2004 / 2005
To act justly
and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.’
Micah 6.8.
During this year
past, as we have accepted the discipline of weekly Scriptural readings
according to the Australian Lectionary, the Old Testament notion of God’s
righteousness has constantly been invoked. In its own way the quote
from Chapter Six of the Book of the Prophet Micah, as noted above, points to
God’s righteousness. In considering this absolutely pivotal element of our
faith, and as with so much of our understanding of Scripture, we must seek an
insight into the mind and the experiences of the writers of that Scripture and
their first readers. Many of the concepts and expressions that the first
writers and readers of Scripture used were particular to their ancient cultures
and long-since passed experiences. As 21st Century readers we cannot
necessarily interpret the real meanings of ancient words and concepts through
intuition, or logic based upon our own language patterns, cultural mores and
predispositions or religious and ecclesiastical prejudices. Appended to this
report is some material from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
that gives some scholarly insight into the Old Testament notion of God’s
righteousness. This material makes it abundantly clear that our contemporary
definitions of the words cannot give us definitive understandings of what the
Scriptures mean when the words ‘God’s righteousness’ are used in the Old
Testament.
Surely it is true
that our intuitive and contemporary responses to Holy Scripture have moment for
our personal pilgrimages but we run the risk of grave misinterpretation and
thoroughly avoidable heresy if the church teaches from Scripture without
recourse to Biblical scholarship. The latter is not infallible but it sets out,
with solemnity and discipline, to educe insights which are grounded in an
understanding of the Scriptural authorship, the vagaries of the times and cultures
of the authorship and original readership, and the experiences of God’s Church
(the ecclesia). St Paul’s was clearly aware of what humankind is capable of
when we encounter Scripture and God’s church. He writes in his letter to church
in Ephesus …
‘We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and
blown by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in
deceitful scheming.’
THE REPORT
What, the reader
may be asking, has the Preface and Appended material to do with a Pastoral Report
to Parish Annual Meetings? Surely the material included therein gives us much
food for thought as to our identity as God’s church, a covenant community in
relationship with God and each other. It helps to validate and further define
the words of Micah in chapter 6, verse 8. These words in turn give us some
markers by which to measure our parish life and more than that, some definition
for future aspirations and planning. We may well ask ourselves, to what extent
do we – individually and corporately – live according to and reflect God’s
righteousness. To what extent are we available to grow more fully into
the full measure of the stature of Christ (Eph 411) – the perfect revelation of
God’s righteousness? To what extent are we encouraging and supporting others in
that same pilgrimage? Let us reflect upon these questions as we consider
some of that which has occurred in the reporting year 2004/2005.
WORSHIP
·
The liturgist is part of the ministry team leading liturgical worship,
typically exemplified by the liturgies in The Book of Common Prayer, An
Australian Prayer Book, A Prayer Book for Australia and other canonically
authorised prayer books.
·
By canon law and rubric the leader of worship 'presides' and others
assist. The 'President' of the Eucharist is the Bishop or in his absence an
episcopally licensed ordained minister. This practice has been maintained by
long standing tradition (sub-apostolic) for the purposes of orthodoxy and good
order and as a safe-guard against heresy, idiosyncratic interpretations and
other potential abuses especially of the most sacred sacrament which we aptly
call Holy Communion.
·
Notwithstanding the 'president' is also a member of a team of those from
God's company of the priesthood of all believers (the Church) wherein the
operative organizational imperative is vocation and not hierarchy.
·
Liturgists should serve God and His people through the dedicated,
dignified leadership of worship according to vocation. Since the ministry of
liturgists occurs within the context of liturgy it follows that it is further
defined by the meaning and purpose of liturgy. To follow is a useful definition
of liturgy quoted from 'A Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship'1...
“In the singular the word 'liturgy' denotes an act of
worship, more specifically the Eucharist. Derived from the Greek
'leitourgia' it was used in Hellenistic Greek of an act of public service.
In the New Testament it is employed of an act service or ministry [Phil.2.30].
In time it was confined in Christian usage to the idea of service to God and
finally, since worship was regarded as the supreme service to God, it was
applied to the Eucharist. Consequently to study liturgies is to examine the
forms which the Eucharistic Rite has taken throughout the centuries.”
This definition certainly raises some very interesting
questions regarding liturgical worship and thus the role of the liturgists. For
example, what may be considered a measure of sound worship (and by implication
sound leadership of worship)? The answer would seem to be according to the
liturgy's (and the liturgists) capacity to serve God – first and foremost, and
not the worshipper! Thus is the worshipper/liturgist to submit to the
discipline of worship or to require entertainment and satisfaction? Or is this
question simplistically to polarise when there is the demonstrated possibility
that to serve God in liturgy begets fulfilment for the worshipper? Surely that
which is pivotal is the intention of those who lead the liturgy as well as
though who participate.
