Archive for the ‘Luke’s gospel’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Who is lost? Do we really want them to come home?

September 13, 2025

Pentecost 14 – 2025

Luke 15:1-10

Marian Free

In the name of God who seeks the lost and is not content until they are safely home. Amen.

In her book Dead Man Walking, Sister Helen Prejean tells the story of her relationship with Elmo Patrick Sonnier, a man who is on death row in Louisiana State Penitentiary. Sonnier has been sentenced to death for his part in the kidnapping and murder of two young people and the rape of the young woman. Sonnier is not a particularly attractive individual. He is sullen and defensive, and he refuses to take any responsibility for his actions. Prejean in no way condones the young man’s behaviour, but she does see behind the tough exterior a vulnerable human being who loves his mother and his younger brother.

Prejean’s visits to Sonnier and her increasingly vocal opposition to the death penalty do not make her popular and are a source of pain and confusion for the parents of the murdered youths. They simply cannot understand how a good Christian woman can give Sonnier the time of day, let alone show him some kindness. They want her to join them in calling down God’s judgement on him. They want him to pay for what he has done, and they firmly believe that God’s fury should be poured out on him. It is beyond them to comprehend that anyone could have sympathy for a person who has committed such evil acts. 

Prejean persists in her friendship, consistently urging Sonnier to admit to and take responsibility for the crime. It is only when Sonnier is within hours of facing the executioner that he finally acknowledges that he took part in the murder and that he raped the girl. He was still executed – not as someone who was still lost, but as someone who, through the love of God regained his humanity and was redeemed.

Who is the most loathsome person you can think of? Hitler or Idi Amin might come to mind, or perhaps those who attacked Camp Sovereignty in recent weeks[1]. Top of your list might be those members of Hamas whose murderous rampage on October 7, 2023 began the current war in Gaza.  It could be that the perpetrators of domestic violence or chid sex offenders might cause you the greatest sense of revulsion. To be honest, having put my mind to it, I can see that there are many categories of people whose actions put them beyond the pale and who, because of those actions seem to be out of the reach of forgiveness or redemption. Even to think about the perpetrators of such horrendous crimes causes such disquiet that their removal from society seems to be the only way to create a safer more harmonious world.

Can you even begin to imagine that God might love Sonnier, or Rowan Baxter who incinerated his wife and three children in their car? Can you envisage God’s loving the murderers, the sex offenders, the terrorists, the oppressive dictators so much that God’s heart is breaking for them until God can bring them back to Godself.  It is a shocking, horrifying thought – that God should love the reprehensible, the destructive, and the violent. Doesn’t God constantly call us to obey the law – love our neighbours as ourselves and so on? Are we not right in expecting God to rain down judgement on all those who go against God’s laws? Aren’t we justifiably affronted when an evil person apparently gets away with the evil they have committed?

Is it not an insult to ourselves, but more particularly to the victims and their families that one day a murderer will be set free when they themselves will have to live with grief and absence for a lifetime or even that a murderer will live when one whom they have loved will not?

In the light of such thoughts, can you imagine then how confrontational the parable of the lost sheep would have been to Jesus’ listeners?  What on earth is the shepherd doing going off after the foolish sheep that has got itself separated from the folk – the one that has wandered off, the one that was unable to conform to the standards expected? What self-respecting shepherd would abandon a flock (or 99% of a flock) – to wolves, to thieves – for the sake of one percent – the rapists, the extremists, the violent offenders, those who defraud? 

We have lost the offense of this parable by associating ourselves with the one lost sheep instead of understanding that the lost sheep is the rank outsider, the one who has made choices that put its life and the lives of the others at risk. Jesus tells the parable in response to the Pharisees and scribes who are disgruntled because Jesus welcomes and eats with sinners. Jesus tells the parable to make explicit God’s love for and desire to save all people – especially the sinners. Those who are already saved – the law-abiding, the church-going – have no need to be sought out and brought home. They are already at home.

It is the self-righteous indignation of the 99 (the scribes and the Pharisees, the “saved”) that is expressed by the elder brother in the third parable of the lost – the forgiving father. The 99, the good, the well-behaved, those who already have everything that salvation has to offer have not need to be sought out by God. 

Today’s parables tell us of the lengths God will go to ensure that absolutely everyone – the good, the bad and even the ugly – know the warmth of God’s love. If that offends us we have not grasped the nature of God’s all-inclusive, unconditional love for all God’s creation and nor have we grasped just how blessed we are that we are recipients of that love.

If we are truly secure in God’s love, rather than in our own sense of self-righteousness, we too will want the whole world to know the warmth of God’s embrace.

[1] The site of an Indigenous ceremonial place and burial ground on which a number of indigenous people camp and which was attacked following a “March for Australia” leaving four people injured, two with severe head wounds.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Who is lost? Do we really want them to come home?

The price of following Jesus

September 6, 2025

Pentecost 13 – 2025

Luke 14:25-35

Marian Free

In the name of God, who stands with the poor, the vulnerable and the oppressed and who asks that we do the same. Amen.

Decades ago, I read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison. At the time I was struck by his courage and by his clarity of vision. He has remained for me a hero of faith and an example of Christian witness in difficult times.

Bonhoeffer was in his twenties when Hitler was installed as Chancellor of Germany, yet despite his relative youth he perceived the danger of the cult of the Fuhrer and publicly warned that the leader might become the ‘misleader’. He was among many church people who resisted the incorporation of Nazi ideology into the church’s theology (a compromise many churches were willing to make in order to keep peace). Bonhoeffer consistently critiqued both the government and the church and was part of a break-away movement which formed the Confessing Church – a coalition of those who refused to accept the Nazi influence in matters of faith.

