News reached me today of another of my Dibley folk who has died.  Although she had reached a good age, it is still a sad day when someone passes through the door of eternity.

This woman had not had an easy life.  She had worked hard to support her husband and to bring up a family.  She was a very proud grandmother, often showing me photos of this or that one's latest achievements.  She could be stern, but underneath she was a caring person who lacked confidence.

During the first year I was there, we decided to make some new banners for the church.  In an attempt at something or other, we decided to meet at the same time as the knitting group, at the other end of the same large room, hoping that the knitters might join in the banner-making.  A few of them did, including this woman, who confided in me that she wasn't very good at knitting and was usually relegated to sewing up.

The banners were based on the John 15 vine image, and each person chose a leaf to decorate as she saw fit.  Some were embroidered; some had sequins.  Some were elaborate; some were simple.  I cannot recall what the leaf or leaves this woman sewed looked like, but we incorporated them, with the others, into the banners that, to this day, are hung for worship.

I like to think that maybe she gained just a little bit of self esteem when she saw her leaves.  I like to hope that she knew I cared.

Hers was not an easy life, had she been born a generation later it might have been very different.  Loyal to the end, and loved by her family, now she enjoys the promises in which she put her hope.

KC RIP

Way back, when I first started to study theology, we used to complain every time the tutors used long theological terms, because we didn't know what they meant.  One wise tutor (who used one heck of a lot of long words) told us that soon they would be tripping off our tongues, and we would realise it was the little words that were problematic... words like 'sin' or 'god' each of which is shorthand for enormous theological concepts.  He was, of course, correct, I do now use big words without thinking about and devote a lot of time and energy to the little ones.

The same, it seems, is true of reading the Bible, it's the little words, and even the punctuation marks, that demand time and attention.  I have over the years blogged various of these, asking for insights from people who really understand (sometimes succesfully, sometimes not).

Once it was the comma in "the voice of one crying, in the desert prepare a way" or "the voice of one crying in the desert, prepare a way"

Last week it was the use of 'gar' (because/for) as the last word of Mark's gospel

This week it is the " 'oi de" (lit. 'the but') in the closing verses of Matthew.

I hope I'm not so busy with the little things that I miss the big stuff, but I suspect that we gloss over the little details to our detriment.

Today's PAYG told the story from Acts where Gamaliel counselled his fellow religious leaders not to get involved in trying to suppress the new Jesus-movement, noting that other movements had come and gone, sometimes attracting a substantial short term following.  If this is of God, he observed, we won't be able to stop it.  Two thousand years on, we would assert his wisdom.

But it did make me stop and think (not in the way PAYG guided, it rarely is!).  What new (or newer) movements or developments within Christianity cause bother to those in authority?  For example, would the ordination of women or the Toronto blessing (to pick two diverse ideas) pass Gamaliel's test?

I am struck that some parts of the church perceive other parts as sliding into heresy or apostasy because of new developments - be they setting up in pubs or cafes, affirming same sex relationships, exercising charismatic gifts, singing with guitars/organs/not singing at all, political involvement, non-violent protest, green issues, Fairtrade or a whole host of other weird and wonderful combinations and permutations.  What will the test of time reveal about any of these?  If we could fast forward a century or two, which of these 'new things' would survive, and which would not?

I am also intrigued by the correlation of longevity with divine approval - is it really that simple?  Is there not also a place for the 'krisis' and the 'karios' - the 'aha' moments, the paradigm shifts, the 'change or die'?  Is it not the case that some long-lived praxis eventually proves sinful - slavery being the obvious and overworked example.

I think Gamaliel spoke good sense.  I would argue that his test proved correct.  But, we have to beware of simplistically and narrowly applying it.  Not all that is fleeting is bad, not all that lasts is good.  As the writer of Ecclesiastes said, to every time there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.

If this is of God, then nothing we do or say will stop it... whenever something in church life challenges us, I suspect we do well to remind oursleves of this.

Sorry.  Very BAD humour.

More mischievous mind meanderings from my exploration of Matthew 28.

The bit we are doing: four 'alls' that Jesus spoke of...

All authority

All peoples/places/nations

All commands

All times

The odd connection I made, which we are not pursuing, a version of the Shema

All heart

All mind

All soul

All strength

I think Baptists have a tendency to use Matt 28:18-20 as a kind of Shema-equivalent, not least as it so clearly underpins the Declaration of Principle (BUGB version used here with teeny tweaks)...

Hear oh Baptists,

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.

Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day'.

It is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelisation of the world.

Sorry, it's mid-afternoon, I'm revising my draft sermon and I probably need a cup of tea!

OK, so Matthew's ending was meant to be easy after John and Mark.  It is, I'm happy with the ideas that are emerging (wish they'd done it earlier in the week, but still).  I'm going to side step any weird and wonderful debates about the trinitarian formula for Baptism, but I have a question about verse 17...

Roughly it is rendered thus...

When the disciples saw Jesus they worshipped hum but some of them doubted.

But (thanks Word International Commentary) the more accurate translation from the Greek is,

.. they prostrated themselves [suggesting worship] but they doubted.

In other words, it wasn't that 'some' doubted it was 'all' of them.

Now I'm happy enough either way, can work with each of these, but why is it that the word 'some' has been inserted (in any language I can understand, or make a stab at deciphering, (so not many))?  What is so uncomfortable about all the eleven being uncertain at this point?  Such uncertainty is clearly presumed in other gospels, so why do we wriggle uncomfortably when Matthew states it?

καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν

Some MS have

και ιδοντες αυτον προσεκυνησαν αυτω οι δε εδιστασαν

But that's still a 'they' not a 'some of them' isn't it?

HELP! I need a proper NT person to explain it to me! Sean where are you?!!