noticed, first of all, that when Jesus is made known, people are called. John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and Andrew and a companion followed him. Andrew told Simon, and Simon became a disciple too. Philip was taken unawares by Jesus and became a disciple and sceptical Nathanael soon met Jesus and was himself enrolled in the school of discipleship. Jesus, we saw, calls people. He is both the subject and the object of proclamation. Like John the Baptist, we point people of Jesus and he does the rest. He does the calling.  Jesus calls all kinds of people—seekers and sitters and sceptics—all are found in the first disciples and that diversity has yet to change. There is no cookie-cutter Christian. And called people point others to Jesus. It’s what we do.

Second, we noticed that when Jesus is made known, when he calls people, “immediately,” things begin to happen. Simon and Andrew leave their nets; James and John leave both their nets and their father. Why? On the word of Jesus alone. His words. His gaze. His call. His grace. They are irresistible.  Jesus will call whom he calls. It is our task to introduce people to Jesus and then, crucially, to get out of the way so that by his Spirit, he might do his work in peoples’ lives.

Last week—and I got to read the sermon if not listen to it—last week Father Derrenbacker led us into Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and asked us what kind of ethic, what kind of common life should identify those of us who have been called to follow Jesus. And while none of us have trouble with idol-meat, the ethic that Paul uses to address that issue—which was a real point of conflict in the Corinthian Church—continues to speak to us. It is an other-centred ethic. An ethic that says not, “What is my right?” but “How might my actions help you in your walk with Jesus?” So, yes idols don’t exist. They can’t hurt me—also true. Food is food—obvious enough. I’m free to eat idol meat—exactly. But—and this is where things get interesting—if my eating idol meat scandalizes you, says Paul, I’ll stick with carrots!

That’s the ethic that Jesus and Paul bequeathed to the Corinthians. And it is the ethic that they give us. And it is that ethic that leads us into our Gospel lesson for today.

The Gospel lesson might not strike us at first as a passage that deals with ethics and action, but a moment’s reflection, I think, will suggest otherwise.

The Gospel opens “and immediately” with Jesus and the disciples returning to Simon’s house, where Simon’s mother-in-law is healed of a fever. This is followed by the entire town of Capernaum showing up, with their sick and demon-possessed to be healed. And Jesus heals them.

A quick word here on the exorcisms. This is the second mention of exorcisms in the ministry of Jesus. And it might be that some of us aren’t quite sure what to do with them. I think we have to say two things about them, since exorcisms are a fundamental factor in the ministry of Jesus as it is recorded for us in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as well as the one which recounts our Gospel for today, Mark.

The first thing that needs to be said is that exorcisms are a particular kind of healing miracle. And so, in one sense, they should be regarded as no different from other kinds of healing miracles. And Mark’s Gospel abounds in healing miracles—Simon’s mother-in-law is cured, a leper is cleansed, blind Bartimaeus receives his sight, and so on. So, there’s no reason for the first century to exclude exorcisms just to spare us our sensitivities about ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night. When Jesus comes proclaiming the good news, people are made whole—in both spirit as well as body.

The second thing that needs to be said is that our own language reveals that we’re not so far away from the language of evil spirits controlling people as we might like to think. Think about the old adage: “First I take a drink. Then the drink takes a drink. Then the drink takes me.” The Bible’s language of the demonic forces us to face the fact that there are times when we are not in control of ourselves or our actions. We are often, in fact, not simply out of control, but actually enslaved to foreign substances that bend us to their will. We use the language of addiction for some of these. But the notion of being controlled by something outside of us is something very real even for us in the moern era. It is far from the trivial red-suited devil on our shoulder manipulating us by whispering in our ear. When Jesus comes, he frees people from this kind of enslavement. That’s what exorcism means.

Fretting about exorcisms, however, does take us away from the thrust of this text, which comes in the final section. There we read that Jesus got up early and went to a deserted place to pray. And when his disciples found him out, and told him people were looking for him, his reply was, “Let us go on to the neighboring towns that I may proclaim themessage there also; for that is why I came out to do.”

It is interesting to me that in a passage that is so centred on miracles, Jesus is spends time praying and then talking about preaching. He has spent the better part of a day healing people. He has spent the better part of the day restoring health to broken bodies and muddled minds. You would think he would want to rise early to get a head start on healing the very next day.

Instead, he takes time to pray. Instead, he insists his mission is a proclamatory one.

