I nearly always take a glance at the Letters to the Editor section of the newspaper. It gives me an opportunity, a bit like the obituaries, to see if there is anyone I know. And as one wag put it, "if my name is in the obituaries then I know I can head out for work!"

With the letters, I can mumble my approval or scoff at those with whom I disagree. Occasionally, one finds a really well written letter which is a pleasure to read regardless of the content. In the past few weeks the issue of same sex marriage has caused a lot of ink to be spilled- especially when the Roman Catholic Church weighed rather heavily into the issue.

This issue, like others we know of, is often cast in terms of being for or against a particular received practise or tradition. Indeed, last weekend the question put to the religion experts in the Ottawa Citizen (no doubt with the same sex debate in mind) was this one "Many faith groups have abandoned traditional religious teachings to appear modern and inclusive. What will be the effect of this in the long run?"

"This is a trick question", I commented, when I first saw it. In line with questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?" Such questions assume a given situation, in this instance, that some religions have abandoned that which is timeless and valuable for that which is temporary and unworthy.

The problem with the word "tradition" is that it is usually ill -defined; hence, the word seldom serves to resolve an issue. The word "tradition" may be used in reference to eating plum pudding at Christmas as well as with reference to the faith tradition we have received and to which St Paul refers when he says in 1 Corinthians (15:3), " For I handed on to you as of first importance what I have in turn received". And yet, clearly these two traditions are of quite a different order. Abandoning plum pudding in favour of pumpkin pie is surely not as serious as abandoning Jesus Christ as Lord in favour of Gloria Steinen.

In my view, the value of a tradition is directly related to its content and to a lesser extent, its antiquity; but antiquity is no guarantee of enduring value either. Male only priests, a longstanding Christian tradition, has been abandoned by many Christian Churches today. So I ask you. when does a practise or teaching become a tradition? Is it after 5 years, 500 or 5000 years? When it comes to interpreting the Bible, for example, an interpretation which is re-affirmed over and over again by succeeding generations can legitimately be considered as a better expression of God`s mind than an interpretation which has not stood the test of time. But even such revered interpretations do not necessarily the critique of contemporary biblical scholarship.

For example, many claim that marriage, as we know it, dates back thousands of years. Not so. Some claim that marriage has always been about love between a man and a woman. Again, not so. In the long run of history, marriage has been about procreation or survival and ownership. I would argue that few people in this country today believe that they need to have children in order to provide for themselves in old age nor do they believe that it is about men owning women. History records many different marriage traditions some of great anitiquity . Polygamy was the marriage norm throughout most of the Old Testament. Those who argue for traditional marriage often assume that this tradition includes monogamy. And yet monogamous marriage was the exception more than the rule in the Old Testament as well as within ancient Greek, Roman, and medieavel cultures. Indeed, the Bible never once asserts that marriage must be between one man and one woman forever which is what couples promise in present day Christian marriage rites nor does it directly condemn polygamy. Some would claim that heterosexual marriage is the only marriage allowed by scripture and yet the New Testament has no such explicit teaching. We do find exhortations on how husbands and wives should treat one another but no comment whatsoever on the gender exclusivity of marriage.

In an article last week in the Globe and Mail, religion writer Michael Valpy, pointed out that for centuries a wedding wasn`t even considered a church matter. The Christian church`s definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman come from the legal Digesta of the Roman Emperor Justinian ( 483-565 CE ). The Roman Catholic Church didn`t formally declare marriage a sacrament until the Council of Trent (1545-63) and the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism say that marriage is " not to be counted for (a) sacrament(s) of the Gospel, being such as have grown up partly of the corrupt followings of the Apostles, partly as (a) state of life allowed in the Scriptures...for (it does) not have any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God" ( Article XXV p 708 Book of Common Prayer 1959). Is this the sacred and timeless marriage tradition for which some which tear the church apart! Remember, there is no instance in the New Testament of a church marriage.

Very often "traditional" means little more than "that which I like" or "that with which I am familiar". This is surely a long stretch away from the claim often made about traditions that they are God`s immutable will!

Another example, relevant because of our discussion about church renovations at St Johns would be that of church architecture. Some people might think of St John`s Church as the traditional Anglican church building because it is cruciform in shape and facing east. And yet it is only one of many architectural traditions within Christianity and Anglicanism. Our cathedral, for example is neither cruciform nor east-facing, nor is St Georges, nor is St Matthew`s nor is St Barnabas, nor is St Bartholomew's`, to mention but a few Anglican parish neighbouring St John`s. Indeed, when we look at these churches we see that their architecture is influenced by many different architectural traditions.

