kingdom is big

"most scholars agree that the kingdom of God is central to Jesus's ministry.

Unfortunately, there is no widespread agreement as to what the term and its cognate ideas actually mean. " Wright

so we have piestic traditions on one side (personal conversion, private devotions, spiritualised views of heaven) - and those agitating for workings of God in other spheres - political engagement and questions of justice - or even a well thought through theology of work and life in the world - often in another.

yet politics and salvation, theology and public life, work and religion, economics and morality, were not really separated out into different spheres in the original monotheistic Kingdom vision. And though Jesus redefines what that Kingdom is about (not another restoration of Israel's fortunes, but the deeper fulfillment of the original mandate in Israel's calling to be the chosen nation and light of the world) and how this reign is brought, the Kingdom still integrates these - all these concerns can at least be on the same page; we shouldn't frame a subset as the religious bit, as against the others.

the name of this blog is based on that instinct. Sometimes we are gathered church, where a laser like focus - all on the same wavelength - for say teaching or training in gifts etc - can be key. But we are also called to wider spheres: the light is diffused across other spaces. And we have to live in the rhythm of both.

that quote above from a lecture "what did Jesus mean when he announced the kingdom of God?"

Christians need a working answer to these questions i think. Much to learn. Actively seeking and reading and discussing.

of kids, coffee and creation

recently kicked off a midweek small group at our place. Early days but kind of fun to pack the house out with 6 additional kids on top of our two - bit of loaves and fishes in reverse there : packing them in - somehow they all go to sleep - and adults of course!

we got chatting over coffee, and conversation touched on blogging. Why would do people it? where is the boundary between private and public? between accountability to a local community, 'journaling style' for personal outlet and expressing burning questions; etc.

I've written a lot on an education blog. i used to wonder about those questions at the time. Why was I burning midnight oil chasing out possibilities in how IT and Maths overlap? i knew my posts were too long (the gurus say the optimum is considered 700 words, and at least weekly for interest). I wrote much more infrequently, and in much longer bites. but i wasn't really chasing followers : more exploring ideas.

i've recently come to see a bigger backdrop to it, perhaps even something that is found in Genesis:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

So it seems there is a sense there in which God inquires of Adam; what will you call this? how will you see it? its linked with the mandate to work in the garden.

We know before the fall there is meaningful work; Adam is given that purpose in the Garden. We can aspire to that again. And I see in this verse about naming, where God stands back to see what Adam does, what creative naming he will bring to bear, that there is also exploration and uncovering of the dimensions of creation.

I've come to suspect that in rattling on in the midnight hours about the possibilities of using IT in Maths ... i think i was trying to name something; exploring something under a redemptive influence, in the areas of education where God had and has me. (Practically it also had the unintended side effect of a being a helpful portfolio of interests when applying for an unexpected job a few years later.) And that aspect of cultivating inquiry is also something to weave into education in general; the redemptive leaven in education should mean we do more than transmit a certain fixed body of content, but that we model inquiry in the process.

Anyway, that personal snippet wasn't the topic of discussion except over coffee, and although its meaningful to me I wouldn't press it too hard as anything other than my own take on things: although it kind of relates to the study we did actually last night, which had big kingdom themes. Big enough to maybe warrant redoing here, so here goes:

Genesis implies a kingdom - first 3 days of creation sets up realms : light/ dark, sky/earth, water/land. Next three days set up rulers and creatures to occupy and fill: a great light to govern the day, a lesser another for the night. Birds for the sky, fish for the deep, animals for the land: all these fill and expand into the realms.

There is some implied dominion for the creatures in the blessing to 'be fruitful' in these realms; and in the lights 'ruling' over day and night.

And after this all goodness, mankind is made in His image, which i gather also implies as his representative - is given definite dominion to to rule and steward over all this.

Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

ruler over the other realms and creatures and authorities in those realms..

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

7th day is rest : God is over all.

There is a kingdom implied here: man as delegated ruler over creation, with God bringing peace and blessing overall.

So when mankind rebels to God and falls: creation falls as well. "Cursed is the ground because of you" enmity enters into the created order. Strain and struggle and toil - difficulty enters work, perils wrack childbirth - things go wrong on a cosmic scale; partly because mankind had that dominion and blew it; creation goes astray too.