The miracles are there. There’s no denying that they’re part of the story. But they’re not the point of the story. In Mark’s mind—and in Jesus’ words—proclamation is the point. The miracles are proof that Jesus is telling the truth: that with his coming, the Kingdom of God had broken into history. That with his coming, the time for dithering had come to an end. That with his coming it was time for people to repent—that is to change the way they acted and to change the way they thought—and believe the Good News—to trust that Jesus was the one who would inaugurate this Kingdom of wholeness, health, and peace. The focus for Mark, as for Jesus, is not on the activity but the proclamation.

Likewise, the prayers are there. All the Gospel writers tell of times when Jesus withdrew from ministry, from even his disciples to pray. But the prayers are not the point of the story. Jesus does not to withdraw to spend his life in prayer and solitude—there’s nothing wrong with that, by the way. He withdraws temporarily to commune with his father. To recharge. With a view to moving on—and doing so quickly, doing so, in Mark’s words, “and immediately.”

Well, what does this have to do with us? We are not Jesus. That might be true, but we have followed his call. Like Simon and Andrew, James and John, we have been called to become fishers of men and women, to announce the coming of the kingdom as Jesus did. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom, was empowered by prayer, and produced a community of healed people. If we would follow in his steps, it seems to me, this understanding of Jesus and his ministry invites us to ask three questions.

How does the proclamation of the Good News of the Kingdom flow into our self-understanding? That’s another way of asking just why we’re here. Is the Epiphany at its core basically a service club? I’m a member of the Rotary Sunrisers. Let me tell you, that compared to them, we are not a very good service club. Our attendance requirements are far too lax! There is a serious point to be made here though, isn’t there. How do our tasks introduce people to Jesus? How might we refocus, retool, reflect on what we already do to make them better vehicles to announce the Good News that God’s Kingdom has come? What practices might need to be retired? What new ones might be enjoined? What might change were we to make the proclamation of the Good News of the Kingdom more central to all the things we do?

How does our prayer-life impact upon our proclaiming work? Are there times when we—both corporately and privately, both leaders and helpers—withdraw to pray, to focus, to reflect, to ask the questions I just posed above not simply of ourselves, but of the God who has committed to us his mission here in downtown Sudbury? This is a question that applies to us both as a community and as individual believers. What might change if more of us did that?

Here’s the third question. It is for me, the hardest one. Would we point to ourselves as a community of healed people as evidence of God’s presence with us? Here’s what I mean: In last week’s Gospel, the people were amazed at the exorcism and asked, “What’s this? A new teaching with authority!” The proof of the proclamation, in other words, lay in the lives transformed by it. The same is true today. The proof of the Gospel lies not in a theory about the perfection of the Church or in the infallibility of Scripture—the theology classroom is the right place for those things to come up. But in the practice of proclamation, the proof of the Gospel simply is the community that grows up around its proclamation.

Is the way of life that marks our community a sign of the presence of God’s kingdom? Are people finding healing here? Are people being welcomed here? Would people look at the way we live together and respond as the synagogue congregation did to Jesus’ miracle: these people have something that is true, something that makes a difference! The point here is not perfection. The point is healing. My favourite image of the church—and many of you know this already—is that of a hospital for sinners. So, it’s not a matter of setting moral standards higher. I’m not asking about morality. I am asking whether people are visibly journeying toward healing here as a result of meeting Jesus.

The preaching of the Kingdom was central to Jesus’ self understanding and mission. How does the proclamation of the Good News of the Kingdom flow into ours? Prayer was the precursor to and lifeblood of Jesus’ preaching. What is the place of prayer in our life and mission? A community of the healed was the product of Jesus’ preaching. Are we on the way to becoming healed people? How might we become more the kind of community we can point to when people ask us if the Gospel really works?

A Sermon on the Deaconing of Joey Royal

This past weekend, it was my pleasure to preach at the ordination of my former student, Joey Royal, in Yellowknife. I thank +Andrew for his kind welcome to his Diocese and +Stephen for permitting me to go. My sermon is reproduced here with Joey’s permission.

Identity, Community, Task and Content: Reflections on the Call

Well, Joey, here we are. God has brought us both along different paths to a place where neither of us thought we would go when we first met. Do you remember when we first met? At Providence? I don’t remember our first conversation, but I do remember that one of our first ones had to do with Karl Barth and whether or not he was actually a Christian. Well, maybe he was a Christian. But you wanted to question me over whether he was orthodox. Over whether he was a trustworthy transmitter of the faith once delivered to the saints.

You were coming from a Brethren background and I, though by then an Anglican, was happily serving as a lay theologian. And our paths crossed at a non-denominational, evangelical Protestant college in Southern Manitoba. A College which, though it welcomed all sorts of Christians, was simply because of the demographics of its location, basically Baptist in orientation.

