1

A RESURRECTED COMMUNITY?1

“the beginning of a new story – the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his

gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new

unknown life.”2

“the Empty tomb stands as the massive sign that the eschatological deed of God is not

outside this world of time and space or in despair of it, but has laid hold on it, penetrated

deep into it, shattered it and began its transformation,”3

“Christianity is to be understood as the community of those who on the ground of the

resurrection of Christ wait for the kingdom of God and whose life is determined by that

expectation.”4

Recently, at a Communion service, I spoke in my sermon about how we needed to

focus not solely upon the glories of our past, but that the best chapter in the Church‟s history

was yet to be written by God; the glory days really lay ahead. A few days later I met one of

the elders on the street. He commented that it was a “rare sermon”5 but that he doubted he

would ever live to see this great future for the Kirk of which I had spoken with such promise

and passion. I suddenly realised that he had completely missed the point of what I had been

trying to communicate! His understanding was that this great future would occur within time,

as part of a series of events, just as other past events in the Cathedral‟s history had occurred.

My intention was however to speak eschatologically; that this great chapter in the Church‟s

life would occur with the coming of God‟s Kingdom in God‟s time, not ours. Therefore, as

one of the resurrected saints, he would indeed see my promise fulfilled. And this set me

wondering: just how seriously does my congregation (or others) in the traditional Church of

1 My title is, in a sense, a play on words. It implies a Christian community not only based upon the ground of

the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but a community transformed, resurrected from its old ways into the new habits fostered by the spiritual power unleashed in the new creation inaugurated through the Easter event. 2 Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime and Punishment(London, Wordsworth edition, 2000) p.462

3 N. Clark Interpreting the Resurrection (London, SCM Press, 1967) p.98

4JurgenMoltmannTheology of Hope5

th edition (London : SCM Press, 2002) p.310

5 In Scots parlance “rare” can mean very good rather than unusual!

2

Scotland6, take the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the coming fullness of the Kingdom of

God which that awesome and pivotal Easter event inaugurates? In this essay, I intend to

examine that very question. How can my congregation become more eschatologically aware,

more eschatologically driven? In one of my previous essays “From Past towards Future: the

Church as a Narrative community” I had argued that the Church is a storytelling community,

but a storytelling community with what I have described as “an eschatological driver”. In

other words, its story is going somewhere, it has a telos, a goal; not just a random series of

one event after another. If that is indeed the case, what happens to the Church if we apply that

eschatological driver to the present? What tone need we adopt if we are truly to be a

community centred on the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

But first, let me be clear what I do not intend to do! In this essay I shall not debate the

various ways in which the resurrection as an event ought to be understood.I am aware that the

resurrection of Jesus has been understood in many ways by many notable scholars; ranging

from Bultmann on the one hand, through Barth to Clark who takes a more objective view.7 I

am also taking an objective view. I am siding with those for whom the resurrection of Jesus

of Nazareth was a real event within history, yet was also the hinge event upon which not only

the rest of human history, but the very cosmos itself turns. I am making the leap that Jesus

was bodily raised from the tomb and that on that Sunday morning the tomb was empty, the

grave clothes abandoned and no longer required, and that this is what the women found and

what Peter and John saw. Not everyone will agree with my position, not even everyone in my

own congregation8. Yet, this is my starting point and I would not be honest to myself to begin

6 Regrettably, my experience must limit my study to traditional Church of Scotland. Others, less traditional and

in other denominations or aspects of the Christian family will have their own understandings and answer to my problem posed. 7 C.F.D. Moule in his introduction to The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for faith in Jesus

Christ(London: SCM Press, 1968) offers a brief but concise overview of the range of opinions. 8 In a questionnaire issued to 42 members of my congregation in the summer of 2012, 14 respondents

regarded the Resurrection as in bodily form whilst 12 thought the risen Jesus was merely some sort of

3

from any other. Thus the focus of this essay is not so much what happened or evenwhy it

happened but what does it say to the Church now that it has happened.As Christians, are we

to just carry on with life and history as if the resurrection were just an interruption by God in

the flow of our events or is the resurrection truly to be a “game changer” for our Christian

lives and witness, and if so, in what ways? Is the resurrection indeed a boulder thrown into

the lake of history, the ripples of which go both forwards and backwards in time? What

difference might the resurrection actually make to the Church?

In this essay therefore I will suggest four main ways in which the Easter event could

impact upon the life of our Church:

(1) A POLITICAL GAME CHANGER

(2) AN ETHICAL GAME CHANGER

(3) AN ECOLOGICAL GAME CHANGER

(4) A LITURGICAL GAME CHANGER

(1) THE POLITICAL GAMECHANGER

In several of his writings Tom Wright, drawing upon the impact of the Easter event,

makes the fundamental assertion that if Jesus is Lord then Caesar simply cannot be; there can

only ever be one King.9The failure of the worldly powers is seen clearly in that they crucify

Jesus and yet God raises him anew to life, life in which death has no longer any stranglehold.

The powers of Caesar have done their worst, even to the point of execution, and have failed.

God is the victor. This is the great evangel of the Easter story.Stanley Hauerwas continues

this theme pointing to the core issue being that of loyalty and allegiance, stating emphatically

apparition. The majority of others were somewhere between with 2 individuals thinking Easter was merely an invented myth by the Church. 9 See particularly “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire” (2000) in N.T. Wright Pauline Perspectives: Essays on

Paul 1978 – 2013(London: SPCK, 2013) pp.169 - 191

4

of the church: “We are not chartered by the Emperor.”10

These statements concerning

allegiance to Christ deriving from his conquest over the graveare, in my view, fundamental to

the life of the Church. This allegiance to Christ as over-against Caesar‟s realm is most starkly

proclaimed in the modern era in the Barmen Declaration: “We reject the false doctrine, as

though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to the lordship of Jesus

Christ but to other lords.”11

The Declaration then goes on in Thesis Five to distinguish the

Church‟s role from that of the State and condemns any attempt to make the Church a mere

functionary of the State. This stress upon the Church‟s fundamental loyalty and allegiance to

the Lordship of Jesus grounded in the events of Easter, points, in my view, to two radical

implications.