In reality it is not possible to sustain ‘a
one-size fits all’ service. Certainly we can and should make our services more
‘user-friendly’ through our own sense of hospitality, the way we produce
support material and the way we are deliberately sensitive to and embracing of
younger people and newcomers. However there comes a point where the integrity
of what we are doing and our capacity to honour all can both be compromised. At
this time we have sought to respond to this dilemma of our times by maintaining
Prayer Book worship and all that such traditions and experiential wisdom can
give us, whilst reaching out to others through fellowship groups, studies and
Pizza Fellowship in particular.
Pizza Fellowship
meets fortnightly. In recent months it has been agreed to meet in the hall at
St Paul’s (rather than alternating with St John’s). Hopefully this will promote
a rhythm which in turn will help participants to make Pizza fellowship a
regular commitment. The hour of fellowship includes singing (under the
leadership of the band of parish musicians who rejoice under the title ‘Temple
Court’), Gospel proclamation, reflections upon the Scriptural theme of the day,
various games and activities which encourage participation, prayer and then to
conclude - the sharing of pizzas, sandwiches and suitable beverages. The time
together is typically dynamic, sometimes noisy, occasionally unpredictable and
hopefully nurturing. Indeed it is hoped that the time together encourages and
affirms wide-spread participation in experiences which point to and
compellingly reflect God’s righteousness. Pizza Fellowship is predicated upon
the belief that the Anglican Church which teaches on the basis of four
essential dynamics – Holy Scripture, Tradition, Reason and the Holy Spirit – is
in a very fruitful position to invite pilgrims into an experience with and
understanding of God’s grace, challenges and possibilities. As yet one part of
Christ’s body, the Pizza Fellowship is an Anglican response to our call to
proclaim God’s Gospel such that we prepare the ground into which God’s seed may
fruitfully fall, germinate, grow and flower. Therein is peace, hope, healing,
wholeness.
Self-evidently prayer is the life-blood of
Christian pilgrimage. We are blessed with the gift of prayer and God’s perfect
intercessor, Jesus the Christ. To the extent that we sacrifice time to pray –
to hear and be heard – so our Christian pilgrimages are grounded in Jesus – or
otherwise. To that extent that we are in Jesus so we are available to know and
do the will of God. We know very well that Jesus constantly separated himself
from matters of the world to spend time in prayer with His Father. He did so
faithfully and his life was characterised by Godly obedience and an absolute
availability to His Father’s will. Jesus life thus lived rendered perfectly the
righteousness of God – liberating, healing, nurturing humankind into wholeness
of being, Godly prosperity and perfect peace.
Our parishes have
engaged this year in some very deliberate prayer disciplines. Apart from the
personal prayer practices of parishioners (what lovely alliteration!) we have
submitted to daily prayer as parishes during Lent and Advent. So too
parishioners were invited to a period of daily prayer for the gift of rain and
for the ministry of deacon-elect Stephen Howard. Furthermore, every Thursday in
the early evening a faithful group of pilgrims has maintained the discipline of
corporate prayer. Thanks be to God for that discipline. I pray that others may
feel moved to be a part of that group or to be prepared to form other such
groups to uphold our ministry and whole community and our interrelationships
constantly in prayer.
Last year a number of parishioners gathered
to hear a report on chaplaincy across the Diocese. It was planned to follow-up
that stimulus with a workshop on pastoral care to facilitate a pastoral care
programme. Unfortunately that workshop has not materialised. Notwithstanding I
am very aware that some parishioners do exercise an informal but intentional
ministry of visiting and caring. It is self-evident from the definitions of
God’s righteousness that pastoral care is a pivotal focus of a community which
seeks to honour human and human- divine relationships and to uphold God’s gifts
of healing and wholeness, prosperity and peace. As the parish priest I have
endeavoured to be available to offer such a ministry. Since my availability is
a finite resource I have had to respond according to need rather than being
able to honour a systematic visiting programme. I am very grateful to those who
to support the parish ministry of caring through their own caring
relationships, visiting and prayer life.