From that place—and I know that our walks with God did not begin there—but from that place, from that intersecting of paths, God has brought our paths together again. Here. In Yellowknife. On this wonderful occasion.

God called you to Huron College in London, then he called you to the North. Most of all, God called you to Orders. That call has been recognized and affirmed by the community of faith. And tonight, you will receive the symbols of your office in the first step of that external recognition. Bishop Andrew will lay his hands on your head and commission you to proclaim God’s wordand to care for God’s people. You will come even more closely under Bishop Andrew’s authority. You will be ordained a deacon.

God’s call has been recognized as part of your identity—to be a deacon is not simply to do certain things. It is to be a particular person. God’s call will now admit you to a particular community—a community of brother and sisters. Fellow servants called to care for God’s people in and through the ministry of proclamation and service. God has called you to particular tasks—to do certain things.  And God in that Call, God has given you what you need to be this person, to take your place in this community, to do these things.

I would like for the next few moments to reflect with you on each of these points.

First, Joey, you have been called to a particular identity. “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you;” these words, first uttered to the prophet Jeremiah as God commissioned him to his ministry to proclamation, are tonight given to you. And they are weighty with reality.

These are not flowery sentiments given to make us or you feel good; nor do they promise an always bright and smooth future. Certainly, if the subsequent ministry of Jeremiah is any indication, if the ministries of those whom God has called give us any clue, we cannot take these words as a sign that you will have an easy life and ministry.

We may certainly pray for those things and thank God if and as they occur. But the call of God does not guarantee those things.

No, the call of God, this passage tells us, has to do in a profound and real way, with who you are. Something prior to actions and events. It has to do in a basic way with your identity. “Before you were in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I consecrated you.” Tonight, the Church recognizes that these words—even as they apply in our text to the prophet Jeremiah, tonight the Church recognizes that they apply to you. That the call of God defines your identity Joey, in a fundamental and foundational way.

God’s call comes before your nationality and race. God’s call comes before your family and personal history. God’s call comes before the clothes you wear, the money you do or don’t have in the bank. It even comes before your love for Jen and her love for you. None of those things are bad things! None of those things are to be despised. All of those things flow into the man you are and the man you are becoming. But none of them is basic. None of them is primary. None of them gets behind God’s call.

God’s call comes to you, Joey, before you were born. It comes even before you were in the womb. The call of God uniquely constitutes who you are and who you are becoming. It comes before everything else—however good and wonderful and enjoyable those other things are.

The call of God defines you, Joey, like nothing else can. Tonight, we are not giving you anything new as much as we are recognizing just whom you have always been. Whatever spiritual gifts you receive tonight—and you will!—they will not be call of God. They will be the tools you need to do what God has already called you to do.

Now why does that matter?

It matters because all the other things we use to construct ourselves—all the other things I’ve mentioned . . . things like race and place and spouse and family—all those other things can and will be taken away from us at some point or other. God may even have to strip you of something that you hold most dear—he has done that with me—to remind you that the call tells you who you are.

There may even be a time when you find yourself in a position similar to the prophet Jeremiah, cast into the pit of Malchiah, up to his neck in filth having been abandoned by all but the God who called him. Even then, and then more than any other time, rest in your call.

The call came before you were. It defines you. It makes you, you and shapes whom you will become. Rest in that call when times are good; rest in that call when they are not. The call of God is who you are.

Even if there are times when it seems like the call of God is all you have, however, because of the call, you will never be entirely alone. The call of God rests on others with whom you share that call.

There is a sense, of course, in which this is true of every Christian. When the writer to the Hebrews penned the words that we read this evening, he wasn’t talking to the clergy. He was talking to every believer. “Since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so easily, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us. . . .”

All of us who have been baptized are part of this community of faith that extends from Abel to the end of time, that encompasses the church militant here on earth and triumphant in heaven.

But, it seems to me that it is particularly true for those of us who have been called to ordained ministry, who have been called in a unique way to serve this community of faith, that we form a community, too. A community within the community, so to speak.

As of tonight, you become part of the community that includes many of the Church’s great saints—Athanasius and Bishop Isaac Stringer and John Stott.

More than that, you will become part of that community within the community made up of individuals who, throughout the last two millennia, opened the book anonymously. Who visited the faithful, who evangelized and bore witness to the world, and did so without ever earning a name in any of the history books. People like Barney Wood whom no one but a very few remember, but whose faithful ministry led to the discernment of well over a dozen vocations, including my own.

I do not know how your call will unfold Joey. In the mercy and timing of our Lord, you may well become a Stott—you certainly have the intellectual gifts for it; or you may well become a Barney Wood—faithful, anonymous, with a huge if indirect impact for the kingdom. Either way, you are part of a community. You are not and will never be entirely alone.