Firstly, we see from the Easter event the very provisional nature of human power

structures.12

Jesus himself tells Pilate at his trial: “My kingdom is not of this world”13

In other

words, Jesus‟ kingdom (which is inaugurated with his ministry and glimpsed in its awesome

wonder by the disciples on Easter morning) is not part of the worldly powers which sustain

Pilate and give weight to his authority. The eschatological kingdom of God truly arrives with

the Easter event, yet it is not in its fullest form, that lies ahead, in the future. Therefore any

human power structures must be provisional and temporary in their nature for none, however

noble, can truly reflect the fullness of that present yet coming kingdom of God. Moltmann in

particular reminds us that we must be open to God‟s future and that such openness leads, of

necessity, to the uncertainty of human institutions: “In practical opposition to things as they

are, and in creative reshaping of them, Christian hope calls them in question and thus serves

10

Stanley HauerwasResident Aliens (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989) p.39 11

Thesis 2 of the Barmen Declaration as in Eberhard Busch The Barmen Theses then and now (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2010) p.35 12

One might argue that we see this theme of the provisionality of human political projects as far back as the early days in Genesis. I would contend that the Tower of Babel, a human construct of human political relationships which falls, is a case in point (Genesis 11) 13

John 18:36, New International version

5

the things that are to come.”14

Because Christians ought to be eschatologically orientated,

God‟s future with us, we must assert that present structures (even if they do serve a useful

temporary function) are only here for an instant in the sweep of eternity. They do not have

any eschatological permanence.This provisionality in the sphere of human politics will not

welcome news to many of our would-be modern Caesars, elected or otherwise, who often

behave as if eternity was theirs to mould. Perhaps they do well to heed Enoch Powell‟s

words: “all political lives…..end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and human

affairs.”15

While Powell realised this as a wily politician, Christians may assert it in faith and

hope of the kingdom yet to be. Easter defines therefore the temporal nature of human political

structures.16

Secondly, precisely because of this provisionality of human political structures in the

face of the eschaton, Christianity also has a unique responsibility to offer a critique of the

current political structures. It is not enough simply to dismiss them as of a passing nature, we

must also indicate what is right (or wrong) with them in the meantime. Here Richard

Bauckham provides a valuable link between these two strands of thought:

As the vision of God‟s perfect will for his creation it is the inspiration of all Christian

efforts to change the world for the better……On the one hand, as the goal we do not

reach, it passes judgement on all our political projects and achievements, forbids us the

dangerous utopian illusion of having paradise within our grasp, keeps us human, realistic,

humble and dissatisfied. On the other hand, as the goal we must anticipate, it lures us

beyond our political achievements, forbids us disillusioned resignation to the status quo,

keeps us dissatisfied, hopeful, imaginative, and open to new possibilities.17

Bauckham here has a very valuable insight: on the one hand never accepting any human

structure as the final word, being open to God‟s coming future, while still striving as

14

JurgenMoltmannop.cit.p.314 15

Enoch Powell Joseph Chamberlain(London : Thames & Hudson, 1977) p.151 16

The Jewish festival of Sukkot in which the people live in booths might be a valuable tradition that the Church might consider imitating – it points to the temporary nature of the structures surrounding our lives. If we were to practice a similar tradition within the Christian context it might be a valuable prophetic and eschatological witness to the world. 17

Richard BauckhamThe Bible in Politics 2nd

edition (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010) p.150

6

Christians to offer some indication of what it would mean if we started living God‟s kingdom

in the present moment. David Fergusson, from his distinctly Scottish perspective, suggests

that the Kirk must function as a “lubricant and irritant within the systems of its host

society.”18

This seems an attempt to combine the two historic roles of the Kirk, as both

prophet and pastor to the nation.But StanleyHauerwas is much more cautious of the

“lubricant” part of Fergusson‟s model. For Hauerwas “the way for the world to know that it

needs redeeming, that it is broken and fallen, is for the church to enable the world to strike

hard against something which is an alternative to what the world offers.”19

Hauerwas is thus

distinctly cool to one model that the Church might adopt in relation to a critique of the

politics of the world, submissive chaplaincy, whereby the Church works from the inside of

the human power structures seeking to change them, bringing them closer (it would be

hoped) to the Kingdom goal.Hauerwas seeks a much more counter-cultural approach, one in

which the Church is an alternative not a Christian adjunct to the current structures. This

submissive chaplaincy model is very like Christendom model of the Church that we have

lived with for centuries and which, in the face of rising secularization20

, I feel is, at the very

least, beginning to crumble. Yet, even if this model of chaplaincy is perhaps no longer

practically viable in today‟s world, I would contend it never really was fully theologically

viable either. For it seems to attempt to fuse together the Christ-kingdom with the world-

kingdom. In the chaplaincy model there is a danger of thinking that while Caesar and

Jesusare perhaps not both Lord; they appear, I would suggest, at least co-regents!Hauerwas

thus to my mind has a point.

18

David Fergusson Church, State and Civil Society(Cambridge University Press, 2004) p. 192 19

Hauerwas, op. cit. p.94 20

I am aware that the evidence of this claim is inconclusive at the present time. Grace Davie, for one, would assert people have simply moved from belonging to believing (Grace Davie Religion in Britain since 1945 (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing) 1994) but my own anecdotal evidence convinces me otherwise. More recentlyFor the Parish: A critique of Fresh Expressions Andrew Davison and Alison Milbank (London: SCM, 2010) concludes in fact that secularisation is more advanced than hitherto imagined. I would concur with that argument.

7

What then are the alternatives? A second option in allowing our Christian critique of

political structures would be what I would call the subversive revolutionary. This is the

model oft adopted by those in the field of Liberation theology. Yet here too there is a danger.