Bonhoeffer’s willingness to criticize the government led to his being forbidden to speak in public and having to report regularly to the Nazis but, ironically perhaps, through the influence of his brother-in-law he became a member of the Abwehr (the German military-intelligence agency). It was through his connections there that he became part of a group who plotted to kill Hitler. He said of this decision: “If I sit next to a madman as he drives a car into a group of innocent bystanders, I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe, then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.” 

His involvement in this plot led to his arrest and imprisonment.  He was sent to Tegel Prison for 11/2 years. Then, as the Allies advanced and defeat became inevitable, the Germans moved Bonhoeffer and others east to Buchenwald and then to Flossenberg concentration camp. He was executed there on April 9, 1945. He was only 39 years old. It is reported that as he was led away to the place of execution he declared: “This is the end—but for me it is the beginning of Life!”[41]

Many of Bonhoeffer’s overseas colleagues understood the dangers he was facing by remaining Germany and offered him sanctuary in both Britain and the USA, but he refused both offers believing that he: “should live through this difficult time with the German people.” To fail to do so, he believed, would prevent his having any part in the rebuilding of that nation.

Bonhoeffer, along with Oscar Romero, Martin Luther King and the many martyrs of our age understood clearly that following Jesus and living by gospel values sometimes comes at a cost. Speaking truth to power, resisting Empire, standing with the poor and the vulnerable, seeking justice for the oppressed, confronting corruption and exploitation is not always welcomed by those who do not wish to rock the boat, or by those who want to maintain their power, protect or build their wealth, or to shield themselves from suffering.

Today’s gospel is a stark reminder that following Jesus is not just about accepting God’s love, but means living by gospel principles and, if necessary, dying for them. At this point in the gospel story Jesus is being followed by large crowds who may be caught up in the excitement of the Jesus’ movement, who may be hoping to witness a miracle or to be cured of an infirmity or disease. Jesus needs to let them know that discipleship is much more than comradeship and miracles. Discipleship demands that followers are true to the principles of justice, integrity and compassion – no matter how uncomfortable that may make the society around them. 

Jesus wants to know who among the crowd has the sort of commitment that will see them to the end.  “Whoever comes to me and does not hate life itself cannot be my disciple.”   Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand?” In other words: “How many of you have truly considered the price of following me and asked yourselves whether or not you have the capacity to meet the cost?”

Ever since Constantine made Christianity the faith of the Empire, the church has been entwined with the state and the establishment. As a consequence, except for brief occasions it has often been difficult to distinguish Christian values from cultural values. Times are changing, the community in which we live is becoming increasingly fractured and the disparity between rich and poor continues to grow. Homelessness is on the rise and those who can afford homes cannot find homes to buy, food insecurity is a very real issue for too many families, and too many young people are finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. 

It is time to reclaim our role as a voice for the voiceless, a supporter of the weak and protector of the vulnerable. It may be that we will be called to critique the power that would exploit the vulnerable, take advantage of the weak and enrich itself at the expense of the poor. 

It is time to remember Bonhoeffer’s words of caution:  “Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear rather than too much. Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offence, shock the world far more, than they are doing now. Christians should take a stronger stand in favour of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong.” 

We must remember and teach those who come after us that following Jesus is not a crutch but a cross, not only a comfort in times of difficulty, but a challenge to act when to act is costly and it is not a defence against harm but is sometimes a call to put oneself in the path of danger.

“Whoever comes to me and does not hate life itself cannot be my disciple.” 

Do we, with all our privileges and advantages really understand the cost of discipleship and, if we do, are we willing, if called upon, to pay the price?

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in discipleship, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on The price of following Jesus

Holding a dinner party – who to invite, where to seat them

August 30, 2025

Pentecost 12 – 2025

Luke 14:1, 7-14

Marian Free

Loving God, give us a true sense of our worth, that we may never need to build ourselves up at the expense of another. Amen.

If you were invited to a formal wedding breakfast, you would expect to find a diagramme of the table arrangement indicating at which table you were to sit. When you found that table you would look for a place card with your name and you would take your seat – regardless of whether or not you were sitting with someone you knew and liked, and no matter how far from the bridal table you were placed. Most of us absorb the social norms of our own subculture. So, we will understand that the host has gone to an enormous amount of trouble deciding who should sit where – depending on a person’s place in the family and the degree of association the person has with the family. The bride and groom, with their attendants sit at the head table. Parents, grandparents and siblings sit close to the bride and groom (indicating their close relationship) and friends – especially single friends are usually to be found furthest away. A distant cousin would not expect a seat at the front.

At formal events place cards save us the trouble of trying to work out where we fit in the social heirarchy and, even were we to accidently sit in the wrong place, our faux pas would not cause lasting damage to our reputation or to our place in society. 

The situation was vastly different in the first century in which status and rank were closely guarded assets and in which principles of honour and shame governed almost every interaction. Honour was a commodity that could be ascribed (by birth) or acquired through effort. It was acquired by excelling over other people in speech or in battle or by diminishing or putting down another. Honour was a claim to worth and the social acknowledgement of that worth. However, honour was a limited commodity, once lost it was hard to regain, except at someone else’s expense. 

In such a culture it was vital that those of equal position did not compromise their honour, or that of the person with whom they were interacting. It was also essential not to insult a person – whether of higher or lower status – by behaving in a way that did not acknowledge that person’s position in society.  Equally it was important not to become indebted to another or to place them in your debt which would diminish your or their status. In order to maintain one’s place, it was essential not to expose any weakness or vulnerability which would allow another to take advantage of you.