Fast forward to the redemptive hope that is revealed through scripture (along the lines of Seth, Shem, Abraham, Israel --to the awaited Messiah) - and we find the reversal is also cosmic.

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God

Somehow creation itself is caught up in the drama of redemption. All creation fell- and redemption is being demonstrated across different realms as well. The kingdom reality still resonates across the various dimensions of creation, wherever the people of God bring His light into darkness, or where-ever God's original frame is still respected or restored.

The end of the ages has been brought forward into the present : we get to taste and see and experience the redemption: and creation looks on, somehow knowing this is the hope of redemption for the whole created realm as well.

Yet we live, as it were, between the ages. The new creation has been inaugurated; we know it in our own lives, through the gift and witness of the Holy Spirit. And yet it is not yet complete, either for us or creation:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

The Spirit, the same Spirit who was hovering over the waters in the beginning, who was there as God spoke light into being, who knows all creation, helps us now:

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

Paul describes Jesus as the second Adam, says that we are a new creation if we are in Him, and sometimes describes new creation in ways that parallel the original creation language:

For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ. (2 Cor 4:6)

Our era is kind of ok with spirituality, as long as it stays as its own private domain.
That's not going work with a vision like this, where the Author of all also redeems it all, by bringing it all to head at the Cross. As much as the world would like us to squeeze religion to the margins, this can't be a bit of personal spirituality round the edges:

We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God's original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body.
He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he's there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
Col 1 (Msg)

A kingdom that was originally as wide as Creation; that fell and was in rebellion; is being and will be restored; and we're called into that story, included in that redemption and reconciliation for all people and creation. That must touch every sphere and area of life. (Though the message is also that some will resist and miss the hope and promise here).

And there also is a sense in which the reality of all this is hidden.

Your old life is dead. Your new life, which is your real life—even though invisible to spectators—is with Christ in God. He is your life. When Christ (your real life, remember) shows up again on this earth, you'll show up, too—the real you, the glorious you. Meanwhile, be content with obscurity, like Christ.
(Col 3:3)

And while we're called to bring kingdom of God into our own worlds, its not a linear progression of restoration: more like Dickens 'it was the best of times, it was the worst of times': the darkness deepens while the light gets stronger; both at once, as birthpangs of the end of the age intensify.

Its kind of mind blowing sketching it out: resonating the redemptive story across the creation wide kingdom. No wonder Paul prays for the Spirit to bring wisdom and revelation so we can grasp what is the height, width, depth of all this!! I quote the Message translation, not because it says anything different, but it cadences are less familiar and might startle us more with whats being said here in Ephesians!

so that you can see exactly what it is he is calling you to do, grasp the immensity of this glorious way of life he has for his followers, oh, the utter extravagance of his work in us who trust him—endless energy, boundless strength! All this energy issues from Christ: God raised him from death and set him on a throne in deep heaven, in charge of running the universe, everything from galaxies to governments, no name and no power exempt from his rule. And not just for the time being, but forever. He is in charge of it all, has the final word on everything. At the center of all this, Christ rules the church. The church, you see, is not peripheral to the world; the world is peripheral to the church. The church is Christ's body, in which he speaks and acts, by which he fills everything with his presence. (Eph 1)

got through something like that outline - slightly different path - a light rehash of topics from years ago with Rikki Watts; newly refreshed with NT Wright.

but less is more next week:)

NT Wright is an Anglican? - part 1

i notice many Anglicans looking beyond Anglicanism for inspiration. i get that. Partly the era - a healthy cross fertilization of movements is at work.

(i did have a comment in here about my early experience of Anglicanism; schooling etc; but think it may possibly confuse the issue, so its gone. At least for now. )

Anyway, i wonder what would happen if Anglicans wrestled more with NT Wright - an Anglican theologian and bishop. Might be less need to always look elsewhere; good as the cross fertilization can be (and of course crossing these boundaries has been my story).

i've read a few of his books in last couple of years -enjoying these riches - Justification, Surprised by Hope, The Cross and the Fire, some of his articles, and some mp3s on parables, kingdom of God etc - and feel like i'm only skimming the surface.

so much richness and depth and critique and promise and hope in here

Surprised by Hope: have we misunderstood what heaven is all about? If we use the biblical, rather than the popular, images, then perhaps we have. 'Going to heaven when you die' is not the main use or focus of the term in the scripture - its not untrue, but hardly the point of most of the usage: inaugurating a new creation here and now, and exploring the fullness of what that means, what God is up to, is a better focus. Much follows on that: and it widens the dimensions of redemptive living.

