“What kind of a man is a man who does not try to make the world a better place?”

Balian in Kingdom of Heaven

This week the lectionary takes us to the feeding of the 5,000 (plus women and children).  I’ve been wondering about the story all week, particularly verse 16.

Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand

¹³ When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. ¹⁴When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

¹⁵ As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

 ¹⁶ Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

¹⁷ “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

¹⁸ “Bring them here to me,” he said. ¹⁹ And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. ²⁰ They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. ²¹ The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

It struck me that we always read this as a miracle of Jesus, but at the very least the disciples were partners in it.  “You give them something to eat” but the disciples look to their very obvious limitations.

Only 5 loaves and 2 fish.

That’s not going to be enough.

But with God’s blessing it is.

So Jesus takes what they have, gives thanks and blesses it, and then gets them to share what they have.

It turns out that the little they have is more than enough.

How often do we look at the world and say ‘It’s too big and I’m too small to change it”?  The disciples fed the 5,000 with Jesus’ help.  I wonder what we could do to make the world a better place with that kind of help?

What kind of a man doesn’t even try?

One of the things that happened in yesterday’s General Assembly debate on the report of the Special Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and Ministry was some new labels.

‘traditionalists’ and ‘revisionists’ now seem to be the labels of choice.

These are interesting labels for a number of reasons.

I wonder how they make sense in a church whose ‘motto’ is ‘always reforming’?  Which ‘traditions’ and ‘revisions’ are we talking about?  The traditions of the reformation?  The traditions of the Old or New Testament?  The traditions of a denomination?

As a denomination the Church of Scotland has moved away from a number of ‘traditional’ views.  Slavery, the role of women, the enforcement of the Sabbath, stools at the front of churches used to ridicule ‘sinners’, music in church, access to communion…  I wonder how many people would agree or disagree with each of those?  And what label would we apply?

I think we need to be very careful about which labels we embrace and about what claims those label make for different points of view.  The use of labels creates difference.  It forces people to take sides.

I noticed today in Assembly a ‘traditionalist’ and a ‘revisionist’ agreeing wholeheartedly with each other about climate change.

Labels at the very least simplistic and at worst divisive in an area that doesn’t need any help to cause division.  The reality of the debate around sexuality is that opinion exists on a spectrum and I suspect that there are many more people in the middle that at the ends.

I’ve already said that I’m not fluent in Greek and Hebrew.  We rely on others to help us interpret, to understand and to explore.  There are a variety of views on, and understandings of, scripture.  Is it the role of our ministers to tell us what they think?  Or is it their role to help us to understand the range of opinion?

The thing that concerns me most in this and any other theological discussion is the degree of certainty exhibited.  Jesus said things that those closest to him didn’t understand.  God continues to reveal His purpose for the world.  We claim to seek the will of God.  In many ways this discussion reminds me of the crusaders who would make a point and assert ‘God wills it!’.  It’s hard to argue with God.  But of course that’s not what is happening now… is it?

Surely our understanding of God is at the very least provisional as it has been throughout history (as shown in the Bible).  I wonder if ‘always reforming’ is the ‘tradition’ we are talking about?

I like questions.

I think that’s why I like process.

Rob Bell’s new book Love Wins: At the Heart of Life's Big Questions is out soon in the UK and the interwebs have been alive with comment, question and criticism.

Yesterday Rob did a question and answer session where he admitted that for him the questions are really important.  Perhaps more important than answers, especially as we won’t know the answers about heaven and hell until we’re dead!!

I wonder what spaces we give to big questions like this in our communities?

Questions inspire me.  I love hearing people talk about ideas and questions.

What’s your favourite question?

Does anyone want to run a one day conference filled with great speakers and big questions?

Seriously.  Actual answers (preferably ‘yes’) below.  Please.

On Sunday I was wondering about that little conversation Jesus has with Peter where he ask him three times “Do you love me?”.

Each time Peter says “yes, of course I do!” and after each reply Jesus says something odd.

Feed my lambs.  Look after my sheep.  Feed my sheep.

Odd.

I wondered aloud about the progression.  Are the lambs the spiritual babies?  Do the sheep, the more mature followers, also need guiding and protecting?  What should the sheep be fed so that they remain healthy and strong?

Is Jesus asking Peter to ensure that the conditions for growth are in place?  Is He asking Peter to make sure that the new church takes its members seriously, that they make sure people can grow in faith and that they are supported to do so?

What does that kind of growth look like?  And are we anywhere close to it in our churches?

Last week’s sermon focused on John 15: 9-17 and used some material from the excellent OneKirk worship material and from the equally excellent Lawrence Moore’s blog, Disclosing New Worlds.  As always, youth thoughts and comments are wel,comed.

Tonight, for reasons I’m still not entirely sure of, I was invited to sit on a panel for a discussion of ‘The Emerging Church’ at International Christian College.  If you read yesterday’s post you’ll probably realise that i was pretty nervous about it for a number of reasons.

If you missed it, my article on Emerging Church is in the newly published OneKirk Journal (along with an interview with Scott Rennie and some amazing words written by Roddy Hamilton).

However, back to tonight.  It went pretty well I thought, despite me outing myself as never having been an ‘Evangelical’ which I guess was one of the inevitabilities of taking part.  Oh well.  Never mind.  I think my ‘outsider in terms of the evangelical church but maybe more insider in terms of emerging church’ position added a wider perspective to the debate.

I enjoyed the discussion but there were some things that I wanted to pick up on and perhaps save others having the same problems.

The first is that we always need to be pretty clear which emerging church we’re talking about.  This evening’s discussion grew out of the visit of Brian McLaren last year and the students wanted a forum to discuss some of their unanswered questions.  I saw the value of this but I’m not sure I see the point of only discussing what McLaren thinks the emerging church is, no matter how much fun that might be.

I don’t buy that McLaren is leading this emergence on his own.  I’m concerned that if we focus all of the discussion on what Brain thinks we miss the very real question about why stuff is emerging from ALL kinds of churches.  What is driving this experimentation?  What is it that people are dissatisfied with?  I think McLaren has a go at answering some of those questions, but he’s not the only voice in the discussion.

The second is that, believe it or not, this ain’t America.  The drivers for the Emerging Church in America are its particular political, social, cultural and spiritual context… none of which are the same here in Scotland, despite the very obvious homogenisation of western culture.  The evangelical context in America has a social and political dimension that is not replicated here in the UK where the ‘religious right’ doesn’t have the same influence in the political or social agenda.

I think we need to be more deliberate about finding out what’s happening here and who, if anyone, is writing about it.  That’s one of my hopes for Emerging Scotland, that people will share their stories and begin to chronicle the emerging church here in Scotland.

The third is that, even though it’s a crowd pleaser, cheap stereotypes about liberals sitting round candles isn’t an accurate representation of any of the Emerging Church.   Please don’t make fun of people who are trying honestly and earnestly to seek God’s will and to worship Him in ways that make more sense to them than whatever they have found in a denominational church setting.

So, overall, a good night I think.  It was filmed but I don’t know if or where that might appear…

I feel sorry for Thomas.  He gets some bad press, mostly so John can make a point to his readers I think.  I’m not even sure Thomas had doubts.  I think he had questions, so that’s where this week’s sermon focuses… on questions.

I was at Lanark Greyfriars and the readings were John 20: 19-31, 1 John 1:1 – 2:2 and Acts 4: 32-35

As always, your comments, suggestions and most of all questions are very welcome.