The honour/shame culture explains many of the gospel exchanges and parables. Perhaps the most obvious example is that of Herod’s beheading of John the Baptist. Herod had promised to give his dancing stepdaughter whatever she asked, not for one minute expecting that she would ask for John’s head. However, despite the fact that he “was grieved” he ordered his guards to carry her wishes:, “out of regard for his oaths and for his guests”. Had Herod behaved in any other way, had he gone back on his word he would have been perceived as weak and vacillating. He would have lost face in front of his guests and his ability to command the respect of his peers, and his ability to control the rebellious Galileans would have been seriously compromised.

In an honour/shame culture a dinner invitation and the resulting dinner had serious implications. Invitations were only extended to those who could enhance one’s honour – those of at least equal rank, or those whom one might place in one’s debt.  A person would not accept an invitation immediately but would wait to see who else was invited – and then only accept if the guest list included people of the same or higher status. One’s honour depended on not associating with anyone who could bring them down. (This explains the parable of the wedding banquet and the poor excuses people make for not attending. They haven’t replied, because they wanted first to learn who else was going.)

In our gospel today Jesus is at a dinner party. Obviously, his hosts see him as a person of some consequence, or he would not have received an invitation. But Jesus is an uncomfortable guest. Instead of quietly summing up the room and choosing an appropriate place at the table – one that reflected his status vis a vis the other guests, Jesus chooses to offer a critique of the status-seeking behaviour of the other guests. Interestingly, he didn’t suggest that the guests are of equal status, only that it is not up to them to determine their worth and where they should sit. 

Jesus continues by addressing the host and reflecting on the guest list. He completely overthrowing the cultural norms by suggesting that the host invite people who have nothing to offer – no status and certainly no return invitation. Jesus’ suggestion would have two consequences. It would weaken the host’s place in the world, and it would also put those guests under an obligation which would be a degrading and unacceptable thing to do.  

Jesus is doing here what he does throughout the gospels – he is overturning the social mores of his time and culture and establishing the norms and expectations of the kingdom, a kingdom in which a person is valued according to their love of God and of God’s children, in which humility takes precedence over pride, service over leadership, selflessness over greed. 

Today’s gospel is a reminder that we are called not to measure ourselves according to the standards of the world in which we find ourselves, weighing up our good deeds, our achievements, our possessions and comparing ourselves with others. We are called not to only associate with those who can benefit ourselves but also with those whose friendship will be costly – to our reputation or to our pocket. We are called to see all people through the lens of God’s love, to treat all people as worthy of dignity, and of the basic requirements of life and to understand that nothing that we have, nothing that we value, nothing that we have earned makes God value us more highly than God values us now and certainly does not ensure that God values us any more than other person. 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Holding a dinner party – who to invite, where to seat them

Law or Compassion – healing on the Sabbath

August 23, 2025

Pentecost 11 – 2025

Luke 13:10-17

Marian Free

Loving God, grant us a clarity of vision, that enables us to determine right from wrong and gives us courage to act when others believe that we should not. Amen.

There are some choices which simply shouldn’t have to be made – neither choice has a good outcome. That we are often faced with difficult choices is evidenced in the popular sayings: “Choosing the lesser of two evils” or “it’s a lose/lose situation”. 

Recently in Queensland, we passed laws to enable Voluntary Assisted Dying. This was in response to a question: do we stand by and allow a dying person to live with unbearable pain, or do we give them some agency, the freedom to choose when to bring that life to an end? For Christians this is a choice fraught with danger not least because of our belief in the sanctity of life and the thought of hastening death by artificial means (or by suicide) raises the question as to whether or not VAD contradicts that belief. Over and against that is the fact that by not freeing someone to end their life, we know that we may be condemning them to a long, drawn-out, undignified, and agonising death.  Which is the lesser evil – showing love and compassion to the dying or allowing nature to take its course?  Which better demonstrates the love of God?

That the church can, and has, made choices between law and compassion is evidenced in our changed attitude to divorce and to the re-marriage of divorcees – the former of which was almost impossible until a century or so ago and the latter impossible until the 1970’s. In allowing divorce, the church eventually came to the conclusion that the pain and suffering inflicted on those in unhappy, violent marriages surely did not match up with the love, compassion and understanding that Jesus showed to people in a variety of situations and Jesus’ insistence that we have life in abundance.

In more recent memory, the church has also faced the reality that: “Till death us do part” does not mean that a spouse must stay in a marriage which is stultifying, dangerous and psychologically damaging for the person and for any children in the relationship. Jesus’ teaching against divorce and re-marrriage has been set aside in favour of what we believe Jesus’ response would be in the current era – that he would want an abused spouse to be set free to live.  

There are times when, as a church, we have to choose the lesser of two evils – disobeying Jesus’ teaching as it appears in the bible and interpreting Jesus’ actions and teachings for a different time and place. More than once, we have had to try to balance Christian ideals and values against regulations which have become untenable, unreasonable and harmful.

In so doing, we have Jesus as our model and guide.  Jesus was faced with difficult choices on many occasions – mostly in relation to whether or not it was right to break the Sabbath rule. He had to consider whether the health and well-being of a person was more important than the prohibition against working on the Sabbath and he always chose the needs of the person. Over and again, Jesus was faced with making a choice – between cultural norms and God’s love of all people, between religious norms and the social/psychological needs of the person in front of him, and between the norms surrounding family and the possibility that his teaching might split families. Overwhelmingly, Jesus’ chose to ignore law and convention in favour of God’s unconditional love. 