Similarly in Justification he makes a compelling case for a scriptural critique and refinement of reformation doctrine; that we have extracted doctrines that are not wrong, but not as biblically based as they could be. The counter arguments - that its awfully unsettling to tinker with centuries old tradition, and it makes reading the text less transparent if we have to know something about 1st century Palestine or the whole bible, or 'look, this bit does say what we think it says' - seem less substantial than Wright's defence that he is following the original reformers' own agenda: deepening faith and practice against the bible itself; letting it be the guide, according to the best understanding that faithful scholarship can furnish.

The 16th C reformation formulations recovered much that we rightly treasure, but seems to me Wright rightly divides the places where they (and tradition) tightened the perspective into too narrow an arc; over stress certain terms and themes at the expense of underplaying others. If it turns out this can be conclusively demonstrated - and i for one think the arguments seem sound, we should let a fuller and better understanding of the text reform our categories. Not least, a fuller and more central doctrine and role of the Holy Spirit, and a stronger frame for the large scale redemptive story, across all creation.

The result is similar : we end up with all of the key doctrines intact, just reshaped in more biblical form - and surprisingly liberating to give other epistles their voice, not just Romans as the de facto base line to interpret the rest of the NT.

Of course that's potentially quite a large re-orientation: and he hardly needs a blogger pushing his work - he has some stern words for the vitriolic and unaccountable critiques that can issue from the blogosphere - but i write for my own reflection, and perhaps - hopefully - some local engagement and discussion.

The counter reaction to his work on Justification seems largely to derive from adherence to tradition: one hears comments like "don't touch this, or how i've got used to it, or how my parents and their parents saw it" (or, more generously, 'this might have some truth, but really, pastorally, don't unsettle the flock with the need for re-learning things they thought were bolted down').

Which is ironic indeed - as if protestants are now too invested in tradition (a charge they would previously have raised to catholics) to let relatively recent doctrine (16th C is still very late) be opened to fresh discussion by first-class biblical (and evangelical) scholars; to look again at the authentic 1st century usages and understanding? (I say evangelical, though part of the difficulty is his work might unsettle some of the things evangelicals thought they had all sorted out).

Perhaps we want to know all the answers already, in some prized areas, rather than risk the uncertainty of going deeper; but we might be holding something that is a little out of focus; and find there are dimensions we had truncated, which come back into focus, be restored to more biblical dimension, if are willing to let go of some of that 'certainty' and come back to the text, with all of its resonances.

Justification is not a light read, but carries the day for me in discussing this - and is itself only a summary of his more substantial work and research into Paul's use of various terms.

He's resigned as Bishop of Durham to take up full time academic study and work on Paul again, in his 60s. Admirable!

and here's a wonderful discussion of what biblical authority might really mean ...

so much to quote: the whole thing sings

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

i picked up my blogging pen to comment on that article and what i'm finding: but it will have to be the next post.

So if all his discussion and theology is Anglican, well and good -and it seems maybe we could draw more deeply upon it. If not, guess i'll need to be shown where its not biblical:)

(i know people will perhaps point me at Piper for that though; and while he has much great to say, at this point i think Wright has the better of the (courteous) disputation where they differ- the counter arguments* alluded to above are not as strong, in my view. How can a non scholar judge such things? In the last resort, by what seems most resonant with reality. It seems to me to be likely that evangelicalism has backed itself into a few corners, and the bible is bigger, and more integrally connected, in the way that his careful scholarship is unpacking. Not that i can do any more than enjoy reading and working through his texts).

I guess evangelicalism is in the DNA of many churches - and the challenge of some of his work would resound widely - and surely at home in his Anglican tradition first?