It follows that if we are to grow in
pilgrimage towards God’s righteousness and to be, through the gift of the Holy
Spirit, a blessing to others, then our faith community must take seriously the
ministry of Christian nurture. A relatively small number of parishioners commit
regularly to Bible Studies. A significant number of parishioners responded to
this year’s Lenten Studies. At that time, one particular group chose to
investigate the words of our Lord as he hung upon the cross. They published their
responses in a very thoughtful and helpful journal. Thank you to all who commit
to nurture in the faith through parish opportunities and through their own
personal disciplines
Our co-operating
parishes continue to publish ‘Together’, although we have changed to a
bi-monthly pattern to match the production of the Diocesan journal ‘Tasmanian
Anglican’. Our parish journal is offered in the context of Christian nurture.
It is hoped that readers find the material thought-provoking and edifying. Many
thanks to the team who continue to commit to the production of ‘Together’. Your
tireless efforts are greatly appreciated. Such work demands perseverance and
patience!
Our parish
commitment to nurturing the young is growing. The Sunday School at St John’s
continues to offer an effective teaching programme and we must acknowledge the
long-serving and loyal work of the Sunday School teachers at St John’s.
Additionally this year we have added the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd to our
teaching repertoire. The atrium has been developed in the annexe of the St
John’s Hall and the programme is conducted in two sessions every Saturday
morning. Parishioners are encouraged to view the atrium and there see the
wonderful material that is being assembled to facilitate the Catechesis
programme. Much of the material has been donated or constructed by parishioners
and it is wonderful testimony to the commitment and dedication of those
involved. Additionally the Catechesis team has been successful in applying for
a Diocesan ministry grant. The parish will receive $3000 over to years to
support the work in the atrium. And of course the other element of our
intentional ministry of nurture is the Pizza Fellowship teaching programme
referred to more specifically above
Hopefully all
components of deliberate Christian nurture across our parishes honour our
identity as pilgrims towards God’s righteousness. May it be that we are
contributing towards the welfare, prosperity and wholeness of those with whom
we share community. As the material in the appendix demonstrates, the role of
Christian nurture should be, faithfully offered and led by the Spirit, a
profound life-transforming blessing.
PARISH UNITY
The 2003/2004
Annual Meetings of both of our parishes commissioned a working party to examine
the sustainability of our parishes. In particular I asked for this review
because I have considered my own workload to be unsustainable. I also believed
that the constant state of compromise in which we have lived as parishes not
only restricts the ministry which we can exercise together; but also and sadly
that that compromise is the ground for disaffection, mischief and disharmony.
The joint Working
Party worked very effectively and patiently for many months. In April of this
year the Working Party presented its report to a joint meeting of parishioners
at St Paul’s Hall. I shall table a copy of this report at the Annual Meetings
of 2005. On June 26th two Special Meetings were held to consider
attachment two of the report. As parishioners know the report concluded that
the parishes had three options –
Do nothing and perpetuate the existing
frustrations,
Dispense with the co-operating parishes and
revert to two parishes,
Establish a fully integrated single parish
organization
As a means of testing
the feelings of the separate Special Parish Meetings in June the Working Party
formally submitted the motion contained in attachment two of their report. That
motion advocated integration. Of the 27 parishioners present at St Paul’s for
the Special Meeting, 24 supported the motion and three voted against it. Of the
42 parishioners present at St John’s 35 supported the motion and 7 voted
against it. The motion was clearly given widespread support. Bishop John was
advised in writing of the outcomes of the Special Meetings. The Working Party
then set about to consider the transitional arrangements necessary to give
effect to the decisions of the June Special Meetings. At the time of writing
the Working Party is soon to meet with Bishop John for further consultation. In
due course parishioners will be advised of the timeline for meeting jointly to
formally constitute a single parish structure and name. I am very aware that
throughout this process many parishioners have prayed and reflected very
earnestly and that the decisions made were solemnly and seriously taken. Thanks
to all who participated and especially those who upheld the parishes in prayer.
In this report I
wish to make two essential observations. First, if unity is to be the destiny
of our two parishes then such can only work with the gracious commitment of
parishioners. Secondly and by implication unity cannot be predicated upon the
role of the rector. The unifying force is the Spirit of God. If we are not open
to that Spirit but rather dependent upon the driving force of humankind (or
vulnerable to the destructive influences of humankind) then the enterprise is
not of God. In my letter to Bishop John prior to the June Special Meetings I
wrote thus …
‘In my view any decision for unity must be made for
Godly reasons and with a resolve to honour that decision and invest in that
decision, ordained leadership of the day notwithstanding. In my view, to do
otherwise may further ‘clericalise’ the church or, paradoxically, dishonour the
very nature of ordained ministry as being inspired by God and continuous in
God.’
Ordained
Ministry.