I trust that you will rest in your call to this community if you ever find yourself like Jeremiah in the pit.

More than that, though, I trust that when the invitations to clericus come at the worst possible time, or when a Deanery event feels like just one more thing on an already too-long-to-do list, that you’ll remember that you’re part of a community. And in clericus and in Deanery functions, we build that community. We—ideally anyway—use these get togethers to encourage each other to lay aside besetting sins, to persevere in the race before us, to keep our eyes on Jesus.

You belong to the community of the called. It is a community with quirks. It is a community with saints. It is a community with sinners. It is a community full of men and women who are somewhere in between. It is a community that surrounds us and prays for us and upholds us.

So, the call of God is who you are and at the same time, the call of God admits to you a group of men and women who share that vocation. The call is indeed about your personal and corporate identity and their intersection.

And within that intertwining of personal and public personae, you are called to certain tasks. And that brings us round to the Gospel lesson for this evening. You might like to think of this passage as Our Lord’s first dress rehearsal for what would follow, first in the sending of the seventy in the next chapter, and then in the book of Acts, with the commission to take the Good News to Jerusalem, to Judea and Samaria, and eventually to the entire world.

In our passage the 12 are given authority over demons and disease. They are commissioned and authorized, in other words, to be healers of both souls and bodies. They are sent out to proclaim the kingdom and to heal.

Tonight, as you are ordained, you are being authorized and commissioned to do the same thing: you stand in the tradition of the apostles to bring healing to minds and bodies, and to do so through the unique gifts and tools that are yours as a deacon.

I would like to think that you remember one of my lectures on parish organization in Geneva, and on how John Calvin understood the office of the pastor. For it seems to me that it is applicable here.

Calvin believed that the pastor was called primarily to be an exegete of Scripture. And he believed it was to be done in two places and in two ways. It was to be done publicly and generally in the pulpit as, week in and week out, a pastor would bring the gracious words of Law and Gospel to bear on the lives of the people he (they were only men at that time) had been charged to serve. And, it was to be done privately and particularly in the homes of believers as the pastor visited his parishioners, to bring the gracious words of Law and Gospel to bear on individuals.

In pulpit and in living room and in hospital room and in jail cell Joey, as you bring the Word to your people, never forget that the Gospel is Good News for the healing of the nations; that what you have been called to proclaim is the good news of salvation, of healing, of the restoration to wholeness for God’s people and for the world.

Bring the Word to people and let it do its healing work. Allow the grace of God—the grace that comes to our ears in the Word proclaimed—to be seen and touched and tasted, too as you help serve the sacrament.

And that brings me finally to the content of the Call. Of that content, St. Paul in our lesson wrote, “I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.”

Paul—who, as he told us earlier in the epistle to the Philippians—had more reason than most to boast now considered it all rubbish—the Greek word is, you will recall, more earthy than that!—he considered it all rubbish in order to gain Christ.

The content of your call, Joey, is a person. He is the one you are to give to others through Word and service. He is the one given for the healing of the nations and the healing of our souls.

And that means you will stand between your people and Jesus. You are called to be transparent to his glory. You are called to be a channel employed by the Spirit to bring Christ to his people. You are called to give your people Christ.

You will bring Christ into places of light and happiness and into places of darkness and loss. You will bring Christ to people who will receive you; you will bring Christ to people who will not.

But you will bring Christ.

Not the glories of the prayer book, or Anglicanism, or a particular expression of Christianity. You will bring Christ. Everything—no matter how good those things they may be, no matter how boastworthy or beautiful—everything set next to him counts as loss.

He is the one who is the content of your call. He is the one whom you have been charged to give away. He is the one who has chosen you to be a vehicle for his grace. Know him, and the power of his resurrection, and whether your ministry is popular or not, whether it is well-known or anonymous, it will be fruitful.

Joey, you have sensed the call of God to ordained ministry as a priest in God’s Church. That call from here on will be the definer of who you are. That call is shared by many many brothers and sisters. Don’t be afraid to lean on us; let us, from time to time, lean on you. That call is to bring the healing of the Gospel through Word and Sacrament to people who need it whether they know it or not. And the content of that call is Christ himself. You will serve him by serving others. You will serve him by giving him away.

Because before he formed you in the womb, he knew you; before you were born, he consecrated you. Before you took your first breath, he had placed his hand on you and said to you, “This one belongs to me.”

