Comments for Trapeza

Comment on Heaven’s table by Caro Field

Caro Field — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:20:38 +0000

Thanks Jennie, a very profound poem on this week’s Gospel reading, which I ‘borrowed’ (with appropriate reference of course) to conclude my sermon this week. It fitted perfectly, and was very well received by the CTM community.

Comment on How very strange by Adrian Pyle

Adrian Pyle — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 05:09:17 +0000

Your writing Sally is as always evocative. And so in me it has evoked the following which is not critique or criticism but another lens through which to view your opening remarks.

I wonder whether, if the mystery of Jesus’ divinity is brought to us in terms of “not just your ordinary guy” and “something more going on” then we risk defining and hence losing the mystery.

From the biblical Jesus arise statements like “many who are first will be last and many who are last will be first.” Such statements could be just liberation politics: “Root out the first so that the last can take their place.” Yet such an interpretation would create an endless cycle of “first and last” that hardly seems akin to God’s wholeness. So there is also a resonance with a different interpretation – a parody on words such as “first and last”. A parody that proclaims, “First and last. Last and first. We’ll never really find God’s realm with language of ‘first and last,’ language of the false-self that puts us at the centre of the universe and allows us to make judgements we are not qualified to make. So make your judgements of first and last if you want to because in the end that is the language of the false-self and truth sits in a deeper place!”

And if this understanding has any credence it sets up for us a dilemma. For how can one who reveals God’s realm to be beyond the language of “first, last, better than, more than” at the same time be identified as “not just” and “something more?” And in such a dilemma is great paradox. Could Jesus be “not just your ordinary guy” because he is such an ordinary guy? Could there be “something more going on” precisely because there is nothing more going on? By this of course we mean he escapes the definitions of the false-self. Jesus “is” – nothing more or less is necessary.

In this understanding faith is not “belief” about Jesus level of capability or characteristic. I don’t have to believe that Jesus is more than anything nor claim to understand how he became “more” (just I can never fully understand why I am as I am). Faith, in this understanding, is the possibility – the hope – that in practicing the Jesus way (the way of being deeply “who we are” without reference to “not just” or “more than” ) we mysteriously experience Christ. And this is not Christ as a false-self title – not Sir Jesus or Lord Jesus or King Jesus - but Christ as “an-oint-ment” – the metaphorical “oiled body” which rather than stopping the flow of God, allows the spirit of humble God to “slide through” transforming me and the world around me in the process.

Comment on What does it mean to be hospitable? by Bryan Long

Bryan Long — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:16:58 +0000

Caro Field (Trapeza May 11th) raises the question, “What does it mean to be hospitable?”. Let me give you a practical example.
In 2001 and in our mid fifties my wife and I were hardly typical backpackers in Norway, but we were certainly enjoying the unspoiled fishing villages and the rich historic sites. Upon our arrival in the little village of Alesund on the west coast we saw the Rainbow Warrior in the harbour, and always interested in environmental issues, we were soon engaged in conversation with Thomas, a young Dane doing volunteer work with Greenpeace. It wasn’t long before we were enjoying coffee in the crew’s quarters. Our conversation turned to our next port of call - Copenhagen - and our accommodation – the youth hostel! “That hostel is —-”, he said bluntly, and reaching into his pocket he thrust something into the top pocket of my anorak. It was a key - the key to his flat in Copenhagen. “Stay there”, he said, “you are most welcome.” Protesting that we were complete strangers I firmly returned his key but just as quickly it was replaced in my pocket. “My bed will be empty. Use it.” he said. The key went back and forth a few times but he was insistent. His logic was simple. The room was there. The bed was not being used. We were most welcome. The end result was that we spent a week in his flat in the very centre of Copenhagen. His flat mate, Heinrich, returned a few days later, and could not have been more welcoming, advising us what to see, making telephone calls on our behalf, arranging meals, and generally being the perfect host. He would accept no money and when we left he provided us with a wonderful, celebratory, farewell Danish dinner - and packaged lunches for the journey. We were literally overwhelmed with their hospitality.

Seven years on we still wonder if we could do something similar - give the key of our home to a complete stranger and say, “We’re not using it at the moment, and you’re most welcome.” I don’t know the answer, but Thomas and Heinrich remain in our thoughts as beacons of hospitality.

Hospitality has undergirded the ministry of the church down through the ages and as we seek to heal the divisions in our world we need to draw on its rich traditions of generosity. People like Thomas and Heinrich, contribute actively and probably unknowingly, to reminding us that the ministry of welcome can be one of the ultimate joys on life’s journey.

Comment on Heath’s dead. What about it? by Margaret Jones

Margaret Jones — Sun, 11 May 2008 06:52:26 +0000

I am concerned in two ways. Firstly that in the majority of the world’s population human life is regarded as disposable, except by the “near and dear”, and death hardly rates a mention, despite the teaching of our churches that we are all of equal value, and all matter to God, and indeed to society,
But also I have disquiet about the notion in our society that human life is to br preserved at any cost - it seems the pendulum has swung too far. I feel unqualified to make much of this as I am not yet faced with a choice between expensive high tech medical intervention and death, but wonder what it says about our faith that we try to prolong life to the degree that we do, as if there were nothing else but the here and now. Those who have the foresight and thought to decide in advance how they want to be treated in the event of life-threatening illness or trauma and let their decision be known are surely making the task of those who may have to make decisions on their behalf easier.