* just ran across this, after posting : its a mini summary by Wright of the differences with Piper as expressed in Justification; though the book itself obviously is a better exposition.

** and also, lest all this maybe sound like an academic orientation is needed to get to terms with his approaches, he has a whole range of materials: i've only touched some of the less heavy and more accessible - but just found the 'nt wright for everyone series' his study guides on various biblical books; more accessible still - ordered some to have a look :) . So i see that one can enter at various levels : complaining that he's too difficult might we mean jumped a step i guess - but he certainly does provide accessible ways

one chapter

Matthew 2.

Jerusalem: after hundreds of years of silence from the prophets; and a couple of fiery revolutions trying to reclaim and purge their homeland, they're at a dubious stage: present in their homeland, but under a Roman occupation.

And suddenly a few elders or mystics of another culture turn up; looking for the birth of a king.

Magi - who are they? Some sort of star gazing prognosticators. Apparently early translations used 'magician', and some cross of that with 'wise men' is probably correct.
Reading signs in the heavens. Not exactly kosher - probably don’t even know of the Hebrew scriptures: yet they come from over the horizon, following signs in the heavens; their journey a strange foreboding of the universal impact this birth will have.

Herod, the King, is disturbed "as is all Jerusalem"
They don’t know these strange foreigners: but they know their own history, enough to know this is potentially big news indeed, disturbing news. And why has it come first through strange outsiders?

So, seemingly pious, Herod acts; he call priests and teachers: where is this Messiah to be born?

The experts refer to the prophet (Micah) who says:

Bethlehem

So Herod now has two prophetic sources
i) the Magi who have come; with all of the strange cultural baggage that their understanding is wrapped in.
ii) the prophecy of Micah, explained by current teachers

does Herod believe any of this? Enough to triangulate the sources: he informs the Magi (in secret) of the Bethlehem reference; and again feigns a noble desire to ‘worship this king’.

So he believes enough to act on it: enough to want to abuse the information and secretly kill this king, even as a child.

This location of the biblical prophecy is accurate; and lines up with the Magi’s current path: the star guides them again; and so they arrive and bow in worship and open their exotic gifts of gold and spices to the infant. No doubt Mary adds this to the treasures she is already holding in her heart about this strange journey they are on.

The Magi, however, are ‘warned in a dream’ – more dynamic revelation given to these outsiders - not to return to the seemingly devout king.

So Herod is outwitted in his devious plots, and is murderously enraged. Mass graves all round the world testify of various rulers' maniacal desires to purge their enemies and protect themselves; Herod adds himself to that infamous list by murdering the local children of his own people.

Another prophet had foreseen this day of lament - Jeremiah.

Joseph though, turns to the scriptures is warned by an angel in a dream to leave. Maybe he his getting used to this sort of revelation: Mary had claimed Gabriel visited her; indeed vouched to her it was her God who had caused this pregnancy; he hadn't initially believed that, till he also saw an angel in a dream confirming her testimony; thus cementing him in a marriage with a pregnancy that the neighbours -who had no such dream - presumably calculate is a little too early.

If this is all of God then He seems willing to use very strange means and to risk plunging his servants into apparent scandal.

So warned by this new dream and angelic revelation, the family flees.

And again; after the massacre; while they’re sheltering in Egypt, the angel of Lord again appears in a dream to tell them to return.

But Joseph is afraid to return, and God has a hand in this fear; having been warned yet again in a dream – is he learning to trust this mode? - he withdrew to the district of Galilee.

And what is the summary: “So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets” - all of this flurry of activity and dreams and angels and star gazing foreigners – all this confirms what the scripture had predicted.

And so what of that experiential and revelatory dimension today: when we have the bible?

Well, the bible itself doesn’t teach this is all now ended; indeed the opposite. Eagerly pursue spiritual gifts, especially that of prophecy; exhorts Paul. Just as the accurate Old Testament prophecy in Joseph's day - which the scholars knew - didn’t rule out all that current activity and strange revelatory modes, giving guidance in dangerous times.

Might not be as neat and tidy as we’d like. But it is biblical by definition. So perhaps we shouldn't expect a neat and tidy path, God in rather predictable boundaries and locations, today?

