Priorities
Sermon
At the last Lambeth Conference in 1998, Anglican bishops from around the world had wide-ranging discussions over a considerable variety of issues, and no doubt gained enormously from meeting each other and hearing different points of view.
Hardly surprisingly, they all had different priorities. For instance, the African bishops were deeply concerned with financial debt, and the huge problem it produces in countries where for every dollar received in aid, developing nations are sending $11 back to the donor countries. And where the National Debt is so huge that every man, woman and child owes the World Bank $186.
Some Western bishops wanted human sexuality high on the agenda. That caused shock and horror amongst the African and Asian contingent, who blocked any major discussion on the issue.
Another important item for some bishops was the different ways of understanding Scripture. America's controversial Bishop John Spong saw the African understanding as out of touch with modern scholarship and scientific theory. He described it as "superstitious." This caused a certain degree of uproar amongst the African bishops, and Bishop Spong later apologised for using that term and said: "Religion is a deeply emotional thing. It gets into the very fibre of our soul. It is part of our security system." And he pointed out that cultural differences between the church in the developed and developing worlds require the Gospel to be communicated using different language and symbols.
And the Hispanic bishops felt left out. The Bishop of Honduras declared "We are always the invisible Anglicans." And the Bishop of Mexico said, "We feel ignored." In his view, the agenda at the conference was centred on Africa or the Northern Hemisphere. He said "We don't feel part of the Third World like Africa. We are caught in the middle."
We all have different priorities even within one community. So it's hardly surprising that people from entirely different walks of life will have totally different priorities. But for me, that Lambeth Conference threw into sharp relief the question of Christian priorities.
Are there specifically Christian priorities? Priorities which are spelt out in the Bible and which are unambiguous and should therefore feature at the top of the list of values of every Christian, no matter what their circumstances or their culture?
It seems to me, Jesus had two major values. Love God, and love your neighbour. I imagine there are few Christians who would argue with either of those. But I'm not sure whether that takes us any further, for we would probably all argue over our interpretation of those two basic rules.
It also seems to me that Jesus' theology is slanted towards an option for the poor. "Sell your possessions," says Jesus in today's passage from Luke's gospel, "and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Perhaps the most telling phrase is that last one: For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. When that phrase is put alongside another of Jesus' sayings, from Luke 16:13: "No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Then I'm forced to stop and think.
My problem is that I enjoy a material lifestyle. Living in the West, it's almost impossible not to enjoy a material lifestyle, to some extent. Even the very poorest in the West are wealthy compared to the majority in the developing world. But in a way, that's an unrealistic comparison, for we have no control over the place or circumstances of our birth, and most of us have very little control in real terms over where we spend our lives. We can't help living in the West.
Taking all that into account, I still enjoy a material lifestyle. I enjoy the things that money can buy. I enjoy books, and the television, and new technology, and holidays, and the car, and the many devices to improve home comforts. If I can't serve God and wealth, does that mean I can't serve God?
Taking the words of Jesus at face value, it would seem that's precisely what it means. And yet I don't think we're all called to be hermits. Jesus himself was very much "in" the world. He didn't remove himself from the world in order to concentrate on God, but recognised and interpreted God within the world of his day. And within first-century Judaism, it was quite common and acceptable for a man to give up family and work commitments for a few years, and to become the disciple of some teacher. Those people would then be supported by the community, who would consider that support as part of their giving to charity.
Life in the West twentyone centuries later is very different. The ethos of our way of life is that people work to support themselves unless they are unable to do so for some reason, in which case the State will support them at a minimal level. And this seems to me, with my Western mind and Western values, a good ethic.
Over those twenty-one centuries our lifestyle has changed out of all recognition. We can't exist without money. Money is essential in our way of life, even for those who follow a "self-sufficient" or "green" lifestyle.
And I don't believe it's wrong to enjoy material things which are bought with money. In the end, all good gifts are given by God, and it's surely right to enjoy his gifts. But problems arise when those material things become a priority. When life is geared to earning more and more, in order to buy more and more to support my Western lifestyle. When life is geared to a good education, not for its own sake, but solely in order to lead to a good job which will produce lots of money.
For Christians, money cannot be the leading priority. God must be the priority, love of God. From that love grows love of neighbour, for love of neighbour gives practical human expression to love of God. Sometimes money gives practical human expression to love of neighbour, for there's not much we can do for our neighbours in Africa and the like, except give money and support any political moves to improve their lot.
But money is useless if faith, hope and love are invested in it, instead of in God. Christian priorities demand that Christians use money, but don't become obsessed by it, that Christians enjoy the benefits money can bring, but as a bonus, not as a first priority.
Exploring, responding to, experiencing, enjoying God brings deep, lasting satisfaction and delight. All that experience and delight is available now, to anyone who is prepared to invest time and energy in the exploration. And those who do, will discover God in surprising ways and surprising situations. But those who are intent above all on making money, will be unlikely to have the time and energy and patience necessary to enjoy God.
With all their differences of culture and attitude, I hope all those bishops who attended Lambeth enjoy God as their top priority. I hope their treasure is in God, so that their hearts are there also. I hope God is the very fibre of their soul. And I hope they've were on that occasion able to enjoy him together.