Jesus allowed a woman off the street and a woman with a haemorrhage to touch him, he ate with tax collectors and sinners, and he extended his healing power to Gentiles. Jesus’ insistence on putting people first, of showing God’s love rather than rigidly applying the law, meant that he was misunderstood, condemned and ultimately put to. death. Jesus risked social condemnation, religious persecution and the rejection of his message because he made choices which was contrary to what was expected of him. Always he chose compassion and love over a strict adherence to the law.

Jesus’ actions have, over time lost their power to offend and to shock. We take for granted that healing should be allowed on the Sabbath and forget that Jesus was deliberately making a choice to ignore or to break the law. It makes sense to us that Jesus’ should allow himself to be anointed by a strange woman – what a wonderful loving act we think. However, we don’t take into account the strict separation of men and women in the first century and the deep offense that her actions caused to those who witnessed it. We think, ‘of course Jesus would heal the leper’, forgetting the deep fear around the transmission of leprosy and the strict cleanliness laws that were instituted to stop the spread of the disease. 

Jesus was out of step with his time and culture, he was a troublemaker, a lawbreaker, a radical. He was arrogant enough to believe that the religious law did not apply to him.  He ignored social and religious convention and tried to behave as he believed God would behave – always prioritising the health and well-being of a person over strict adherence to laws that had reached their use-by date. 

Throughout history the church has made, often uncomfortable, decisions between law and compassion. The church has tried to make decisions based on what Jesus might do in the present moment, rather than on what he said or did in a vastly different time and place. We must pray that we have Jesus’ clarity of vision so that we can recognise when laws that were intended to set us free have become laws that bind, when regulations designed for our protection have become instead our prison, and when laws that force people to endure unbearable suffering have lost their power to heal. May we see as Jesus saw and have the courage to break the law, when breaking the law more powerfully demonstrates the love and the will of God.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in healing, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Law or Compassion – healing on the Sabbath

I have come to bring fire. Does Jesus divide families?

August 16, 2025

Pentecost 10 – 2025

Luke 12:49-59

Marian Free

In the name of God Earth-Maker, Pain-Bearer, Life-Giver. Amen.

On Thursday, (August 14) the church marked the Feast of the Twentieth Century martyrs. One of these was Manche Masemola from South Africa who at the beginning of  the century converted to Christianity against the wishes of her parents. When the medicine of a Sangoma (a traditional African faith healer) failed to undo the ‘spell” which her parents felt had her in its grasp, her parents murdered Manche. She was only 14 or 15 when she was killed.  Apparently, before she died, she had said that she “would be baptised in her own blood.” Manche was recognised as a martyr by the church in. South Africa within ten years of her death and she is one of the martyrs commemorated above the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey.

There were more martyrs in the 20th century than in any century prior and Manche’s story is far from unique. Pakistan for example, has strict blasphemy laws the punishment for which is death[1]. Christians can be accused of blasphemy by those who have a grudge against. Them and while the death sentence is rarely carried out by. the judiciary people often take the matter into their own hands, beating and sometimes killing those whom they believe have offended Allah. 

“I have a baptism with which to baptised!” Jesus declares this morning before he goes on to say: “Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”

Many people today find these words of Jesus deeply disturbing and out of sync with their understanding of a Jesus who heals and forgives faith which provides comfort and assurance.  The problem is that we read this passage from the perspective of a faith which, in the West at least, has been the predominant faith for close to seventeen centuries and which, since its adoption by Constantine as the religion of the state has come to be almost indistinguishable from many of the communities in which it finds itself. (Sometimes it is difficult to determine which societal values have been influenced by the Christian faith and which Christian values have taken on attributes of the society in which it finds itself.)

In the ancient world it was very different. No one was born a Christian – they had to convert.  Conversion often came at a great cost – loss of family and friends, loss of income and the attendant loss of social status. Members of the Christian community were frequently ostracised by friends and family and harassed by neighbours and fellow citizens.[2] To those in the Greco-Roman Empire, worshipping the local gods built community – everyone participated in the local festivals, ate at the local temples and so on. A Christian could no longer join in the festivities or eat food sacrificed to idols and thus could be seen as a source of social division. Further, local gods were understood to protect the community, so refusal (by the newly converted) to worship the gods put the whole community at risk. Likewise, a refusal to worship the Emperor would place the whole community in jeopardy. A Christian who refused to worship the local gods, and who was opposed to Emperor worship was seen as endangering the whole community. Christians were not a seen as a benign presence but as a very real threat to the safety and stability of the community in which they found themselves. They would have found themselves resented at best and reviled and “persecuted” at worst. 

A further cause of isolation and deprivation for a convert was the inability to work. Tradespeople had to belong to a guild, and guilds were associated with a particular god and temple. Christians, being unable to participate in temple worship, were excluded from the guild and often found themselves unable to work. On top of the social isolation and harassment, converts experienced unemployment and therefore no income.

For the same reasons, families were divided when a family member converted to Christianity. Believers were no longer able to participate in family events (usually associated with religious festivals) and they were deemed to be troublemakers because of their refusal to conform to local norms and to behave in ways that protected the city.

The situation was only slightly better for those who converted from Judaism, but they too found themselves cut off from family and friends who did not agree that Jesus was the Christ. 

“From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided:

                  father against son

                                    and son against father,

                  mother against daughter

                                    and daughter against mother,

                  mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law

                                    and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”  (Luke 12:53)

Words that are shocking and confrontational to us, were simply expressing the reality of the time, and for many in the world today, expressing the reality of our our own time. According to a study carried out by the House of Commons last year, one in seven Christians in the world is persecuted. [3] In many places, making an active decision to follow Jesus still comes at a great cost. Conversion divides families (even communities), leads to social isolation and in the worst case scenarios can result in death.