As Lewis captured in the story of Aslan.
"Is he safe?" asks someone nervously.
"Goodness, no. He's not a tame lion you know. But he is good"

If a young couple claimed to be in touch with this mode of revelation, to any degree, they'd probably, in many places, be told to calm down; ground their experience more in the text of bible reading, let the experts in the law tell them why it can't be real, or how risky such things are. Certainly there is order and guidelines to be observed in such matters. But its also biblical for God's ways to be stranger than expected, and we might also find that dynamic still disturbs.

our exegesis depends at least partly on what we've seen, i think (a dubious sounding proposition but i think it is biblically demonstrable - will jot something on that too).

one chapter indeed

Easter

What do I believe today?

That a nation constituted to show forth the ways of God, to be the light of the world, has an amazing yet errant history; and ultimately fails in its mission.

Yet one of that nation, fulfills that mission ..

in that as representative of that mission, he takes it's failure upon himself,
That dying, on distorted charges, the death of a failed revolutionary; he is identifying with that failure, the misalignment and subversion of the world’s hope into national ends.

Indeed in dying identifies with every broken deed; all failure and broken intent, all error and selfish rebellion is focused and identified there. As only one person can identify with another, and only God could identify with all; so he is found to have been man who dies, and yet God who draws one and all, all who identify with this, who know themselves guilty before Him, into that death of promise and righteous hope.

But is shown to have been from God, indeed of God, in rising again; the innocent rises as a new day breaks; and thus draws all who identify, with Him.

and thus succeeds in that same mission to show forth the ways of God, in a deeper way than imagined. He reconstitutes the mission, and the people of that mission; all those who were guilty at that death, are these who are free in this life.

And the creation wide dimension of the original purpose is again opened up.

That today is a taste of the age to come. The powers of new life begin now, in this life.

And so a true reckoning of scandalous identification and despair, which gives hope and new life. New life which leaps from the grave.

And of His ancient people, chosen for key parts of the story, others must speak. This gentile inheriting this story, only knows this much.

christmas

For many years I was pretty jaded about Christmas.

So much so that I was seriously tempted to place Christmas lights on our house, in a flashing “XMA$” formation, to declaim the empty shell I felt it represented. Or so it seemed to me.

And I wouldn’t really have minded if we just called the whole event off

That’s perhaps a bit contradictory, since I’m committed to pursuing the Christian faith, which obviously does not get off the ground if Christmas, as a key event, does not have a reality in history.

But it wasn’t that aspect of Christmas, as the story of Jesus’ birth, that I was questioning. That’s a starting point that bears recurring discussion and celebration, and which I don’t feel I have exhausted; or even come to the beginning of really deeply understanding, when you consider what its all connected to. A beginner still, in many ways.

But the thing is this mystery had grown disconnected, in my experience, from the cultural phenomenon of Christmas; the shopping and compulsion to get together and exchange presents and have too much food. It all seemed to prod the culture into a ritual of excess and pseudo community - and the light dusting of an occasional church service in there almost made it worse.

WH Auden captures it well; the way it misses the target, after getting somewhere in the vicinity:

Well, so that is that. Now we must dismantle the tree,
Putting the decorations back into their cardboard boxes –
Some have got broken – and carrying them up to the attic.
The holly and the mistletoe must be taken down and burnt,
And the children got ready for school. There are enough
Left-overs to do, warmed-up, for the rest of the week –
Not that we have much appetite, having drunk such a lot,
Stayed up so late, attempted – quite unsuccessfully –
To love all of our relatives, and in general
Grossly overestimated our powers. Once again
As in previous years we have seen the actual Vision and failed
To do more than entertain it as an agreeable
Possibility, once again we have sent Him away,
Begging though to remain His disobedient servant,
The promising child who cannot keep His word for long.

This pretty much summarised how I experienced it. And so, in a reaction against a culture that supersized the cultural trimmings, while dimly ignoring or sidestepping the meaning, I found myself thrashing against the whole thing.

What was your favourite Christmas, asked my mother, nobly trying to hold the preparations together a few years ago. Trying even harder to recapture something perhaps, given some new patterns in the family.