Whilst
organizational deliberations have proceeded, the vocation of Stephen Howard was
also under consideration. We were informed in May of this year that Bishop John
Harrower, in consultation with his Diocesan Advisory Team, had decided to
ordain Stephen. He will be deaconed on Sunday 21st August in St
John’s, Devonport, and then ordained priest on October 1st in St
David’s Cathedral, Hobart. The Parish Councils have undertaken to support
Stephen’s ministry for three years on a half-time basis. Hopefully that
commitment can grow. With the availability of Stephen our worship pattern will
be reviewed and hopefully enhanced. Surely I echo the sentiment of many in
praying for God’s rich blessings upon Stephen’s ordained ministry and our work
together as a team, lay and ordained, serving God’s church unto His glory. I
wish to conclude by thanking all who have given so generously towards the
management and vitality of our parishes. Thank you for your contribution to the
health and righteousness of our faith community and the relationships and lives
embraced therein.
(The Reverend) Brian
Gibbs, August 2005
IRighteousness in the Old Testament
[Reference – The
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible – An Illustrated Encyclopedia,
Abingdon
Press Nashville,1986,
pp 80 to 85.]
The concept deserves some negative definitions. In the OT it
is not behaviour in accordance with an ethical, legal, psychological,
religious or spiritual norm. It is not conduct which is dictated by
either human or divine nature, no matter how undefiled. It is not an
action appropriate to the attainment of a specific goal. It is not and
impartial ministry to one’s fellow men [sic]. It is not equivalent to giving
every man [sic] his just due.
Rather, righteousness is in the OT the fulfilment of the
demands of a relationship, whether the relationship be with men [sic] or
God. Each man is set within a multitude of relationships: king with people,
judge with complainant, priests with worshippers, common man with family,
tribesman with community, community with resident alien and poor, all with God.
And each of these relationships brings with it specific demands, the fulfilment
of which constitutes righteousness. The demands may differ from relationship to
relationship; righteousness in one situation may be unrighteousness in
another.Further there is no norm of righteousness outside the relationship itself.
When God or man fulfils the conditions imposed upon him by a relationship,
he is, in OT terms, righteous.
Righteousness in SocialRelations.
There were demands in Israel which were imposed by the family
relationship. Thus Tamar, who played the harlot, was more righteous than Judah
because she fulfilled these demands (Gen.38.26). Again, David was righteous
because he refused to slay Saul, with whom he stood in covenant relationship
(1Sam. 24.17;26.23) and he condemned those who murdered Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son
(11Sam.4.11) But after the fall of Saul’s house, Mephibosheth had no right to
expect kindness from the new King (11Sam.19.28). The demands of righteousness
changed with the relationship.
Generally the righteous man in Israel was the man who
preserved the peace and wholeness of the community, because it was he who
fulfilled the demands of communal living. Like Job he was a blessing to
his contemporaries and thus is sometimes correlated with ‘mercy’. (Hos
2.19). He cared for the poor, the fatherless, the widow (Job 29.12-15;
31.16-19; cf Deut 24.13; Prov.29.7), even defending their cause in the law
court (Job 29.16; 31.21;cfProv.31.9). He gave liberally (Ps 37.21,
25-26; Prov.21.26), providing also for the wayfarer and guest (Job 31.31-32), counting
righteousness better than any wealth (Job 31.24-25; Ps 37.16; Prov.16.8).
He was a good steward of his land (Job 31.38-40) and work animals
(Prov.12.10) and his servants were treated humanely (Job 31.13). He lived at
peace with his neighbours (Job 31,1-12) wishing them only good (Job
31.29 –30; cf 29.24). When he was in authority, his people rejoiced (Prov.
29.2) and he exalted the nation ((Prov.14.34). He was a joy to his family
(Prov.23.23), his path was like the dawn (Prov.4.18), and his very memory was a
blessing (Prov.10.7). When it went well with him the whole city rejoiced over
his welfare (Prov.11.10). He was an immovable factor for good (Prov.10.25,
30; 12.3, 12) who knew blessing (Prov.10.6, Isa 3.10) and long life (Ps
92.12; Prov.10.16; 11.19; 12.28;), posterity (Ps 37.37-38), and prosperity
(Prov.13.21, 22, 25,; 15.6), the fulfilment of his desires (Prov.10.24, 28;
11.23) and deliverance from trouble (Prov.11.8; 12,21; 24.16). He lived in peace and prosperity because he
upheld the peace and prosperity – in short the physical and psychical wholeness
– of his community by fulfilling the demands of the communal and covenant
relationship (cf.Ps 15.2-5; Isa. 33.15). This note also observes that righteousness
can be understood as peace and prosperity and truth … for right speech upholds
the covenant relationships existing within a community (Ps 15.2-4; Prov.8.8;
10.11, 20, 31,; 16.13; Isa 59.4; cf 45.19); it is righteousness. It is
understandable then that in most of the passages listed above and in most
others the OT sets against the righteous the evildoer, the wicked, not because
the latter violates a norm of ethical action existing within the community, but
because he destroys the community itself by failing to fulfil the demands of
the community relationship.