When Jesus says that he has come to bring fire to the earth, he is simply stating what he knows to be true – that the message he brings is dangerous and will be divisive and that those who accept the gospel will be considered as dangerous troublemakers by many and will suffer the consequences.

In our cosy “Christian” world it can be difficult to understand that faith in Jesus is dangerous and costly, hard to grasp that something that (to us) as socially acceptable as holding the Christian faith could cause our friends and neighbours to see us as a threat. It is impossible for us to associate baptism with Jesus’ wish to bring fire to the. earth [4], but this is a reality for many and should challenge us to not only think of those who suffer for their faith, but to ask ourselves whether or not we have in fact become too comfortable.

[1] To discover which countries have made conversion illegal, and in which countries Christians are persecuted check this link https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-christianity-is-illegal..

[2] Paul speaks about being persecuted, but. there was no state censured persecution till much he is probably referring to isolation and harassment.

[3] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0017/#:~:text=1%20in%207%20Christians%20are,fragile%20states%20to%20support%20FoRB

[4] Jesus here, is probably looking forward (not in a positive sense) to his crucifixion and wishing that ti could be over and done with. It would not be unrealistic for those undergoing persecution to apply these. Words to thm

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on I have come to bring fire. Does Jesus divide families?

Treasure in heaven

August 10, 2025

Pentecost 9 – 2025

Luke 12:32-40

Marian Free

In the name of God Earth-Maker, Pain-Bearer and Life-Giver. Amen.

Once again, the lectionary has made a great leap and omitted the passage that would connect today’s gospel with what we heard last week. In so doing, it has also thrown together two apparently unrelated ideas. The first, which continues the theme of reliance on God and a second which introduces a new theme – that of being ready for God’s coming. Jesus, having urged the disciples not to worry, not to be afraid, now seems intent on creating a sense of urgency which could very easily lead to the anxiety which he counsels against. Focussing on the future coming of the Son of Man would seem to be the exact opposite of relaxing into the present.

In coming to an understanding of what is happening here, we have to remember two things. One is that Jesus almost certainly shared his wisdom conversationally. In other words, he probably dropped sayings into his discussions with his disciples or when he spoke to those who questioned him. It is unlikely that he sat down and reeled off a list of sayings in the way that we receive them in the gospels. Jesus’ sayings were remembered and repeated by Jesus’ followers after his death, and it is possible that before the gospels were written sayings on similar topics began to be grouped together. When the gospel writers started to compile their accounts of Jesus and Jesus’ teaching they had at their disposal collections of sayings as they were remembered and repeated by the different communities which had formed to remember and worship Jesus. The evangelists then used these sayings in ways which supported the picture of Jesus and the Jesus movement as they and their communities saw him/it.

This is most evident in Matthew and Luke both of whom appear to have made use of material that Mark either did not have access to or did not want to use. Mattthew has gathered most of these collected sayings into what we call the Sermon on the Mount whereas Luke has used almost identical material but divided the sayings into a sermon which is delivered on a plain and in Jesus’ teaching on the way to Jerusalem. 

To recap – Jesus almost certainly didn’t stand up and reel off a list of sayings, rather his sayings were gathered together by his followers and were then used in different ways by the gospel writers.

A second point follows from the first, the gospel writers (maybe following their sources) grouped the sayings more or less according to common themes which served their particular emphasis.

It is for this reason that it is always useful to read the gospels set for a Sunday in their context in the gospel as a whole and in its particular setting. This enables us to understand the whole picture that the writer is trying to get across.

In the case of this morning’s readings, the broader context is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem which began at the end of chapter 9. Beginning with the Lord’s Prayer which we considered a fortnight ago, a common thread seems to be dependence on God, rather than on material, earthly things and living in the present. “Give us today our daily bread,” Jesus says. In the parable of the barn builder that theme is picked up again – dependence on God not on material, earthly things and living in the present (rather than preparing for a future that was not to eventuate. Verses 12:22-31(those which were omitted) amplify this theme – “do not worry about your life”, “do not strive for what you are to eat,” Jesus says. Again, in these verses we see a theme of dependence on God not on material, earthly things and living in the present.

Our first saying this morning fits this theme perfectly – “make purses that do not wear out,” “where your treasure is there your heart will be also” – dependence on God, not on material, earthly things and living in the present.

It is much harder to fit the second and third sayings into this pattern especially when they are followed by another longer, but similar saying about the (implied) coming of God/the Son of Man. How do we make a connection between dependence on God and the surprise of God suddenly and unexpectedly – as a master who serves his slaves or, more surprising still, as a thief in the night?

Of course, we can never know in what context Jesus spoke these sayings or why Luke placed them one after the other. Most commentaries would suggest a break between verses 34 and 35 thus separating the apparently different ideas. However, whether or not the author intended it, we can detect a connection between the apparently different sayings. Dependence on God, having one’s heart in the right place, valuing what lasts (rather than what does not last), being content in the present and not striving for an uncertain future are all attitudes and ways of being that ensure that a believer will be ready for God’s coming no matter how delayed or how unexpected. 

If, while we have time, we focus on God and what God has done and is doing us and if we place our futures in God’s hands, and if we trust in God and not in our possessions, we will not be caught off guard when the Son of Man or God break into the present. If we learn not to be anxious about the future, but learn to live in the present, we won’t be so distracted by our worry that we are not paying attention to what is happening now. And if we have found our treasure is in heaven we will have nothing to lose or protect. 

Readiness need not lead to a state of anxiety and indecision  but rather the opposite – a quiet peace knowing that our lives already belong to God and that our hearts already belong to the kingdom.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | 1 Comment »

Building barns for the future or living in the now

August 4, 2025

Pentecost 8 – 2025

Luke 12:13-21

Marian Free

In the name of God Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Amen.