 

Review–Retrieving Nicaea

Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine

Khaled Anatolios

Baker Academic, 2011

With this new book, Khaled Anatolios, professor of historical theology in the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, cements his position as a leading contemporary interpreter of the Council and of its great champion, St. Athanasius. The book is every bit the equal of his earlier work, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (Routledge, 2004) and merits a close reading by patristic scholars and contemporary theologians equally.

Anatolios contends that “Nicaea,” that is, the doctrinal outcome of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, the identification of God as Trinity, is not the result of speculation, whether about the nature of God or the nature of persons, but in fact expresses “coherent construals of the entirety of Christian faith” (1). In other words, the doctrine of the Trinity articulated at these councils and confessed in the Creed is not simply one doctrine alongside others. Its value lies in its explanatory power not simply with regard to the identity of God, but insofar as confession of this identity in turn shapes the rest of Christian faith.

This is a sweeping and attractive thesis. But one that is obviously difficult to demonstrate historically. Anatolios wisely eschews the diachronic route, and chooses instead to exposit three major interpreters of Nicaea: Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine of Hippo. His choice of exemplars is deliberate: the great champion of the fourth century followed by two fifth century figures, determinative for the shape of Trinitarian doctrine in East and West respectively.

First, however, some historical groundwork is laid with two opening chapters. The first details the run up to the Council of Nicea (325) and the years of ongoing controversy afterward. Anatolios rightly points out that the issue was not whether God was Trinity, but how. In the fourth century, the pivot on which this debate turned was the primacy of Christ. Was Christ united to God the Father as a matter of divine will or divine being? Although the major combatants leading to the Council were the presbyter, Arius and his bishop, Alexander, Anatolios helpfully demonstrates substantial theological diversity on both sides. This diversity ensured, further, that the controversy would continue for decades after the Nicene formula had been “settled.” In truth, it was as much the determination of Athanasius to defend the Council afterwards that made it the watershed in the history of Christian theology.  These chapters rehabilitate both Arius and Alexander by effectively getting them out of Athanasius’ shadow and presenting them as able Christian theologians in their own rights.

With the groundwork then laid, Anatolios can begin his expository work. His chapter on Athanasius devotes extended attention to the Orations and On the Incarnation as well as other works (Anatolios takes what is to me a novel stand—for him, the Incarnation does not antedate the Arian controversy, but is subsequent to it). Through his exposition, he shows how the debate about Nicaea’s homoousios is not simply about the primacy of Christ, but also how that primacy informs Christian faith as a whole and divine transcendence in particular. Athanasius’ position is that the Father-Son relationship is constituitive of God’s identity. As a result, Christ’s saving work is a manifestation of the divine nature as philanthropia (156). The Holy Spirit, futher, is the creative and salvific agent of that same philanthropia. As a result, not only is there is no divine “remainder” outside the confession of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but all of Christian existence takes place within that confession.

In his turn to Gregory of Nyssa, Anatolios highlights the vision of God as irreducibly active “within the dynamism of the Trinitarian life,” and who is, therefore neither static with regard to nor removed from creation.  Rather, the dynamic life that is the perichoretic unity of Father Son and Holy Spirit—which is the divine goodness—spills over into creating and redeeming that which is not God. On Anatolios’ reading, Gregory is not a Neo-Platonist who revels in divine ineffability and his mysticism is not “the Poltinian ascent of the alone to the Alone” (240). Rather, Gregory’s conception of divine ineffability is better understood as plenitude or inexhaustibility. It is because God, who really is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, has in his goodness and activity drawn humanity into his very life that human beings will forever be moving “further up and further in” (to borrow from C.S. Lewis) to that life and our understanding thereof.

Augustine and his magisterial De Trinitate is then consulted as Anatolios reflects on what kind of knowledge of the Trinity is possible for human beings. Again, the doctrine of the Trinity is presented not as an abstract and speculative exercise but as one, reflection on which, leads to spiritual formation and the production of a particular kind of person. The real issue on Anatolios’ reading is not the “proof” of Trinitarian doctrine according to human reason to the deployment of analogies to ratify it according to standards of human rationality. Its purpose rather is first to expose and then to heal “the deep wounds of a radically uncertain self through the revelation of God through Chrsit and the Spirit” (279).

Finally, Anatolios’s conclusion draws together the expository strands of previous chapters to show how a robust conception of the Nicene doctrine of God is not isolated, but continues to impinge upon Christian understandings of Scripture, Tradition and hermeneutics, worship, creation, salvation, and humanity.  Although a fitting, and from my perspective, very satisfying conclusion, readers who are not interested or trained in patristics might want to read it before the long expository chapters. It will help orient them, and indeed give them a persuasive argument  to stick with the longer chapters when the exegesis gets detailed.

Highly recommended to specialists and interested non-specialists.