Righteousness as a
Forensic Concept
Righteousness can be construed as a legal concept. He who is
righteous is he who is judged to be in the right (Exod.23.7; Deut 25.1). But
again, the demands of communal relationship are determinative. That which is
right in a legal sense is that which fulfils the demands of the community
relationship, and the sole function of the judge is to maintain the community,
to restore right to those from whom it is taken (11sam.15.; Ps82.3). Thus
righteousness as a forensic concept is not an impartial decision between two
parties, based on a legal norm, such as is known in Western law, but
protecting, restoring, helping righteousness, which helps those who have had their
right taken from them in the communal relationship to regain it.
Righteousness is the fulfilment of the communal demands, and righteous
judgments are those which restore community (Exod23.7 – 8; Deut. 1.16;
16.18, 20; Ps 82.3; Prov 17.15, 26; 18.5; 24.24.)
Not only was the function of the judges to uphold the
community in Israel, however. That was one of the main duties of the king. He,
too, was responsible for protecting and restoring the right (cf Hos.13.10).
This was his covenant duty, to preserve righteousness, and in doing so, he
himself was righteous… In Ps 72 we have a picture of the peace and prosperity
wrought by a king who judges righteously, and Jeremiah’s appeal to the despotic
Jehoiakim is for justice and righteousness (Jer. 22.13-15). Further when the
Messiah comes his kingdom will prosper through righteous judgments (Isa
9.7;11.3b-5; Jer 23.5-6; 33.14-16; cf Isa 16.5) which will defend the people
against all evil (Isa 32.1-8).
Righteousness as a Covenant Concept
Because Israel stood in a covenant relationship with Yahweh,
righteousness was also a religious concept. To be righteous, Israel had to
fulfil the demands of her relationship with Yahweh and this included
obedience to the law of the Lord (Ps1). It is observed that Israel’s relationship
to Yahweh was not dependent on her righteousness. Israel’s righteousness
consisted in the fulfilment of the demands of her relationship with Yahweh, but
righteous or unrighteous, she still stood in relationship. The covenant
relation was prior to all law and all demands. Yahweh had chosen Israel. That
was the basic fact of her existence. All else followed after…In the OT there
is nothing legalistic about the relation of Israel with her God. It is a
relation based, not on the law, but on grace, on Yahweh’s loving choice of
a few oppressed Semitic tribes in Egypt to be his people, his peculiar treasure
(Exodus 19.4-5)…Within this relationship of grace the law is given as a guide
by God to his covenant people. Its purpose is to make Israel holy as Yahweh is
holy (Lev.19) and the revelation of the law to Israel is also an act of grace,
for of all the people of the earth Yahweh chooses to guide Israel.
Yahweh
as Righteous
In the OT Yahweh’s righteousness consists not in action consonant
with his inner nature, certainly not in works which conform to some norm or
standards of right outside and above him. Nor is Yahweh’s righteousness, as it
is commonly thought, a distributive justice which rewards the good and punishes
the evil, as good and evil are defined in the law. Yahweh’s righteousness is
his fulfilment of the demands of the relationship which exists between him and
his people Israel. [This fulfilment typically finds expression in the
‘saving’ works of Yahweh – thereby preserving the community and his covenant
relationship with them. His salvation of Israel is his righteousness.]
The
Afflicted as Righteous
Not only is he righteous who fulfils the demands of a
relationship, but also he who had his rights taken away from him within such a
relationship…The
judge intervenes to restore the right to him who has been deprived of it. He
decides in favour of the deprived one, of him who is needy. He declares the
oppressed or afflicted one to be righteous. His judgments are always favourable
(Ps 146,7-9) for the oppressed and the hungry, the prisoner and the blind, the
widow and the fatherless, the alien and the poor (Amos 2.6). Thus Yahweh’s
judgments are saving judgments.
This article goes on to examine righteousness and sinfulness (in the OT he who is sinful is still so often called righteous and Yahweh’s saving grace is operative). It deals also with righteousness and faith … a complete dependence on relationship with God and the capacity before God to repent.