Today's reading from the prophet Isaiah, points us toward a significant stumbling block for individuals and for the church. That stumbling block is both the interpretive framework we use to read the Bible, and also the assumptions we make about what the Bible is. Most scholars and moderate Christians recognize that everyone has a "bias" when we interpret the Bible; however some conservative Christians deny that they are biased. Likewise, some people assume that God's revelation in the Bible is complete: that God has finished revealing what we need. I am among those who believe that God does continue to reveal His will, and that we human beings are not wise enough to understnad when God is finished!

As the basis for my position, I give you today's reading from Isaiah, in which God says, Look out! I am doing something new, something unlike all my known actions in the past. There are four similar passages in Isaiah, where God makes an announcement of a new revelation, that is different from the tradition. Even more important than God's words reported by Isaiah, is our belief that in sending His son to be incarnate in human nature, God did something entirely different from the past.<

There is a perfectly obvious reason (obvious to me anyway) that God's revelation continues. The reason is that we human beings are the recipients of revelation, and our capacity to understand God is limited. So the person to whom God speaks ~~ Moses, or Paul, or you or me, only understands part of what he hears, and the people who read what Moses and Paul write, only understand a part of what was written, and so our misunderstandings multiply. Therefore, God's project of salvation has to be renewed now and then to correct those misunderstandings with new revelations, given to new leaders, who are willing to obey the Holy Spirit.

In the Gospel reading, we have a picture of how this works. Here are two disciples, one who hears and obeys, and the other who does not hear, and comes to his own conclusions. Mary of Bethany is the disciples who chose earlier to sit and listen to Jesus, so we should not be surprised that she is the one who understands that he expects to die. When, therefore, God revealed to Mary that Jesus should be anointed for burial, she heard and obeyed. She obeyed even though the nard was expensive; she obeyed even though she had seen Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead; even though she knew that the money should be given to the poor; and even though she really wanted Jesus to live. Judas was the disciple who did not hear God's call. And because he was not open to the new thing God was doing, he made that critical remark about how the money that purchased the nard, should have been given to the poor. Jesus approved Marys obedience, and suggested that even though caring for the poor has been, and will be, very important, hearing God's word in the present is even more important.

The bottom line, then and now, is that we live our Christian lives in a tension between upholding the traditions we have received, and discerning the new thing God is doing today. Our current controversy in the Anglican Communion can best be understood as occurring within that tension. The leaders on both sides are upholding tradition, but different traditions, and they are both claiming God's new action, but for different goals. The biggest challenge in this tension between tradition and God's new revelation, is separating the customs of culture, from the will of God. When a custom has been observed for centuries, when it seems to be universal, and when the Bible appears to support it, how will Christians learn that it is wrong, unless God reveals something new?

This weekend is the bicentennial of just such a moment in history. 200 years ago, the British Parliament voted to abolish the slave trade, which had made the British empire wealthy. While the abolition of slavery itself did not come for several more decades, the vote taken 200 years ago was the beginning of the end. It came about through the efforts of a small group of Quakers, and four Anglicans. The Quakers believed that "the inner light of God's revelation shone equally on human beings of any race which led them to oppose slavery. The first Anglican was Granville Sharp, who became in 1765, the first Englishman prepared to defend a slave in the courts of London. Sharp did this because of his faith in "a righteous Anglican God". The second Anglican was a young deacon, Thomas Clarkson, who won the contest at Cambridge University in 1785, for the best essay in Latin on the question, "is it lawful to make slaves of others against their will?" Having researched the topic thoroughly, Clarkson began to think that "some person should see these calamities (of slavery) to their end". He gradually became convinced that God was calling him to this task, and he worked for 60 years to make it happen.

Clarkson and the Quakers were the ones who invented many of the strategies still used today to influence public opinion: newsletters to supporters, researching their cause, petitions to the government, direct mail fundraising letters, and the creation of a symbol for the movement. Just as Clarkson was the organizer, so William Wilberforce was the voice of this movement in Parliament. Wilberforce was convinced that "God Almighty has set before me . . . the suppression of the slave trade". After his first bill was defeated in 1791, John Wesley wrote to Wilberforce: "Are all of them stronger than God? Go on, in the name of God . . . be not weary of well-doing ". Wilberforce re-introduced his bill every year until finally it passed both Houses of Parliament early in 1807. King George III signed it into law on March 25th, exactly 200 years ago today. The fourth Anglican, perhaps best known of them all, was John Newton, former slave ship captain and for many years an Anglican vicar. Although he remained silent for 30 years about the evils of the slave trade, he was the author of the hymn "Amazing Grace", and eventually testified in favor of abolition.

Each of these men, and the members of Parliament whom they persuaded, experienced a change of mind and heart, which led them to recognize African slaves as fellow human beings deserving of dignity and freedom. They were able to set aside the Biblical evidence for slavery in both Old and New Testaments. They were able to set aside the considerable economic value which the slave trade brought to England. The cruelty of the trade became offensive to them, the religious justification for it was weak, and the example of Jesus' concern for "the least of these, my brethren" was important to most of those who decided to vote against the trade.

What happened, in theological terms, is that they gradually gave the teaching of Jesus, and the actions of Jesus, a higher value than the Bible's acceptance of slavery as a normal part of social life. They saw that slavery was a human custom, having nothing to do with God's will. This happened because some individuals were open to hearing the new thing God was doing, and to obeying God's call to action.

What happened, in political terms, is that a very small group of Christians, persevering over the course of about 50 years, persuaded a majority of the public, and of their legislators, that the slave trade, and the institution of slavery, was morally wrong. I believe the long-term result of that effort was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights . . . No one shall be held in slavery or servitude . . All are equal before the law".

This weekend, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, are leading their country in a major commemoration of this bicentennial. An indicator of the change in Britain, is the fact that the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, is a black man from Uganda, though now a British citizen. Leading up to this weekend, a March of Abolitionists has been walking 250 miles from Hull wearing yokes and chains. Yesterday they joined thousands of people for a Walk of Witness in London, to acknowledge the injustices of slavery. Because the Church of England had participated in the slave trade, through the ownership of plantations and through moral support of the slave owners, the General Synod of the Church of England apologized last year for its role. Archbishops from the West Indies and West Africa came to march in London, along with government representatives from Ghana, Tanzania, Congo, Cuba and the Netherlands. They stopped along the way by the south Embankment of the Thames to remember that 2704 slave ships left from London docks. What is even more important, is the effort made by the Archbishops to raise awareness of 21st century slavery. We have a different name for it today: human trafficking, but it is the same practice of taking people from their homes, usually to a foreign country, where they are forced to work against their will and their lives are tightly controlled. Anti-Slavery International reports that there are approximately 12 million people who are enslaved, around the world, in the United States, and even in California.

In our baptismal covenant, we commit ourselves to strive for justice and peace among all people. This means that we undertake responsibility, as Christians, for the society we live in. It is not enough to serve Christ in each individual we meet, although that is important. The promise to strive for justice means that we will pay attention to the systems and the structures in our society, which hurt, oppress and destroy God's people. It means that we have faith that God is on the side of justice, and that the efforts of one individual and one small group to address injustice, will ultimately prevail. It means that doing nothing about an injustice, contributes to the continuation of that injustice. As Christians, we are committed to doing our part -- not to heroic self sacrifice, but to making an effort, to throwing our weight, one by one, group by group, church by church, to the cause of justice and peace among all people.