Hardly surprisingly, they all had different priorities. For instance, the African bishops were deeply concerned with financial debt, and the huge problem it produces in countries where for every dollar received in aid, developing nations are sending $11 back to the donor countries. And where the National Debt is so huge that every man, woman and child owes the World Bank $186.
Some Western bishops wanted human sexuality high on the agenda. That caused shock and horror amongst the African and Asian contingent, who blocked any major discussion on the issue.
Another important item for some bishops was the different ways of understanding Scripture. America's controversial Bishop John Spong saw the African understanding as out of touch with modern scholarship and scientific theory. He described it as "superstitious." This caused a certain degree of uproar amongst the African bishops, and Bishop Spong later apologised for using that term and said: "Religion is a deeply emotional thing. It gets into the very fibre of our soul. It is part of our security system." And he pointed out that cultural differences between the church in the developed and developing worlds require the Gospel to be communicated using different language and symbols.
And the Hispanic bishops felt left out. The Bishop of Honduras declared "We are always the invisible Anglicans." And the Bishop of Mexico said, "We feel ignored." In his view, the agenda at the conference was centred on Africa or the Northern Hemisphere. He said "We don't feel part of the Third World like Africa. We are caught in the middle."
We all have different priorities even within one community. So it's hardly surprising that people from entirely different walks of life will have totally different priorities. But for me, that Lambeth Conference threw into sharp relief the question of Christian priorities.
Are there specifically Christian priorities? Priorities which are spelt out in the Bible and which are unambiguous and should therefore feature at the top of the list of values of every Christian, no matter what their circumstances or their culture?
It seems to me, Jesus had two major values. Love God, and love your neighbour. I imagine there are few Christians who would argue with either of those. But I'm not sure whether that takes us any further, for we would probably all argue over our interpretation of those two basic rules.
It also seems to me that Jesus' theology is slanted towards an option for the poor. "Sell your possessions," says Jesus in today's passage from Luke's gospel, "and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Perhaps the most telling phrase is that last one: For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. When that phrase is put alongside another of Jesus' sayings, from Luke 16:13: "No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Then I'm forced to stop and think.
My problem is that I enjoy a material lifestyle. Living in the West, it's almost impossible not to enjoy a material lifestyle, to some extent. Even the very poorest in the West are wealthy compared to the majority in the developing world. But in a way, that's an unrealistic comparison, for we have no control over the place or circumstances of our birth, and most of us have very little control in real terms over where we spend our lives. We can't help living in the West.
Taking all that into account, I still enjoy a material lifestyle. I enjoy the things that money can buy. I enjoy books, and the television, and new technology, and holidays, and the car, and the many devices to improve home comforts. If I can't serve God and wealth, does that mean I can't serve God?
Taking the words of Jesus at face value, it would seem that's precisely what it means. And yet I don't think we're all called to be hermits. Jesus himself was very much "in" the world. He didn't remove himself from the world in order to concentrate on God, but recognised and interpreted God within the world of his day. And within first-century Judaism, it was quite common and acceptable for a man to give up family and work commitments for a few years, and to become the disciple of some teacher. Those people would then be supported by the community, who would consider that support as part of their giving to charity.
Life in the West twentyone centuries later is very different. The ethos of our way of life is that people work to support themselves unless they are unable to do so for some reason, in which case the State will support them at a minimal level. And this seems to me, with my Western mind and Western values, a good ethic.
Over those twenty-one centuries our lifestyle has changed out of all recognition. We can't exist without money. Money is essential in our way of life, even for those who follow a "self-sufficient" or "green" lifestyle.
And I don't believe it's wrong to enjoy material things which are bought with money. In the end, all good gifts are given by God, and it's surely right to enjoy his gifts. But problems arise when those material things become a priority. When life is geared to earning more and more, in order to buy more and more to support my Western lifestyle. When life is geared to a good education, not for its own sake, but solely in order to lead to a good job which will produce lots of money.
For Christians, money cannot be the leading priority. God must be the priority, love of God. From that love grows love of neighbour, for love of neighbour gives practical human expression to love of God. Sometimes money gives practical human expression to love of neighbour, for there's not much we can do for our neighbours in Africa and the like, except give money and support any political moves to improve their lot.
But money is useless if faith, hope and love are invested in it, instead of in God. Christian priorities demand that Christians use money, but don't become obsessed by it, that Christians enjoy the benefits money can bring, but as a bonus, not as a first priority.
Exploring, responding to, experiencing, enjoying God brings deep, lasting satisfaction and delight. All that experience and delight is available now, to anyone who is prepared to invest time and energy in the exploration. And those who do, will discover God in surprising ways and surprising situations. But those who are intent above all on making money, will be unlikely to have the time and energy and patience necessary to enjoy God.
With all their differences of culture and attitude, I hope all those bishops who attended Lambeth enjoy God as their top priority. I hope their treasure is in God, so that their hearts are there also. I hope God is the very fibre of their soul. And I hope they've were on that occasion able to enjoy him together.