This time though the danger is not that of the world gobbling up the Church (as in the

submissive chaplaincy model) but rather the Church swallowing the world. A theocracy may

emerge from this model which simply replaces one form of tyranny with another, except this

time the clergy replace Caesar. Christianity, in seeking to remind the world of its provisional

political power structures, must itself avoid the temptation to attempt to become an earthly

political reality, losing its eschatological telos. For the Church is itself provisional in the

sense of its eschatological goal21

. We cannot assume that when Christ returns that the Church

will continue as is presently the case. The bride of the Church may be adorned and ready for

her husband22

but after the consummation, that present relationship must of necessity alter in

some way. Josef Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) warns us of the danger of making the

eschatological promise political when he states that: “The Kingdom of God not being itself a

political concept cannot serve….to construct in a direct fashion a programme of political

action….the realization of God‟s kingdom is not itself a political process.”23

So if we are truly to assert that Easter marks a political game-changer for the Church

how are we to square the circle between submissive chaplaincy at one side and subversive

liberationists on the other side. Interestingly, it may be Benedict‟s successor, the current Pope

Francis, who begins to offer us a clue. In his recent apostolic exhortation EvangeliiGaudium,

21

It would be interesting, I think, to explore this provisionality of the Church in relation to the ecumenical project. A task I feel beyond the scope of the current essay but one to highlight nonetheless. 22

Rev. 21:2 23

Stephen Webb “Eschatology and Politics” in The Oxford Handbook of eschatology edt. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford University Press, 2008) p.505

8

Francis asks the direct question: “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly

homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”24

Here we have the Church asking questions of the world concerning the very value of human

life in comparison to impersonal institutional powers. It is not simply a question of the

Church assuming the moral high ground to critique the world, the Church itself must be

modelled on the transformative kingdom of Jesus Christ. It must live out that kingdom in its

own life and in so living God‟s kingdom this gives it the power, as an embodiment of the

eschatological Kingdom yet to be, to offer critique of the world‟s structures. Arguably, Pope

Francis has perhaps begun to do this through his own papacy with his very humble and

understated style.

The Church‟s very eschatological goal must therefore define how it lives its life in this

present time. Wright puts it thus:

This counter-empire (God‟s Kingdom) can never be merely critical, never merely

subversive. It claims to be the reality of which Caesar‟s empire is the parody; it claims to

be modelling the genuine humanness, not least justice and peace……there will be

affirmation as well as rejection, collaboration as well as critique. To collaborate without

compromise, to criticize without dualism – this is the delicate path that Jesus‟ counter-

empire had to learn to tread.25

It is, as Wright suggests, a delicate path to tread and it seems we have come full circle in our

political considerations. The Church can collaborate with the world in a chaplaincy model

and indeed critique the world but it must never forget to whom it owes its allegiance in

political activity; Jesus alone is Lord. Thus our chaplaincy model can be viable, but only if it

retains the zeal for the Lord‟s reign of the Old Testament prophets. Similarly, the subversive

revolutionary must recall that he too resides in time and that any structures he puts in place

24

ScotsmannewspaperWednesday 27th

November, 2013, p.27 25

Wright op.cit.p.189f.

9

against Caesar‟s dominance are by their very nature constructs of this age and thus

provisional.

So in looking at the implications of Easter and of the kingdom values26

enshrined in

that event, how is it a political game-changer at a congregational level? It is, I suggest, all

about to whom the congregation is revealing its loyalty in its political27

activity. Perhaps an

example from the history of my own congregation of Brechin Cathedral will serve to make

my point?The vacancy in the Cathedral following the death of James Burns, minister of the

first charge, in 1837 was to reveal allegiances in all their ugliness throughout the town. The

popular choice was James jr., son of the deceased clergyman. Yet there was a fear of

nepotism for his uncle was none other than the local Provost. Rev. William Norval, minister

at South Church in Kirriemuir, was offered as the Crown‟s candidate.28

Things got nasty.

Norval was accused by his opponents of plagiarism in that he preached verbatim from a book

of sermons by Henry Mitchell. Despite over half the congregation signing a petition in his

favour, and amidst great acrimony, James McCosh was eventually inducted as a compromise

candidate.29

I have to admit that this was hardly the first, nor indeed sadly the last time, that

the election of a minister at Brechin was to cause acrimony. And where in this midst was

allegiance to Jesus as Lord? Vested interest, local politics, the powers of Caesar (in this case

epitomised in the Provost‟s family) were rather the defining factors. There are many other

examples, in the history of my congregation, and no doubt elsewhere of Christians forgetting

their first loyalty to Christ and putting self-interest first.

26

I am conscious that “values” when we come to the ethical discussion is a rather loaded term. Perhaps a better word is the Scots word “suith” perhaps best understood as essence. In other words, what is the very marrow of the kingdom and how does it impact upon us here and now? 27

I use political here in its widest sense, not in any party political sense. 28

This was of course in the days before the Disruption of 1843 when patronage was very much alive and kicking! 29

See Walter William Coats A Short History of Brechin Cathedral (Brechin: Black and Johnston, 1903) I am currently in the midst of preparing a more up to date and extensive historical narrative of the Cathedral.

10

Tom Wright does well to issue a warning: “Caesar still rules the world, despite Jesus‟

enthronement as rightful Lord.”30

The Church does well to heed that warning for there may

well be times, if we truly live out the Kingdom inaugurated in the life and resurrection of

Jesus, when critique of the world by the Church may even give way to periods of persecution

of believers. That is when we will truly know where our allegiance lies, even within our own

community of faith. As Wright correctly puts it: “The church must live as a sign of the

coming complete kingdom of Jesus Christ; but since that kingdom is characterized by peace,

love and joy it cannot be inaugurated in the present by chaos, hatred and anger….”31

As an

eschatological community, determined by an eschatological goal, the Church must be defined

by behaviour that corresponds to that of the present and coming kingdom of God.

This provides us with a very apt link to our next section:

(2) THE ETHICAL GAME-CHANGER

If Christians are indeed part of the resurrected community of my title, grounded in the

Easter event, the implications of which shapes them, then they must think and behave in a

particular way, an eschatological way. As Wright puts it: “Christian life in the present, with

its responsibilities and particular callings, is to be understood and shaped in relation to the

final goal for which we have been made and redeemed”32

The reality of the new creation,

inaugurated in the Easter event(and though not yet fully present) should determine our

behaviour in the present time. The eschatological driver of my storytelling community should

be the determining factor in how the characters in the story behave, relate to each other and

which lines they speak in the present time. As Wright has suggested ethics has become

dependent upon physics: “the citizens of the night bound world are to live…as if

30

N.T. Wright “Paul and Caesar : a new reading of Romans” in Pauline Perspectives p.249 31

ibid. p,253 32

N.T. Wright Virtue Reborn(London : SPCK Kindle edition, 2010) loc.57

11

theybelonged to the new day.”33

The new creation yet to come is the eschatological driver (to

utilise my earlier term) of how its future citizens are to behave in the here and now. As

