The Parish Church of St John-at-Hampstead

In classical mythology there are several instances of a young hero choosing the path that his life is to take. Perhaps the most famous is not called a choice, although that is what the Judgement of Paris is; Paris has to choose between Hera, Athene and Aphrodite, ostensibly on the basis, “which is the fairest?” but really on the grounds of what they have to offer- power and a throne from Hera; wisdom and prowess in war from Athene; and the embrace of the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen, later to be Helen of Troy, arranged by Aphrodite. Paris’ decision is instinctive rather than considered. Sex, as usual trumps the other cards. The consequences- the siege and destruction of Troy, were pretty disastrous for Paris and his brothers and parents (not to mention their unfortunate subjects), but the myth makes an important  point; our motivation is at least as much to do with our immediate desires and instinct than reasoned forethought, or calculation, and, of course, the overriding attraction of sex. Paris is depicted in the rest of the story as rather less than heroic and likely to give in to ephemeral attraction.  
The young Hercules and Alexander were also both said to have had life forming experiences and they both choose a life of combat and heroism, rather that artistic accomplishment. In the Bible, the (successful) Temptation of Eve is similar; a test for young humankind. And later, the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness has similaritieswith the Judgement of Paris; although, of course Jesus is not beguiled by power, fame or physical desire. Solomon’s choice is a little different although basically the same idea; Solomon is asked in his dream to choose for himself, without the choices being presented temptingly before him.
 There is however a big difference between the choices of Paris and Solomon, and not just in what they choose; Paris chooses not a life but a reward; Solomon chooses not a life but a way of life, a way of dealing with life. Wisdom and righteousness are the the right knowledge of his relationship to God and man.
There is a lot of choosing in Christianity; with one exception the sacraments all involve a choice and a promise; in Baptism and Confirmation we choose to follow Christ; in marriage we choose a partner and promise to love him or her for the length of our lives; an ordinand chooses a way of life and promises to keep to the 39 Articles etc.; in penance we choose to renounce sin and promise to try to do better. All this promising pre-supposes a belief in a continuing self. It’s only meaningful to promise something if it will be the same person who is tempted to do something else at some future date. To take a slightly facile example, six year old might perhaps declare that he or she hated girls or boys and would never have a girlfriend or boyfriend; ideas might, however, have changed a bit at the age of sixteen. We would not  think of holding a six year old to such promise (we wouldn’t even think of allowing such a promise to be made) because while we can recognise some identity between someone of six and sixteen, and even sixty, it is not enough to make a long term promise meaningful. Although strangely- and I think rather questionably -we do expect 10 year olds to make such promises at confirmation.
The sacraments that I have mentioned are all to do with membership of the church, and perhaps unsurprisingly, it is the church which developed them, not Jesus. It is striking that Jesus in his encounters with the sick or the spiritually troubled, rarely asks for a promise, nor imposes any condition other than to recognise who he is- the consequence of Faith. Although repentance is said, to be what he preaches, he very rarely asks for it of individuals. He doesn’t baptise anyone. He gives forgiveness with healing, but it is unconditional- the recipient simply has to want it. Tellingly, the only sacrament which Jesus himself institutes is the communion and it’s the only one which requires no promise; we may feel we ought to clear our consciences  and pay our debts before approaching the altar or table, but we are welcome to share the feast whatever our condition.
Paris makes an instant decision regardless of the consequences; not that he could really have known what they would be, but his choice is not rational or prudent. It is in a way very like the instant decisions that Jesus sometimes demands. Follow me- and leave your livelihood and your family fishing business; give up your lucrative position as tax collector; sell everything you own and give it to poor; leave your family, leave even your dead and unburied relations. These are not prudent and thoughtful actions. The point is surely that they are the extreme actions you might take if it suddenly dawned on you who you really were and in whose presence you stood; if it suddenly struck you what it meant to be created by God; to be made in his image, and to have the possibility of him dwelling you and acting through you. If in a word, you were suddenly struck by what it is to be righteous.
As I say these are extreme examples, where the choice, like that of Paris, is obvious and inevitable, because you are, or you have become, the sort of person who reacts like that to even extreme proposals. This is the choice that Solomon made; to make himself righteous; It is this choosing of a disposition, of state of mind and being that makes the non-Eucharistic sacraments make sense. Identity may change, gradually with growth or because of some experience, but the way we react, our character retains a certain consistency and it is that consistency and that disposition which can try to achieve- and it that which is important to God.
Crucial too, to both character and righteousness, is the existence of choice; decisions whether immediate or well rationalised promises are meaningless without alternatives. As we learn from the very first choices made by Adam and Eve, we are morally responsible beings. This does not mean, however, that we cannot develop a habit or disposition to decide in particular way when it comes to ethical or indeed any choices. It is that disposition that we call virtue. But equally we need not only to keep that habit under review but to be open to radical change, as St Peter or St Matthew or the rich young man and disciples were, or were asked to be. This is because the habit itself is based in choices and perceptions about our nature and our relations with others and those perceptions may change and grow. Critically for the Christian as for Solomon, the important perception will be of his relationship with God and all other creatures. It will also be recognising our nature as creatures- and occasionally may mean allowing those instincts sway over prudence and conventional wisdom. We must allow ourselves, for example to fall in love, with another person, or with God.- but we should  take care that it is not Helen of Troy. Amen.