Comment on I wonder what our communities could be like if we thought anew about tradition? by Adrian Pyle

Adrian Pyle — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:10:26 +0000

Good questions again Andrew. As I am rushing to run off to the US for a month, I will post here something of the conversation I had on this topic in another space. The fact our Christian understanding of God includes God in the person of Jesus, Christ - still does not make it easy for me to personify the mystery that overlays our Trinitarion construction or understanding - the divine dance we call god …and so I wrote the following…… (and I think you are right about the techy thing and please do get that question on the ABC - more of this discourse in public arena is a good thing.) ….

Reactions to my last post in various forums have been interesting. Mostly the assumption has been that I was making a point about the English language and approporaite grammar. My metaphor was obviously a little too subtle. Someone who responded to my thoughts made the comment that as god was a name applied to “the being” God it is appropriate to give him/her a capital. They went on to say “what is the big deal?” and “that’s an easy one.” I offered the following reflection in response:

Your thoughts and question have helped me reflect more on my own thoughts, which - as always - is a gift. Thank you.

Maybe I can use your thoughts, without undermining them in any way, to offer a little more of the backgound to my thoughts.

a) In your comments you refer to ‘proper names,”there is God,”out of respect’ and ‘Him (Her).’
b) The view that these terms reflect (and don’t in any way hear me say this is wrong, as that would defeat my argument) is a theistic view of god. It expresses an understanding of god as “a being” Not “being” in a broader sense but “a being” as I might look at you, another person, and understand the term “being.”
c) Taking that view of god - a personification of god - means that I can give god a name “God” - that that name is a proper noun and that according to the rules of English, should hence be capitalised.
d) Under these views and assumptions, the answer is, as you say “an easy one.”
e)….but….
f) I increasingly speak to people who are energised by the mystery behind Christian faith but who seek a broader definition of “being” or think of God beyond any definition of “being” and are reluctant to apply personifications.
g) So this “capital g/small g” thing is not so much a reflection on capitalisation at all as it is a metaphor (a very bad one, I am sure).
h) Hence what I am concerned about is the argument that takes place like this:
“God is a being named God” (the capital G person)
“I am not sure I see it that way” (the small g person)
“But it just is that way. Our faith demands it”
….and so on….
As such we can become definitive about something which is a mystery. Our finger pointing to the moon becomes our moon …..and our field of vision becomes a little shorter.

Comment on Special, but not that type of Special by Adrian Pyle

Adrian Pyle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:45:44 +0000

Thanks for your question Andrew. It is a good one.

I see godliness wherever I see a bias towards fullness of life. So of course I see it in the plant creeping through the pavement crack or the sun sending a warming shard of light between city buildings. I see it too in humans where we are able to moderate our ego and humbly show who we are. Hence I see it in my barber, who from his tiny little city shop, fully embraces his talents and seems to just love everyone he comes into contact with. …and there are plenty of other such examples.

Comment on Special, but not that type of Special by Andrew Cheevers

Andrew Cheevers — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:54 +0000

How do define the ‘godliness’ you see flourishing in myriad places, Adrian?

Comment on I wonder what our communities could be like if we thought anew about tradition? by Andrew Cheevers

Andrew Cheevers — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:07:01 +0000

This certainly is an interesting topic to explore, and I second Caro’s view that while we should try to come up with a right answer, it is unlikely that we will stumble across one in this life.

First, I think that requiring URL’s like www.godismycuteboyfriend.com to capitalise the G might stuff up the address, mightn’t it? Isn’t there some tekky reason why the letter needs to be lower case?

Second, Adrian, I find it difficult to see how God in Jesus Christ is not fully human. He is something else as well, something beyond our capacity to express other than to say fully God, but He remains a person, surely!

Third, I’m not so sure that the capitalisation thingy developed out of a need to show deference, or even to demonstrate the personality of God. Rather, I think it was to distinguish the Christian God from other gods - God the particular, the one-true, as distinct from God the god, the one among many. It would be interesting to have a look at some of the research on capitalisation and how it developed. I know that Koine Greek didn’t use capitalisation, and from what I saw of the medieval manuscripts the other day, only the first letter of a chapter appeared to be capitalised in the Latin. I wonder when it started up in English and its predecessors? Anyone feel like emailing Pete Rowsthorne on Can We Help?

Comment on I wonder what our communities could be like if we thought anew about tradition? by Caro Field

Caro Field — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:20:18 +0000

Ahh… yes… the joys of limited, finite beings (such as ourselves) trying to contemplate the infinite (such as God- with or without a capital G). You know, I reckon that no matter how hard we try (and we certainly SHOULD try) we will never really come up with a ‘right answer’ that is completely satisfactory. But the struggle to try, itself is valuable.

It would certainly be interesting to unpack this whole topic with you a bit more.

Comment on Death of a legend by Julie Perrin

Julie Perrin — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:59:19 +0000

Thanks Caro,
I am an old Larry Norman fan too, and his songs were remarkably enduring and memorable. I’ll be pleased to revisit them and was glad to be reminded.