In many rural communities today, and certainly in first century Palestine, farming land is/was divided evenly among the sons. The intention being that the land would remain in the family and that each son would be able to raise his own children on the produce of the land. As you can imagine, a major flaw with this system is that as the land is divided into increasingly smaller lots it becomes unviable to farm. 

An alternative practice is that illustrated in the novels of Jane Austen. Families who owned large estates “entailed” the estate on the eldest living male relative – usually a son, but sometimes a nephew or an even more remote family member. This meant two things one was that any other son, despite having been raised in privilege, had to find a way to make a living – in the armed forces, in the law or as a clergy person. Women, as Austen’s novels illustrate, were particularly vulnerable. They had to submit to a planned marriage to someone whose income was in a similar range to their father’s – love rarely came into it or, as a single (or widowed) woman she would be entirely dependent on the good will of relatives for her food and board.

We are no longer governed by such laws, but inheritance can be an ugly business as battles through the courts demonstrate. Rich relatives, even parents, can use wealth as a weapon to manipulate their potential heirs. Children who feel unfairly done by take their stepparents – even their remaining parent – to court. Those whose parent has remarried may have to witness a totally unrelated person (and maybe that person’s family) receiving the entirety of that parent’s estate. So often the division of an estate does not seem fair and more often than not, it leads to a focus on money and possessions to the detriment of relationships.

Inheritance is a messy business, so when Jesus is asked to tell someone’s brother to divide the family inheritance with him, Jesus judiciously refuses to be drawn in. Instead, Jesus chooses to reflect on the dangers of greed – of wanting more than we need, of being jealous of what others have, of always striving for the next thing rather than enjoying what we have in the present, or of focussing so much on our possessions (gaining them or protecting them) that we neglect our families and our friends and fail to enjoy the moment.

To this end, in response to the man’s question, Jesus tells the parable of the man with the unexpectedly large crop.

As is the case with all the parables Jesus doesn’t worry about details – the size of the man’s property, his marital or family status. The man is a generic “rich” man – the implication being that he already has more than enough. He is not, like the majority of his fellow Palestinians eking out a miserable existence on a minute piece of land. The rich man already has barns (plural) in which to store his excess crops, the problem is that now they are not large enough. So, he has a dialogue with himself[1] -the solution he comes up with is to pull down his existing barns and to build bigger ones.  (This, of course, is impractical – what happens to the stored and recently harvested grain in the meantime? Jesus’ parables are not meant to make sense, but to make a point.)

We, who live longer and who are encouraged to plan for our financial future, might see some wisdom in the rich man’s behaviour, but the point of Jesus’ story is that the man is so focussed on his future, so determined to build (not share) his wealth that he fails to enjoy his present. Planning for a future that cannot be manipulated or controlled, the rich man has not noticed the riches he already has.  All his preparation will be for nothing, for in this case he has no future, and he will die not having achieved his goal.

As we will see again next week, Jesus has much to say about being content in the present, enjoying what we do have rather than striving for what we do not have, being content rather than living in a state of discontent. Think of “give us today our daily bread”, “do not worry about your life, what you will eat, what you will drink” (12:22), “can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?” (12:25).

Our situation and culture is very different from that into which Jesus speaks. There are expectations that those of us who can, will set aside funds so that we don’t become a burden on others and that is good and wise, but if building wealth for the future becomes our sole preoccupation we may miss opportunities (family time, travel, experiences) in the present. 

None of us know how long our futures will be. Like the rich man we may lose our life or our health at any moment and never have the opportunity to enjoy those things that we have put off. 

Interestingly, the evangelist has used this parable as a condemnation of greed, but taken without the commentary, and in conjunction with the sayings that follow, Jesus appears to be urging his listeners to live in the present moment , to take time to smell the roses, to appreciate the blessings and opportunities they have now and to trust God with both the present and the future. 

In a few verses Jesus will say: “For where your treasure, there your heart will be also” (12:34). What do you treasure and how do you make that known?

[1] Luke often provides an inner dialogue so that we know what the person in the parable is thinking.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Building barns for the future or living in the now

Our Father

July 26, 2025

Pentecost 7 – 2025

Luke 11:1-13

Marian Free

In the name of God, Source of all Being, Eternal Word, Spirit of Life. Amen.

“Our Father in heaven”. I wonder how many times in a lifetime will we have said that prayer. If a church-going person who lives till eighty has been saying the prayer every Sunday from the time they were five, that would add up to 3,900 times. Of course, most church-going people would say the prayer on other occasions as well – maybe every day – which would bring the number of times it was said to 27375! Those who say the daily office would say the prayer twice a day and so the number of times continues to rise. In other words, most of us are so familiar and so comfortable with The Lord’s Prayer that the prayer rolls off our tongues without our giving them much thought. The prayer can become a bit like a mantra, something we say to connect us to God, but not something we say as a call to action. 

Who knows what the disciples were expecting when they asked Jesus to teach them to pray, but the prayer he gave them is profoundly challenging and confrontational. As THE prayer, the prayer given to us by Jesus, it contains within it all that is necessary to live in accordance with the life and teaching of Jesus and demands that we change our lives in response. 

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name:

  • The prayer acknowledges that God is relational, not remote, yet at the same time the prayer reminds that even the name of God is holy and that in God’s presence we are standing on holy ground. 