I try to stay civil: conflicted about the work that this version of Christmas is for her, but frustrated by the systematic missing of the point that the whole thing seems to entail. I cite one year long ago at the beach shack, when we went by boat across the lake on a beautifully still morning to a church service, without any of the usual rigmarole.

‘Look David’, she says, pointing at the turkey she is stuffing, and trying to instill some sense of the season and ritual in my son, “its..” she pauses, uncharacteristically struggling for words as she beholds the plucked carcass

“a dead bird” I say coldly, my reaction at the skewed balance of all this getting the better of me, and failing dismally at the civility part.

So, yes, I was pretty jaded.

A friend shook me out of this attitude a couple of years ago : she confronted the “bah humbug” attitude that some of us evidently had developed; since for her, the season represented a remarkable opportunity; the cultural practice whereby declarations of belief and celebration in song filled the airwaves for a while created opportunities and possibilities to communicate, a stage for the message, which should be welcomed and celebrated, rather than despised and written off.

I respected her views, and was silenced and convicted in my malaise. We were both trying to be lay leaders - though thats not a term the denomination really used - in a church at the time, and that role possibly added to the weight and conviction of her point, and I sensed a correction in what she was saying, even though directed en masse.

(and watching the culture turn away more determinedly, in many ways, in recent years, from this common footing, i appreciate the respect for the shared values and celebrations ; though its another story how the cultural shift will play out. As CS Lewis says somewhere, things are always coming to a point ... wherever you dip into history, there is often a past where it was easier to remain neutral about key events; things are always drawing to a clearer and starker state of separation.

The annual hand wringing in the education department, for example, about the boundaries between showing nativity scenes but not proselytizing, is an example of the issue.)

It took me a while to think through how I had got into that state of despising the shared culture which still bore some impress of meaning; how the desire to debunk the whole exercise had arisen, whereas she had a clearer vision of the opportunities. I think I had spent too many years in a practically agnostic culture which celebrated Christmas as an end in itself. No significant discussions around Christmas, no common faith nurtured throughout the year quietly underlying all this as we gathered for the feast. No-one ever outright denied it either - we played carols etc, and probably felt a little warmth on return from an annual visit to church; stirring some dormant emotions. But it all dissipated with the next round of relatives and friends and champagne and shortbread. At least that’s my experience: I can’t presume to speak for others, but it seemed like that to me.

(and I knew some of those factors were reversed in my friends case: that authentic faith was cultivated in that family background; and Christmas in that case is no doubt a richer and more meaningful event)

For me, the event had come to seem like an overblown convention, rather than the celebration of any common belief.

The faith I’d since developed outside of that upbringing was mostly in denominations that were not big on traditional ritual: indeed Advent (and Lent) were rarely even mentioned; probably reckoned (too hastily i guess) as belonging to a moribund world of traditional liturgy.

So when the compulsory cultural event came around, a number of factors conspired to present a feast not quite bereft of heart, but strained away from its meaning.

Still, my friend blew a lot of my malaise away in one simple confrontation and affirmation of the opportunities that the cultural valuing of Christmas represents

So where now, a few years later? Well, still working on how we approach all this, but we’re getting there.

Small example; I like Tear Fund as a way to confront the excess of presents for adults - and a way to call out some sanity to others – since we’re all washed in this sea of commercialism - and we’re downsizing trimmings in the wider family, and working on the meaning, in other ways.

And the responsibility for creating something in our own family, that celebrates the meaning.

There is something in presents under the tree for children and the smell of pine that still resonates. But its only really good if the real meaning is upheld in some way; and we can negotiate that.

I can see that if people want to listen to carols its worth cultivating; I even got to liking the channel nine version when one side of the family wanted to do that :)

part 2

under the cross

my local church has a cross on its roof.

i was going to say "my local church has, unremarkably, a cross on its roof" - since we're familiar with that, in a way: crosses and churches are symbols the culture knows

but this morning i sensed something about that

when a community gathers under a cross: the call to humility and surrender

who can stand in such a place?

the price of what has been done; the call to speak out of the rightness that has been won there; the severity of what has been done

the point of history focussed there: the mystery of God in history, dying, more than dying, alive again