Wright states:

The point is this: the full reality is yet to be revealed, but we can genuinely partake in

that reality in advance. We can draw down some of God‟s future into our own present

moment. The rationale for this is that in Jesus that future has already burst into our

present time, so that in anticipating that which is to come, we are also implementing

what has already taken place.34

Hauerwas also continues in similar vein in his Resident Alienswhere he suggests that

Christians should live as a colony of heaven35

on earth. Richardson too adopts this colonist

metaphor declaring that our present existence as Christians is “like that of colonists far from

their home country, whose duty and privilege it was to transplant the quality of the life of

their homeland into the alien environment in which they found themselves.”36

Both Wright and Hauerwas are clear therefore that the Christian eschatological ethic is

not about the keeping of rules, but rather a living of the life of Christ in the here and now as if

we were already living in the fullness of God‟s kingdom. Our behaviour in the here and now

is shaped by a yet unrealised goal which God will bring to fruition in God‟s own good time.

As Hauerwas puts it: “eschatology is the very basis for Jesus‟ ethical teaching.”37

We simply

cannot truly understand the ethical demands and rights our Lord placed upon us as his people

unless we interpret them from an eschatological angle. Both Wright and Hauerwas rather

helpfully put this new eschatological ethic in the context of story:“a call to see one-self as

having a role to play within a story – and a story where……there is one supreme Character

whose life is to be followed.”38

Our story thus is absorbed into Jesus‟ story and we live out

33

N.T. Wright Paul and the Faithfulness of God (unpublished text) p.956 34

Wright Virtue Reborn p.58 35

I suspect Wright’s use of “new creation” rather than heaven might be a more transformative way for the modern mind to grasp the concept however. 36

Alan Richardson The Political Christ (London: SCM Press, 1973) p.73 37

Hauerwasop.cit. p.87 38

Wright Virtue Reborn p.6

12

his story of incarnation, death, resurrection in our present lives. Our “ethics” (if we can still

truly call them ethics) are thus shaped by this much greater eschatological vision of the new

creation, rather than a struggle in seeking to understand as Christians how we ought to behave

in the present context.

So what might such an eschatological ethic look like? Firstly we must recognise that this

ethic is a “team sport”39

, it is meant for the whole community of believers and is not solely an

individual exercise. O‟Collins40

for one reminds us that resurrection from the dead is a

community enterprise, meant for all, not just for some. He holds that when God resurrects the

dead it is the entirety of the human race that will be raised. The eschatological ethic therefore

is not meant only for the spiritual elite, but for all believers. This, I think, is an important

point that cannot be overlooked for it means, in congregational terms, that one of the pastor‟s

roles is to assist the people in moving towards that ethic, assisted by the Holy Spirit. In our

highly individualised western world it is often all about “me”. Yet the eschatological ethic

offers a strong counter-cultural correction to this approach; we live in community as a people

of faith. How we behave to each other (and as we will see in the next section how we behave

towards the earth itself) becomes a clear indicator of whether the kingdom is truly in our

midst, whether we have begun to live as those resident aliens thatHauerwas suggests.

This brings me to the second point concerning our eschatological ethic: it demands a

pneumatological basis. It is not simply a matter of “works righteousness”, our trying to

achieve this kingdom-behaviour by our own human efforts.Rather we are transformed by the

Spirit from within. Through God‟s Spirit we become children of the one Father and this new

status given to us by the Risen Christ demands a new form of behaviour and thought from us.

Wright (I think very interestingly) links together at this point our vocation as Christians with

39

N.T. Wright Paul and the Faithfulness of God p.952 40

Gerard O’CollinsSJ The Easter Jesus (London: Darton, Longmann& Todd, 1973) p.118f.

13

our behaviour. For Wright we are sharers with God in the sovereignty over creation, co-heirs

with Christ: “We are called to be genuine, image-bearing, God-reflecting human beings.”41

Darrell Guder, the highly influential missional theologian, affirms this high vocation and

links it together with thepneumatological foundation it demands: “We are to understand the

imperative to walk worthy of the calling to which we have been called not as an act of

spiritual accomplishment but as evidence of empowered obedience.”42

The key word here

being empowered; it is as the congregation dwells in the Word of God and is informed by the

Word in its life, that the transformative work of the Spirit takes place. Paradoxically, this is in

itself a sign of the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. In the very act of living out the

kingdom‟s way of living in the here and now, the kingdom becomes present in the reality of

the moment. Thus Wright, drawing upon Paul43

, can assert of the Spirit‟s place in this ethical

transformative process: “the Spirit…..is vital for the quest and practice of virtue. The early

Christians did not suppose they were undertaking that quest, and that practice, in their own

unaided strength.”44

Perhaps again an example from the history of Brechin Cathedral may once again

illustrate my point? During the winter of 1651/52 we find around “twelve hundred

Englishes”45

encamped around the town. These were the soldiers of General Monk, part of

Cromwell‟s army, and at one point, perhaps due to the weather, the horses of his cavalry were

stabled within the Cathedral himself resulting in services being held in the Tolbooth. Now,

given such infliction of humiliation upon the citizens of Brechin we might have expected

hatred and resistance. Instead, however, we find a collection being taken up for the wounded

soldiers on the enemy‟s side and many of the local townswomen lodging the soldiers (often

41

Wright Virtue Reborn p.63 42

Darrell Guder “Walking Worthily: Missional Leadership after Christendom” in The Princeton Theological Bulletin, xxviii, 3, new series, 2007, p.262 43

I Corinthians 15:10 44

Wright Virtue Reborn p.83 45

Minutes of Brechin Cathedral, vol.1

14

far from home) in their houses. It is my contention that in this act of charity we see the

Kingdom breaking into the present. These Christian folk, under duress themselves, were

living as if they were already in the coming Kingdom of God.