Furthermore, is there a difference, then, between a tradition and a custom? In the religious world is the bride being given away by her father a custom or a tradition? Is the wearing of white by the bride and black by a mourner a custom or a tradition? Somehow, I doubt very much that either of these practises is what St Paul had in mind when he spoke of passing on that which he had received.

I would like to suggest to you this morning that we view our customs and traditions not as something to absolutize but rather as something to treasure in their multiplicity. Whenever we absolutize anything we are saying "hands-off, don`t even think about abandoning this". And yet sometimes things greatly valued in one age lose their appeal in another.

If I may use a mundane example, not so long ago a tea service was a must in a well run home. Indeed, a silver tea service was the ultimate treasure and symbol of hospitality. How many families now have silver tea services - or for that matter anything more than a tea pot and few eclectic tea cups? Lovely china tea cups can now be bought for next to nothing in our Community Shop. I`ll bet that if anyone has a silver tea service it is stored away wrapped in cellophane to prevent tarnishing. Why? Well, you know the reasons. We don`t entertain like our forebears, we don`t have servants to polish it nor do we have two hours a week to do it ourselves. It is a treasure we have relegated to the back of the china cabinet, a lovely reminder of a by-gone age which we may greatly enjoy bringing out for a special occasion. Furthermore, putting aside the silver tea service has not stopped people from enjoying a cup of tea, has it!

Sometimes this same sort of thing happens in the realm of ideas and even in the realm of religious teachings. The concept of God as working through natural law was the basis for the theology of St Thomas Aquinas and provided the principal underpinning of much Christian teaching for centuries. And yet many theologians today, in the light of the science of our day, no longer use it. This is often one of the great differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic positions on issues (like abortion, contraception, and same sex marriage). Most Protestant and Anglican theologians long ago abandoned significant part of St Thomas` natural law teachings. But still undergirds much Roman Catholic teaching.

This is not to say that theologians are saying, "oh well, St Thomas Aquinas was all wrong", rather, they are saying, "we need new concepts to better deal with issues of our time." Our issues are not the same as those of thirteenth century Europe. Thus, a tradition is set aside in order to give place to something new. The theology of St Thomas Aquinas( or at least part of it), can takes its place beside the silver tea service. It is valuable, it is still serviceable, but it is not something we need everyday.

Now let`s move from tea with St Thomas Aquinas to today`s gospel reading from John.

Have you ever wondered why John`s gospel seems so different from (the synoptics) Matthew, Mark, and Luke? All four of the gospels were written within a 30 year period between 65 CE and 95 CE with John`s gospel being the last. The first three, though different one from another, are much more like one another than the Gospel of John. The language, the imagery, and the themes of John are different. In John there are no parables. John leaves out many of the details of Jesus` life. In John there is no account of Jesus`birth, baptism, temptations, agony in the garden, or the Last Supper. John dwells upon Jesus as a cosmic agent. Jesus becomes less of an historical figure and more of an eternal one. His origins are in heaven, he is the eternal Word of God existing before time and creation.

Why did John depart so radically from the earlier tradition of describing ministry of Jesus? Biblical scholars will say that he did so because he was addressing himself to a different group of people. Always a fundamental rule of communication:,"to who am I speaking ?", we must ask. John`s gospel has long mystical passages and John explores more deeply the relationship of Jesus to his disciples than the other three gospels.

Some claim that John departed from the tradition of the synoptics because by the time he wrote his gospel, the last of the four, it was time for some new way of talking about Jesus Christ. The synoptic gospels draw heavily upon the Old Testament and upon village culture that the writers knew their hearers were familiar with- so these gospels are full of narrative, allusions to the Abraham, Noah, Moses, and the prophets. They were concerned with historical continuity. The overall theme of the synoptic gospels is the idea of the Kingdom of God.

John`s gospel develops a different language and conceptual context for understanding Jesus. And yet the Church valued this multiplicity of Jesus traditions and included them in what we now call the New Testament. For us as Christians, its like having a china cabinet full of sets of dishes of varying patterns and colours from which to chose when lay a table for ourselves and our guests. We are enriched by this multiplicity of Jesus traditions.

To use a term from a contemporary context, we have been given a rainbow of diversity by which our hearts and minds can be fed and with which we can reach the diversity of peoples and cultures within the human community. Let us then resist the urge to narrow down the faith by insisting that it can mean only one thing, or have only one expression, or permit only one kind of teaching. As St Paul reminds us the epistle morning, we need `the whole armour of God` in order to fulfil our task in the world. We need every piece in the china cabinet, old and new.

Dear friends, we stand within a faith community which has, over centuries, gathered together for us a rich treasure chest of liturgy, music, and teaching for our use, to enjoy, and to share with the whole world. So let us rejoice and be glad in it!