Your kingdom come, your will be done:

  • We utter a desire that God’s kingdom become a reality on earth – that peace, justice and equity should reign here – not only in heaven. Implicit in this petition is a recognition that for God’s kingdom to be the overarching rule on earth, those of us who make this prayer need to be willing to submit ourselves, our lives, our all, to the will of God. In other words, God’s kingdom will not be imposed on earth but will become a reality when enough of us are willing to make it so. 

Give us today our daily bread:

  • Jesus teaches us to ask for what we need each day, to trust in God to give us enough, not too much or too little. There is much wisdom behind this prayer and it maybe an echo of Prov 30:8b,9: “give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that I need, or I shall be full, and deny you, and say, “Who is the LORD? or I shall be poor, and steal, and profane the name of my God.” 

Learning to live with only what we need helps us to be satisfied with what we have, means that we stop competing with others for more and ideally leads to a situation in which everyone has enough. Give us today our daily bread teaches us to rely on God, not ourselves, to meet both our spiritual and physical needs. Being content with what we have, trusting that God has our best interests at heart, enables us to be at peace with ourselves and with the world and ensures that there is enough to go around.

Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who are indebted to us.

  • In this, the most debated sentence of the prayer, we are apparently asking God to follow our example of forgiveness, but like so much of the New Testament, the forgiveness of debt has to be seen in context. Deuteronomy, especially Deut 15, imposes the forgiveness of debt as both a religious and social obligation. Every seven years, debts owed by Israelites by Israelites were to be forgiven (not paid). This practice ensured that no one among the Israelites was permanently impoverished or enslaved. Forgive us our sins as we forgive debts might read: do not hold our wrongdoings against us forever. Set us free from our sin so that we are no longer burdened by it. The subtext here, is that being set free, we might feel so liberated that our propensity to sin might be diminished!

Save us from the time of trial.

  • Jesus may have added this line as an aspirational statement, not a possibility to be realised.  More than anyone else, Jesus knew that no matter how obedient, how trusting, how holy a person is, God cannot protect them from the cruelty of other human beings, or from the erratic operation of mother nature.

The Lord’s Prayer is not intended to provide reassurance or to lull us into a false sense of security. Certainly, it is a prayer that relieves us of worry and that asks that we  be freed from sin, but it is also a call to action. It is a prayer that must not only be said but lived – not only every day, but every minute of every day. Every time we prayer these words we are recognising the awesomeness of the one in whose presence we stand at the same time as acknowledging that the one who is beyond imagination is one with whom we can be in relationship. We are committing ourselves to daily submission to the rule of God to ensure that God’s kingdom will come. We are recognising that what we have, over and above what we need, we have at the expense of someone else and trusting God to give us what is necessary – not what we want. We are hoping that God will set us free from all that binds us and that God will be with us in our darkest moments.

The Lord’s Prayer is a dangerous prayer. It envisages a time when the earth will mirror heaven. It demands our complete and total trust in God, and a willingness to temper our desires for more than we need. It is not to be said lightly, but only with a willingness to be conformed more and more into the image of Christ and a belief that giving ourselves totally to God will satisfy us more than anything on earth can ever do.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel, Prayer | Comments Off on Our Father

Whose ministry – Mary’s or Martha’s

July 19, 2025

Pentecost 6 – 2024

Luke 10:36-42

Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us to different roles and responsibilities and who encourages us to use our different gifts and abilities in the sharing of the gospel. Amen.

I am sure that I don’t need to tell you that Peter, James and John were part of Jesus’ inner circle. They were witnesses to his transfiguration and were close to him in the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter identifies Jesus as the Christ.  It may surprise you to know that these three are largely absent from the Gospel of John. In that Gospel, the significant players – those with a speaking part – are Andrew, Phillip and Thomas. This leads to the conclusion that peter, James and John played a significant role in the communities behind the Synoptic Gospels but not in the community from which the Gospel of John emerged.

The different characters suggest that in the emerging communities behind the Synoptic gospels Peter, James and John were people of some significance but that in the Johannine community others – specifically Andrew, Phillip and Thomas – were leaders for it is these three who have speaking roles in the fourth gospel.  

In a similar way, if women are given a significant role in a gospel it suggests that they also had an important role in the emerging church.  In a society in which women were relegated to the margins, the fact that they are mentioned at all is significant. This is most clearly demonstrated in John’s gospel, in which nearly half a chapter is devoted to the role played by Mary Magdalene as a witness to the resurrection. What is more Mary is given the responsibility of telling the disciples that Jesus is risen which making her the Apostle to the Apostles. 

It seems that at the time the gospels were written the memory of those who played foundational roles in the early communities is still fresh. Even though the church is settling down and conforming more to the world around it, women who played important roles in the early communities cannot easily be written out of the story.

This is particularly evident when it comes to the sisters Martha and Mary who are mentioned twice in the gospels – here in the gospel of Luke, and in connection with the raising of Lazarus in John’s gospel. In both accounts the women are depicted as women who make up their own minds and in John it is Martha not Peter, who identifies Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. 

Unfortunately, thanks in part to our translators, in Luke, the roles of Martha and Mary are domesticated and circumscribed. It is easy to read the account of Jesus’ visit as a silencing of both women – Mary who passively sits and listens and Martha who is described as distracted. The translation and the subsequent stereotyping of the two women creates a binary between action and contemplation that continues to this day and suggests that the role of women is either passive listening or busy organising.

The account of Jesus’ visit to the home of the sisters takes up only seven verses, so there is much that we do not know. We do not know for example how old the women were, what their financial status was or why there is no male in their household. Nor do we know if Jesus turned up alone or (more than likely) in the company of the twelve, whether he dropped in for a meal or planned to stay for a day or two. What we do know is that the culture of the time placed a high value on hospitality – think for example of the man who wakes his neighbour in the middle of the night so that he can have some bread for an unexpected guest.