The eschatological ethic therefore is not a program to be employed like a dietary

scheme we can try out, rather it is a pattern for all our living, a virtue46

(to use Wright‟s

word) to be imitated and exemplified. It is about playing the game, not just learning its rules;

acting the part, not simply learning the lines.47

Indeed, Wright uses the helpful illustration in

Virtue Rebornof ethics being like the learning a foreign language, but not just learning the

language but becoming as proficient in it as a native speaker and (I would want to add)

adopting the customs, foods, culture of the other land; living as if you were actually living in

that land, when in reality you are still dwelling in this one. As Wright puts it:

the New Testament‟s vision of Christian behaviour has to do, not with struggling to

keep a bunch of ancient and apparently arbitrary rules, nor with „going with flow‟ or

„doing what comes naturally‟ but with the learning of the language, in the present,

which will equip us to speak it fluently in God‟s new world.48

Of course, such a task cannot solely be left to the Holy Spirit working within us. She

needs our help; we ourselves must co-operate with the Spirit. It was Brother Lawrence who

coined the phrase “to practice the presence of God”. This seems to me is what we ought to

being doing in congregations; striving together as a faithful community, in mutual help and

support, to foster this kingdom virtue, this “suith”49

of the kingdom within us. While I want

to avoid works righteousness in our eschatological ethic, it must be realised that it is a co-

operative approach: Spirit, individual and Christian community working together. And

together, we are anticipating (and participating in) the fuller reality of the kingdom of God.

46

See also Alastair MacIntyreAfter Virtue 2nd

edition (Notre Dame, Indiana, Notre Dame Press, 1984) for a good philosophical understanding and discussion of the concept of virtue. 47

In this regard I would refer to Samuel Wells’ very helpful book Improvisation: the Drama of Christian Ethics(London: SPCK, 2004) 48

Wright Virtue Reborn p.68 49

See footnote no.26

15

But this eschatological ethic is both positive and negative in its approach. While we

seek to foster a kingdom life in us as individuals and within Christian communities, certain

types of behaviour will find no place in the coming kingdom. Some are types of sexual

behaviour that are destructive of human relationships. Others are angry speech or violent acts

that are destructive of community. These things must be got rid of, the ground must be

cleared of weeds and stones that the Spirit‟s seed may flourish.50

It may be controversial to

suggest, but one wonders if such an approach of fostering these kingdom virtues were truly

adopted within the Church we would still have the current furore over gay clergy or, amongst

some of the Anglican tradition, the upset over women priests and bishops?

One final note of caution; once again we mustrecall theprovisionality of our ethic.

Max Stackhouse51

warns us that we must maintain modesty in our ethical claims, recalling

always that the kingdom is not yet, the Spirit has not yet completed her work, and the final

version of the kingdom in all its fullness is yet to dawn. We cannot yet know in fullness what

behaviour in God‟s kingdom will entail52

. This provisionality of our ethical approach allows

for human sinfulness, for we will fall down, we will not always succeed in living out the

Kingdom in the here and now. Caesar again still retains some hegemony. This implies a

continuing demand on us as a Church to forgive those who fail and a shunning of any attempt

to turn the Church into a museum of saints rather than an infirmary for sinners.53

The very

ethic of the kingdom applied within the Church community demands a culture of forgiveness,

not censure and exclusion.

50

See for example Paul Galatians 5: 16 - 26 51

See Max Stackhouse “Ethics and Eschatology” inThe Oxford Handbook of Eschatology pp.548 - 563 52

We might assume of course that within the fullness of the Kingdom more rather than less virtue will exist amongst humanity. A point well made by Wright in Virtue Rebornp.91 53

The attempts in the seventeenth century to form a godly commonwealth, to make God’s kingdom a reality in each parish in Scotland being interesting case in point. While the generosity of Kirk Sessions towards the needy is to be commended, we must recall that often this money came on the back of fining sinners, usually the poor who were least able to afford it. Forgiveness from the Church came at a price. It was, it might be said, a successful economy based on the cost of sin!

16

All of this brings us back to the question of allegiance that we encountered in our political

considerations. For our ethical game-changer entails that we begin following neither the rules

on the one hand, nor our own selfish inclinations on the other; rather we begin to follow the

Kingdom ethic that we see lived out in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.Wright puts it

nicely:

To think in terms of a rightful kingdom coming secretly to his people and gathering a

group to help him overthrow the rulers who have usurped his throne. When he becomes

king fully and finally, his followers will of course still obey him. When they obey him in

the present time however – even though he is not yet publicly owned as king – they are

genuinely anticipating the obedience they will offer him in the future.54

Caesar may still have hegemony in the world in the ethical sphere, but Christians ought to

live as if full allegiance already belonged to that coming kingdom of God.

(3) THE ECOLOGICAL GAME-CHANGER

Had I been writing this essay even twenty years ago it is doubtful that I would have included

within it a section on ecology. Our relationship with the world was then seen solely in terms

of stewardship, how we might utilise the world‟s resources in our human plans. Since then

the destruction of the ozone layer, deforestation and the debates about climate change have

thrown the ecological issue square into the centre of the room. Yet, eschatologically, ecology

is central. Why?

Ecology is central to my eschatological driver because eschatology is about a new

creation, God‟s new creation. This is one of the issues so fundamental to Wright‟s book

Surprised by Hopefor it boldly declares that Easter is not about what happens to our ethereal

souls after death, rather it is about a pledge by God to transform the whole of the created

order. Wright states of the resurrection of Jesus that it is not: “a very odd event within the

world as it is, but the utterly characteristic, prototypical and foundational event within the

54

Wright Virtue Reborn p.57f.

17

world as it has begun to be. It is not an absurd event within the old world, but the symbol and

starting point of the new world.”55

The inauguration of the Easter event occurs within the

created order so that, ultimately, creation itself may be transformed and redeemed. The bodily

resurrection of Jesus (so far we have glossed over the importance of it being bodily) counts

against the abandonment of the created order, as Platonism in its many forms would have us

do. Matter matters because matter itself is transformed and enhanced in the bodily

resurrection of Jesus. Because Jesus‟ body is raised and transformed by God‟s power, so by

extension, will the whole of creation be transformed and made new. God is a God of creation

and creation transformed and renewed is what God promises us in the fullness of the coming

kingdom56

.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus and the emphasis this places on created matter as

being vitally important, acts as a valuable counter to any technological advances that degrade

the value of humanity and the creation itself. Indeed, it might even be suggested, that some

forms of capitalism in the exploitation of the earth‟s natural resources are doing exactly what

Platonism did in the ancient world, causing us to forget and abandon our reliance on

creation.57

Another aspect maybe of Caesar‟s hegemony conflicting with that of Christ‟s?

Ellen Davis, for example, reminds us forcibly that the physical, moral and spiritual aspects of

life interpenetrate each other within creation; modern attempts to segregate them are a false

separation.58

In this field of eschatological ecology, Richard Bauckham is particularly helpfuland I

want to highlight in the remainder of this section a number of key points Bauckham raises in

55

Tom Wright Surprised by Hope(London, SPCK, 2007) p.78 56

Revelation 21 for example. 57

A report published recently suggests that by 2030 we will need two earths to sustain our demand for resources. See www.cifalscotland.org 58

See Ellen Davis Scripture, Culture and Agriculture: an Agrarian reading of The Bible (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

18

Bible and Ecology. Firstly, and as a corollary of the ethical game-changer, Bauckham

reminds us that those who live in the “now” of the kingdom and are anticipating the “not yet”

will seek to alleviate the mistreatment already done to the created order. Yes, God alone can

correct the damage done by God‟s human children to God‟s creation and God will achieve

this eschatologically. Yet, if we are indeed seeking to live now in that future eschatologically

consummated kingdom, we must (as in our ethical approach) co-operate fully in the

anticipated transformation by God‟s Spirit of the damage already done59

. This implies an

acknowledgement (liturgically, we might even say confession) of our part as humans in the

hurt to creation and the recognition that the damage to creation often results in harm to our

fellow brothers and sisters. Climate change being a case in point where Western greed for

material resources it is claimed has caused untold misery by flooding and tsunami to the

poorest of our world.60

Bauckham puts it thus:

If we accept the diagnosis that human wrongdoing is responsible for ecological

degradation, it follows that those who are concerned to live according to God‟s will

for his world must be concerned to avoid and repair damage to God‟s creation as far

as possible. Like the coming of the Kingdom of God, we cannot achieve the liberation

of creation but we can anticipate it.61

Wright at this point interestingly asserts that the vocation which Christians have (which we

spoke of in the ethical section) is the reign over creation itself. Utilising Paul in Romans 8,

Wright concludes that the vocation of these kingdom-dwellers is precisely to share with

Christ in the reign over all creation. Yet it is to be a “redemptive sovereignty over the whole

creation”62

not, as in the past rule of humanity, a pillaging of earth‟s resources. The

eschatological renewal of humanity by God is part of the eschatological restoration of all

creation: “The climax of this is the great statement that when humans are fully restored, the

59

We have already noted this co-operative model of being fellow rulers with God in the ethical sphere. 60

In recent weeks there is a claim by scientists that we also are beginning to bear the pain of past action as we see flooding in our own neighbourhoods. 61

Richard BauckhamBible and Ecology (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2010) p.100 Note the word “anticipate” again in relation to the Kingdom. 62

Wright Virtue Reborn p.80; italics mine.

19

creation itself will be fully restored.”63

As Wright states, the anticipatory nature of this

eschatological reign over creation is seen by Paul in terms of the control of our own bodies. It

is interesting to speculate whether Paul, had he lived in our own age, might have had lots to

say about the anticipatory nature of the eschatological rule of humans over creation in terms

of their involvement in ecological concerns for the planet. My hope is he might have! For it is

precisely because a renewed and transformed humanity will one day reign with Christ over

the newly created order that, in the present, humanity should have such a concern to protect

the old creation from further decay caused (principally) by us.

It is difficult, in my utilisation of historical examples from Brechin Cathedral, to point

to much ecological awareness in a bygone age. And yet we find in the early eighteenth

century that the Session is authorised to purchase two hundred trees for the graveyard. Now

this may indeed have been simply for aesthetic reasons (sadly the minutes do not specify a

reason) but who knows, perhaps guided by the Spirit, the Session of the time were already

being motivated in their care for creation, even unwittingly?

Secondly, there has to be recognition amongst the human world that the coming

Kingdom of God in its fullness is not just about us! Creation too will share in the coming

glory. Indeed Bauckham has a challenging suggestion to a rather homo-centred world that

creation may in fact acknowledge God‟s reign over it in a way that humans often fail to do.

While this does not denigrate the eschatological vocation for humanity that we discovered

within Wright, nevertheless it is a useful check, reminding us that the Creator can have a

relationship with creation without always the mediation of humanity. Furthermore, in the

eschatological conclusion to God‟s salvation story, the fullness of creation (not just the

human part) will glorify God. The coming Kingdom,Bauckham declares, is not a replacement

for the existing creation rather it will be transformative of the whole created order, not solely

63

Ibid. p.79

20

the human realm: “This holistic salvation of humans retains the solidarity of human

physicality with the whole material creation, and cannot be conceived apart from the

salvation of the latter.”64

Part of this transformation of creation by the coming Kingdom will

be a renewal of the relationship between humanity and the created order. Sovereignty implies

not only rule but a renewal of relationships. Reconciliation between God and humanity

implies a ministry of reconciliation between the human and the non-human creation. If the

Church is eschatologically driven we should assume we might see this renewal of

relationships between humanity and creation reflected in the life of our congregations. As

Bauckham puts it:

An eschatological eschatology….(does not entail)…the abolition of other creatures,

but for the healing and perfecting of human relationships with all other creatures.

Such an eschatological hope can be an inspiration for seeking such healing of these

relationships as is possible here and now, a peaceable living with other creatures that

will be of a quality fit for transposition into the new creation. 65

Here again we have the anticipatory nature of the kingdom, this time ecologically, being lived

out in the current world. Indeed, Bauckham interestingly suggests that the nature miracles of

Jesus are in fact “kingdom pointers” of how relationships between human creation and non-

human creation will come to be healed. Thus, the kinship between humanity and non-human

creation that we see implied in the incarnation of Christ reaches its apogee in the

eschatological fulfilment, anticipated in Christ.

(4) A LITURGICAL GAME-CHANGER

I have left liturgical considerations based upon our eschatological driver to the latter part of

the essay not because they are unimportant, but because the temptation always in a

congregational context is for much heat to be generated upon worship practices (particularly

64

BauckhamBible and Ecology p. 171 65

ibid. p.176

21

where change is suggested) to such an extent that everything else is in danger of being lost.

To my mind, it is because of everything I have said before regarding the eschatological driver

within politics, ethics and ecology that these liturgical implications now come into play.

The rather pertinent question here is what whether our liturgy and worship

practicestruly point to a truly eschatological paradigm or otherwise?Albert Schweitzer,

arguably the father of modern eschatological thinking, provides a very illuminating section in

his book The Mysticism of Paul the Apostleon the eschatological orientation of the

sacraments. For Schweitzer the meaning of the Lord‟s Supper is “as a feast of expectation,

looking forward to fellowship with Jesus at the Messianic feast.”66

Schweitzer holds that the

feasts that the disciples held with Jesus, including the Last Supper, were meant to consecrate

them in readiness for the Messianic banquet. So again, as we found with ethics and ecology,

there is an anticipatory action in the present for what will come in the future. Yet, where

Schweitzer differs is that he claims we have lost this eschatological sense surrounding the

sacrament andwould struggle now to regain it. The Lord‟s Supper, for example, has become

overlaid with other (non-eschatological) meanings by the Church. In the case of my own

denomination, I suspect that Communion is seen much more as a remembrance of what was

rather than a foretaste of what will yet be (though this maybe symptomatic of the Kirk

generally!)

While I may agree with Schweitzer‟s analysis, I disagree with him in that we have

irrevocably lost forever our eschatological driver within the Church. After all, that is the

whole contention of this essay! Indeed, Wright contends that it is only set within the context

of the new promised creation that the sacraments make sense: “the sacraments are not just

66

Albert SchweitzerThe Mysticism of Paul the Apostle transl. William Montgomery (John Hopkins University edition, 1998) p. 247

22

signs of the new creation but actually part of it.”67

Communion, to make it truly

eschatological again, needs both a folding forward of the past and a folding back of the future

so that it becomes for the Church a supreme eternal moment in the midst of present practice.

Wright puts it thus:“Time and space telescope together. Within the sacramental world, past

and present are one. Together, they point forwards to the still future liberation.”68

Geoffrey

Wainwright (to whom I shall return presently) states:

Where the Eucharist is celebrated, there at one point….the future age is thrown

forward into the present, eternity is seizing time, the Creator is raising nature to its

highest destiny, ultimate reality is breaking through from the depths to the

surface……this is a prophetic sign, announcing and inaugurating the final destiny of

all that is; for God‟s kingdom will be total….the Eucharist is the God-given sign of

the destiny of all creation.69

Given this folding in of time that occurs in the Lord‟s Supper perhaps here the

Protestant reformed tradition might learn from our Eastern orthodox brothers and sisters in

the faith? For example, when the bishop descends from his throne during the Communion

service this is symbolically seen as the second coming of Christ and everything follows from

that, i.e. the creed, the offering, the consecration of the elements. The Communion service

thus becomes as it were an event outwith time and space. As Andrew Louth puts it: “At the

heart of the Paschal mystery, the Church is beyond time and looks back, as it were, on the

Second Coming, at the same time as it prays „Your kingdom come‟”70

While I am not

suggesting that my own congregation adopt Eastern orthodox practice, I would say that

through preaching and maybe some amendment in the words of the liturgy we remind

ourselves that Communion is a looking forward in hopeful expectation to the Messianic

banquet at the invitation of a Living Saviour, not a memorial meal for a dead Saviour. Maybe

67

Wright Surprised by Hope p.284 68

Ibid. p.286 69

Geoffrey Wainwright Eucharist and Eschatology (London: Epworth Press, 1971) p.120 70

Andrew Louth “Eastern Orthodox Eschatology” in The Oxford Handbook of Christian Eschatology p.235

23

this implies a lesser place to the cross and a more central place to the empty tomb in our

sacramental theology, but to work out such a scheme is beyond the scope of this essay.

Interestingly, it is Wainwright himself who offers three cautions in this potentially

eschatological nature of the Lord‟s Supper, particularly in equating it fully with the Messianic

banquet that Schweitzer alluded to. Firstly, only the Church partakes of the Eucharist while

the Messianic banquet is for all humanity. Secondly, the Eucharist is periodic while the

Messianic banquet is perpetual. Thirdly, the Divine glory is not fully present in the Eucharist,

at the most, it is visible only to eyes of faith. However, for my purposes, the main point of

this critique by Wainwright (as with our politics and ethics) is that it points to the

provisionality of the sacrament as opposed to the fullness of the event of the banquet within

the full Kingdom itself.

In the case of the other sacrament we observe in the Protestant tradition, Baptism, it

may be easier to view that in eschatological terms. Most baptismal practice in the Kirk

centres upon infant baptism, which allows for a concentration upon seeing baptism as the

beginning of a process. The launch-pad or gateway to that ethical transformation of the

individual we examined in section two. While baptism is the point that thepneumatological

contact between believer and Spirit is established, the fulfilment of this transformative

process is seen only in eschatological culmination, not earthly time. Schweitzer, for example,

sees baptism as a pointer towards the common destiny of a united humanity that we see in the

resurrection of Jesus. And Wright reminds us that in the Scriptures Christian baptism is

always linked to the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6 and Colossians 2)71

The problem with baptism maybe how far parents bringing their child for baptism

honestly see it in these eschatological terms or rather as an ecclesiastical naming ceremony?

71

Wright Surprised by Hope p.284

24

In my own experience, however, I have sometimes been pleasantly surprised that parents can

regard baptism not only as a washing away of past sin but as a kind of down-payment by God

that is efficacious for the future too, providing of course that co-operative work with the

Spirit takes place. Yet maybe within baptism (particularly infant baptism, given the newness

of creation seen in a baby) it is more obvious to pastor and congregation that something new

is happening and can happen. Here “resurrection life appears within the midst of the old”.72

Baptism is something we ought to be making more of in our liturgies to reveal that we are

indeed an eschatologically driven community of faith.

Now to another point on liturgy, at the other end of the life cycle, the vexed question

of funerals. Wright in Surprised by Hope makes the point that we do not express a firm hope

of resurrection but rather a “vague and fuzzy optimism that somehow things may work out in

the end.”73

In this field I am going to be more critical of my colleagues than Wright for, to be

honest, I sometimes wonder if we have lost sight of the resurrection and Easter altogether in

our funeral practices! There appears to be a growing trend of what I would call humanist-type

funeral services with a Christian flavour74

, sometimes even conducted by Christian clergy. Of

course, it is entirely appropriate that the value of a human life is celebrated and its loss

mourned, but what tends to happen is that the celebrant (if we can use that word in relation to

funerals) stresses the value of the person‟s past life so much that they neglect to say that is

not the end of the story for that individual. Indeed in a recent letter to a local newspaper75

one

correspondent suggested that a minister had too much religious content in the funeral of a

friend; the eulogy should be central, not the scriptures!

72

ibid. p.285 73

ibid. p.35 74

A retired colleague of mine described them rather cheekily as humanist funeral cakes topped by Christian icing. In them, the eulogy takes centre stage, indeed often multiple eulogies from various participants, while the key, the scriptural readings of hope and the committal of the earthly remains in hope of resurrection by God, become merely window dressing. Favourite pop songs have replaced hymns of hopeful expectation and at times rather mediocre poems have sought to upstage the Scriptural witness of resurrection. 75

Evening Telegraph, Letters: 16th

January, 2014

25

Yet for the deceased more is to come, resurrection is to come. We are so busy

“weeping with those who weep”76

in the sorrow and tragedy of it all, that we forget to

presentfundamental hope, real Christian hope founded in Jesus Christ. Perhaps in funerals

more than in any other liturgical event, pastors have the opportunity to touch both believers

and unbelievers with that great eschatological hope realised in Jesus and promised for all

creation. This is where we can affirm that the story is not ended, interrupted certainly by an

intruder called Death, but not yet over. It is, in my view, an opportunity often missed.

Following on from this concern regarding the lack of eschatological hope within some

of our funeral services is, I think, a growing tendency in the Kirk to neglect any thought of

the Communion of Saints. A recent correspondent in Life and Work made the point rather

well when he stated that “the present and future cannot be separated”77

and he goes on to

make the point that the saints have lit the road to the Kingdom ahead for us. Of course,

historically, there has always been a great suspicion of prayers to the dead in the Reformed

tradition. Yet might we not have prayers withthe dead? They are eschatologically in Christ‟s

nearer presence and thus have a much greater awareness of the provisional nature of earthly

things than we who still dwell in the old creation.

One other matter briefly bears noting liturgically: the Church‟s year. Again, sad to

say, this too is an opportunity often missed for eschatological awareness. For if eschatology

features anywhere nowadays in the Church calendar it is relegated to Advent alone, and even

then the onset of Christmas soon erodes it. Easter which should be the great eschatological

feast pointing ahead to resurrection of the dead and the arrival of God‟s new creation has

been watered down to new spring life, even sometimes spring bunnies! Yet, as Schweitzer

states: “at the Easter thanksgiving meal the whole Church should be awaiting the coming of

76

Romans 12:15 77

Life and Work, Letters: February 2014

26

the Lord.”78

What a wonderful opportunity at Easter for the Church to truly live in that

kingdom that is here but not yet.

There is one other area I wish to touch on regarding the impact of Easter that

impinges on worship: the field of ecumenism. I have alluded in the previous sections to the

provisionality of what we do in the here and now in the face of the fullness of the Kingdom,

yet to be. Perhaps congregations and denominations need to be reminded of the provisionality

of their worship structures. In God‟snewJerusalem we will not worship as Baptists,

Presbyterians or Roman Catholics but solely as one people, God‟s people. This, I suspect, is a

valuable eschatological challenge to the parochialism of much of the Church‟s worship

styles. Indeed, the provisionality of the Church is something touched on by

WolfhartPannenberg in considering the historical process itself: “The church is always

tempted to play down the still-impending future of the eschatological life and to forget that

all forms of Christian life in the world are provisional.”79

There are many other aspects of liturgy that might benefit from the scrutiny of the

eschatological driver (hymnody being one) yet space prevents a fuller and more detailed

examination.

A FINAL WORD

My intention in this essay was in a sense to justify my title “A resurrected

community” – to show that the Church is not only founded upon the Easter event, but that the

reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus that we see at Easter should be a game-changer in

the life of the Church, indeed in the life of the world. In other words, that eschatology is not

the afterword in theology, but is in fact the very centre and core of all that we are and all that

78

Schweitzer op.cit. p.255 79

WolfhartPannenberg “Dogmatic Theses on the Doctrine of Revelation” in Revelation as History(London: Collier MacMillan, 1968) p.144

27

we do; that the resurrected community of the Church is an eschatologically driven

community. I have examined the potential impact of eschatology in four main fields: politics,

ethics, ecology and liturgy. Several common factors have emerged between these areas in the

discussion: the issue of loyalty to Christ, the question of the provisionality of structures, the

eschatological vocation of the Christian, the anticipatory nature of the kingdom that we see

reflected in the present time. I could have said much more in each of these four areas and

indeed in others80

but time and space prevent this. What I hope I have done is maybe begun a

conversation within myself, and with my congregation, about how faithful we truly are to the

Easter message. Questions need to be urgently asked of us as a congregation, as Church? Are

we truly aligned with God‟s eschatological telos? How might that great eschatological vision

shape our current practices, politically, ethically, ecologically and liturgically? If it is

preached that Christ is raised from the dead81

then all is changed, we have already entered a

different world. Of course, to allow the eschatological driver to be our motivating factor will

involve risk. We may come into opposition with Caesar‟s powers both within the world, even

within the Church. We will be seen as a very different, counter-cultural community from that

of the world, if we live ethically and ecologically in tune with God‟s eschatological note. And

our liturgical practices in worship may need revising and reforming. Yet, this urgency is

tempered by God‟s grace: the Kingdom is not yet fully here, that is still to come, but it is

begun, begun in us, the resurrected community of Christ, and that in itself surely is a cause

for action amongst us and for a glimmer of hope in an often dark world?

“What we say about death and resurrection gives shape and colour to everything else. If we

are not careful, we will offer merely a „hope‟ that is no longer a surprise, no longer able to

transform lives and communities in the present, no longer generated by the resurrection of

Jesus himself and looking forward to the new heavens and the new earth.”82

80

Eschatology and ecumenism might easily be a full essay topic in itself! 81

I Cor. 15:12 82

Wright Surprised by Hope p.36

28

“Match the present to the promise

Christ will come again

Make this hope your guiding premise

Christ will come again

Pattern all your calculating

And the world you are creating

To the advent you are waiting

Christ will come again.”83

83

Church Hymnary 4th

edition (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2005), no.479