Clearly, in the absence of a brother or husband, Martha is the householder. It is her responsibility to ensure that Jesus and those with him are made welcome and fed. As the householder, she naturally expects Mary to help.

Our translation leads us to believe that Jesus chides Martha for her preoccupation with getting ready when in fact Jesus may be offering her sympathy in recognition of the demands of her ministry. Margaret Wesley translates verses 40 and 41as: “But Martha was overwhelmed by many ministry responsibilities, so she came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do all the ministry by myself? Tell her to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are going to so much trouble and you have so many responsibilities to worry about!” 

But does Jesus chastise Martha for wanting to determine Marry’s choice – yes perhaps. Note that the Greek tells us that Mary is commended for choosing the good (not the better) portion, that of a student. Martha’s fault, if she has one, is that of not recognising that it is not her role to determine Mary’s path. God’s call on Mary is not for Martha to determine. Both women are called to and assume ministry roles – one of deacon, one of student – neither is better than the other, both are necessary. 

Before we consign Martha to the role of easily distracted, shallow woman and elevate a silenced Mary to the ideal model of womanhood, we need to unpack Luke’s purpose in telling the story, the blinkers worn by translators, and the preconceptions we bring to the tale from the ways in which we have heard the story in the past.

Before we apply stereotypes to anyone in our society, before we assume that know their interests and their capabilities, before we limit and define their roles and their contribution, we need to be sure that we know the full story, we need to understand the lens through which we see and the assumptions that we bring to bear.

We are all called to serve in a multitude of different ways. The one who calls and equips is never one of us, but always God.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel, Mary Magdalene | Comments Off on Whose ministry – Mary’s or Martha’s

Shaking off the dust -sending out of seventy

July 16, 2025

Pentecost 4 – 2025 (out of order due to holiday)

Luke 10:1-12, 17-24

Marian Free

In the name of God who desire is that we love God of our own volition and not through force. Amen.

Love that is forced is not love, obedience that is coerced is not obedience, faith that is demanded and enforced through fear is not faith.

In many countries today, the rules and tenets of a particular faith are imposed on the entire population. (More accurately, one particular interpretation of the rules and tenets are imposed on peoples who have a different understanding of the faith, or no faith at all.) Such regulations, rather than being ideals and values to which all might aspire, become burdens under which many are oppressed – forced to live according to “religious” norms which prevent them from living life to the full. The weight of such restrictions falls primarily on women, but their oppression affects the lives of those around them.

Of course, external signs of adherence to a particular faith – conservative or distinctive forms of dress, the eating or not of particular foods, time spent in prayer – are no indication of an inner state of being. (The recent exposure of child sex abuse within institutions including the church, is evidence that the most vile behaviour and thought can be disguised by an outwardly pious and conformist deportment.)  

Faith that is imposed is not faith. Codes of behaviour that are conformed to but not embraced have no meaning at all but rather lead to resentment, fear and deceit.

The history of the Christian church provides many instances when this premise has been forgotten. When Constantine made Christianity the faith of the Empire, those seeking public positions had to declare an allegiance to the Christian faith. In the time of Empire building, missionaries of all denominations spread out through the world imposing the faith (and with it Western values) on the nations which had been subdued. There are success stories, but there are many who mourn the loss or degradation of their own cultures and traditions to. Christianity that was difficult to distinguish from Empire.

Jesus’ approach was quite different. He was confident in his message of good news, certain of God’s love and the inclusion of all, and sure that following him would give life to those who followed in the present and in the future. But he did not insist on faith as a prerequisite for healing or exorcism and his condemnation was not for those who did not believe but rather for those whose outward behaviour belied unthinking, callous hearts.

Above all Jesus did not impose faith on anyone. He did not insist that those who needed healing become card-carrying believers first, he responded to the needs of those who did not conform to the society around them and paid attention to rank outsiders – the Samaritans and even the representatives of the Roman Empire. 

Last week we observed the enthusiasm of James and John who, when a Samaritan village refused Jesus a welcome, wanted to call down fire and destroy them. Far from supporting their passionate response to the lack of faith, Jesus chides them for thinking that the alternative to accepting Jesus’s message is destruction of all those who refuse it.

Today’s reading is a little more subtle and often misinterpreted but has the same issue. Jesus is sending out 70 of his disciples. They have strict instructions about what to take (or more specifically what not to take). And Jesus gives this instruction: “But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’”

It is easy to read (and often is read) this as Jesus’ condemnation of those who refuse his message, but in the context of first century Palestine the phrase has the meaning: “Don’t stress, let them be, leave them behind you.” The message is preached, the good news shared and a choice is given. If the choice is ‘no’ don’t worry, move on to the next village. Share the message as widely as possible and allow people to make up their minds as to whether or not to accept. (In much the same way as the sower tossed the seeds randomly and let it grow as it would, so the disciples are to spread the good news without being concerned about how it was received.)

Sometimes I think we take evangelism too seriously. We measure our ‘success’ in terms of number of converts, as if God is taking an inventory. In the light of the gospel perhaps we should turn this idea on its head. Maybe it is more important that as many people as possible know about the good news, and are left to make up their own minds, today, tomorrow, in a distant future or never at all. It is not about us, it is not about numbers, it is simply about sharing what gives our lives meaning and direction and accepting that the rest is up to God.

How often and to how many times have you shared what you know to be the good news of having Jesus in your life? 

Don’t worry about how articulate you are, don’t worry if they don’t want to hear. If Jesus’ good news has been good news for you, just share – leave the rest to God.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in discipleship, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Shaking off the dust -sending out of seventy

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »