Archive for the ‘Luke’s gospel’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Commending shrewdness

September 15, 2022

Pentecost 15 – 2022
Luke 16:1-13
Marian Free

In the name of God who asks us to attend to the future with as much care as we attend to the present. Amen.

Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. 2 So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’ 3 Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’ 5 So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ 7 Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’ 8 And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. 9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. (NRSV)

I think that it was six years ago that a friend and parishioner developed a drama based on the gospel of the shrewd manager and an article by a student Jeffrey Durkin . The drama made such good sense of what many find to be a difficult parable that there was an audible intake of breath from the congregation and a sermon on the topic was really unnecessary. For those who are interested I have reproduced the drama below.

Durkin’s article was so compelling that I am going to have another attempt to help you to make sense of a parable in which Jesus appears to be commending dishonest and which to be fair, most reasonable people take offense at – wondering what it is doing in scriptures.

Before we begin there are a number of important principles that we have to accept.

Jesus was speaking to a culture removed in time and place from our own. People in first century Palestine operated according to different values and their lives were seriously impacted by the fact that they had existed under foreign occupation. The rural economy in which land had passed from father to son for generations had been disrupted by Caesar’s practice of giving grants of land to returning soldiers. Not only were farmers displaced but the landowners rarely took up residence on their land, choosing to live somewhere more attractive and to appoint managers/stewards to administer their estates. Such managers (some of whom were slaves) acted on the owner’s behalf. A manager made decisions about the day-to-day running of the property and was able to make decisions about the expenditure of money and the offering loans as well as about the incurring and forgiveness of debts. Much as is the case in large landholdings today – the manager had the same authority as the owner.

A central cultural value of the time (and still in parts of the Middle East today) was that of honour/shame. A person’s honour determined their place in society, was easily lost and was more valuable than money, land or possessions. Unlike those who today have the luxury of planning for distant events, those in Jesus’ time were more likely to act out of current desires than in pursuit of a long-term goal.

Both of these issues come into play when trying to come to grips with today’s parable.
An understanding of biblical criticism is also essential in making sense of today’s parable. Jesus’ teachings circulated as oral tradition for some 40-50 years after Jesus’ death. During that time they were applied to new situations and retold from memory. The gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE at a time when first generation of Jesus’ followers had died and it was felt that it was important to record what he said before there was too much variation. The gospels that made it into what we know as the New Testament were not written dispassionately, with an emphasis on accuracy. They were written with a specific intent (which explains the differences between them). There is evidence of editorial content – especially when it comes to the arrangement of material.

It is important to take all these things into consideration particularly when we are trying to come to terms with teaching that doesn’t immediately make sense. It is also essential to let go of our preconceived ideas and our inherited ways of understanding so that we can see the scriptures with new eyes.

With regard to the parable of the Unjust Steward (only recorded by Luke) the first thing to do is to try to determine what might be original to Jesus and what might be attributed to the editor. Scholars agree that the parable proper consists of verses 1-8a and that v8b introduces a sermon on what might be an unrelated topic, “the sons of this world” and the “sons of light” . Furthermore, the relevance of verses 10-13 in relation to the parable is obscure at best. In considering the parable then, we will look only at 1-8a.

That is a lot of background but given the difficulty that most people have with this parable, it does give us some context against which to understand it.

In the first verse Jesus introduces the characters – a rich man and a steward. It is important to note that we are told nothing about the steward’s character or previous behaviour, only that a report has been brought to the landowner alleging that he is squandering his master’s property. A first century audience would immediately know that whether or not the steward was innocent the reputation (honour) of the landowner would have already been compromised – at least one person believed that he had allowed himself to be defrauded and may already have insinuated as much to other members of the community. They would also know that in that situation the steward would have no means of self-defence – no third party to make a decision on the matter.

Interestingly, though the landowner asks the steward for an accounting of his management, it appears that he fires him without any reference to the financial record. Also important is that though he fires the steward, he inflicts no punishment (something which may be intended to tell us something about the generosity of the landowner and which will make more sense of the conclusion).

What follows (v2,3) is an interior dialogue as the steward considers what to do . Once again honour (as well as age) is a contributing factor in his decision. Then the manager announces that he has made a decision – he will place other people in his debt by reducing the value of their debts (v4, which he does in verses 5-7)! Though his master (who is already rich) might lose some income, his honour – the far more important commodity – will not only have been restored it will have been enhanced! So, we see that it is for this reason that the landowner commends the steward for his shrewdness – the steward’s actions have increased the landowner’s status in the eyes of the community. At this point the generous and forgiving nature of the landowner are called to mind – the steward is not reinstated but is praised for taking action to secure his future (contrary to the cultural norm of being concerned only with the present.)

Durkin summarises the situation in this way: “a master has a steward who has wasted his possessions and dishonored him. The master dismisses the steward, creating a crisis for the steward, but he does not punish him. The steward hatches a risky plan to take advantage of his master’s forgiving nature and to secure his own future. By reducing the amounts of the debts owed his master, he creates goodwill in the community for both himself and his master. The master praises the steward for his purposeful action in the securing of his own future.”

Jesus tells parables to upend our way of thinking and to challenge well-held views. Of all the parables this is perhaps the most confronting, which means that if it does its job, it shakes us into reconsidering our lives. The parable is not about management, honesty dishonestly, rather it is about futureproofing.

We are challenged to consider whether we spend so much time securing our comfort in this life that we pay no attention to preparing for the next? Are we so concerned with the present that we have taken our eyes off the future, or like the steward, are we shrewd enough to recognise that securing our comfort for eternity might take some forward planning?

Drama for Luke 16 by Juliet Quinlan

The characters: Mr/Mrs Rich (R), owner of a chain of stores; (K) Kath/Kevin, supervisor of one of R’s stores.

Part 1

R: Good morning K. Please sit down.

K: Good morning.

(Both sit down – two chairs facing each other.)

R: I’ll get straight to the point, K. This is the third time in three months I’ve had to call you in to my office to tell you that your performance isn’t what I’d expect from one of my store supervisors. There have been complaints from customers that you’re offhand with them, you’ve closed early on several occasions, the takings from your store are down…

K: (Shrugs) I’m sorry, I promise I’ll do better.

R: No, K, that’s not good enough. I’m very reluctant to do this, but I’m going to have to let you go. I’m losing money, and even worse, my reputation is being squandered. I’m willing to give you a month’s notice, but please try to leave the store in good shape. (Both stand up. R shakes K’s hand, looks sympathetic).

(K and R both exit.)

Part two

(K sits alone OR addresses the congregation.)

K: What am I going to do? I know I haven’t been efficient like I used to be. I’ve just got so bored with this place, that’s the problem. My heart hasn’t been in it. But how can I live now? I don’t want to be on the dole for the rest of my life. I need some inspiration…(Frowns, shakes head, looks anguished. Then straightens up, eyes wide open): OK, I’m beginning to get an idea…

Part three

(R beckons K into the office again. They remain standing.)

R: So this is your last day, K. I wonder why you’re looking so happy.

K: Oh well…

R: I think I know why you’re pleased with yourself. The accountant picked up an anomaly for this store. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you?

(K shrugs shoulders)

R: For the last month the cash you’ve banked has been around half the amount the cash register says it should be. Can you explain how this could have happened?

K: I took the money.

R: So you thought it’d be smart to give yourself a bonus, did you?

K: No, I gave it all to charity.

R: Why? What was the point of that?

K: I told the Coordinator of my favourite charity that you wanted to make a large donation, and made an appointment to hand it over. We got talking and I told her how I’d love to help, and some ideas I have, and now they’ve agreed for me to work for them as a volunteer. Perhaps I might get paid work there eventually. And it’s something I’ll really like doing, something fulfilling for the rest of my life…

R: But it was my money.

K: Well you’ve sometimes said money isn’t everything, that your main goal is to make your customers happy. I know how concerned you are about the company’s public image and I’ve heard you give quite a lot away yourself.

R (stops, thinks, then starts to laugh): Well, I must say I’m amazed. You’ve been really clever. You’ve made me look good in the eyes of your charity, and made a positive plan for your future. Good luck to you! (Smiles, claps K on the shoulder, shakes hands). Off you go. And I hope the future gives you all that you hope for.

(Both exit)

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Commending shrewdness

Searching for the lost

September 9, 2022

Pentecost 14 – 2022
Luke 15:1-10 (Jeremiah 4:11-12, 22-28)
Marian Free

In the name of God who searches for the lost and brings them safely home. Amen.

I have often said that I am not sure what lies behind the thinking of the compilers of our lectionary. When read out of context, passages such as those from Jeremiah this morning, make little sense. One wonders about the relevance of the words of a prophet, spoken to a faithless people, apply to us today. Certainly, in view of the current climate crisis, we could argue that the water crisis in many parts of the world is God’s punishment for the world’s turning away from God. The problem with that argument is not only that we are appropriating the prophet’s words for our own purposes, but worse is the implication that follows – that (for example) those forced to flee their homes to refugee camps in northern Syria, and who are now facing water insecurity, brought the situation on themselves.

If one reads: “I looked, and lo, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger” (Jer 4:26) and other such passages out of context, it is not difficult to understand why there are many Christians who find the Old Testament writings to be both disconcerting and discouraging. They find in its pages a vindicative, demanding and angry God – a God who is vastly different from the one that they experience in the pages of the New Testament – and so they abandon the Old Testament (and the riches it contains).

It is true that the writings of the prophets (as Jeremiah this morning) are often judgemental, bleak, and full of foreboding; but, despite this, many will tell you that the Old Testament is God’s love letter to God’s people.

To understand this concept, we need to understand that (despite the story of Abraham), establishing a faith in the one true God did not happen overnight. The Israelites (the children of Abraham) found themselves in the midst of nations who worshipped a multitude of gods and, it appears that it was sometimes difficult for the Israelites to hold fast to a God whom they could not see when their neighbours worshipped idols whom they could see and touch. (Among other things, this led to the creation of the golden calves when Moses, who was receiving the ten commandments from God, left the Israelites alone in the desert and the building of the ‘high places’ and worship of Baal in Israel.)

If we read the Old Testament in its entirety, instead of picking and choosing passages, we will see that over and over again, the Israelites abandon God and serve the gods of the surrounding nations. Over and over again God (through the prophets) expresses disappointment and warns them of the consequences of deserting the faith of their forbears. Over and over again God urges the people to return to God and promises to make them a new creation. And, over and over again, God reaches out in love to bring God’s people home. For example, were we to read further in Jeremiah we would find the beautiful words of reassurance in chapters 30 and 31: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you” (31:3).

Neglecting the Old Testament means that we never discover the image of God with which the book of Hosea concludes. After several chapters in which God expresses anger and frustration at a people who constantly chase after other gods, God seems to pull godself up, remembering that it was God who taught Ephraim (another word for Israel) to walk, God who lifted Israel to God’s cheek. Then follow these heartrending words of yearning:
“How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, O Israel?
How can I make you like Admah?
How can I treat you like Zeboiim?
My heart recoils within me;
my compassion grows warm and tender.
9 I will not execute my fierce anger;
I will not again destroy Ephraim;
for I am God and no mortal,
the Holy One in your midst,
and I will not come in wrath”.(Hosea 11:8,9)

“My compassion grows warm and tender, and I will not come in wrath.”

A solid knowledge of the Old Testament reveals it to be a revelation of God’s love for God’s people. It is important that when we read the Old Testament, we read it in context, but more than that, we have to remember that it was foundational for Jesus’ image of God, that the God depicted in the Old Testament was the God whom Jesus knew. This means that when Jesus speaks of God, or the kingdom of God, he is informed by his faith, a faith rooted in the Old Testament ideas of God. Jesus knew the story of Israel and of God’s longing that Israel be restored to God. Jesus knew the shepherd/guide of Psalm 23; the God who, in verses omitted in today’s reading from Jeremiah says: “If you return to me and remove your abominations from me .. then the nations shall be blessed by him” (4:1,2); and the God of Isaiah who: “will feed his flock like a shepherd; gather the lambs in his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and gently lead the mother sheep” (40:11). Jesus shares God’s compassion for and love of Israel and, while he too gets frustrated by hypocrisy and waywardness, Jesus shares God’s longing that the lost be found and restored to the people of Israel.

So, when Jesus tells the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, he is saying no new thing, he is describing the actions of the God of his forbears – the God of Jeremiah, the God of Hosea – a God who never loses hope in God’s people, a God who, no matter how far God’s people stray, never abandons them and a God who continually seeks out the lost and brings them home.

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

How do we measure up?

September 2, 2022

Pentecost 13 – 2022
Luke 14:25-33
Marian Free

May I speak in the name of God, Earthmaker, Painbearer and Lifegiver. Amen.

Some time ago a friend of ours who is a clinical psychologist was an advisor to the reality TV show “Big Brother”. It was her responsibility to assess whether or not potential competitors would be psychologically able to cope with the rigors and demands of the competition. In other words, she had to assure the producers of the programme that potential candidates would be able to go the distance without experiencing any sort of psychological breakdown. The show depended on the resilience of the participants and not only did the producers want to protect their brand and to entertain their audiences, but they also had an ethical and moral responsibility to the successful entrants. I only watched a few episodes, but they were enough to persuade me that the psychological stresses faced in the “house” and the mind games that were played were enough to send the sanest person mad .

Jesus did not have the advantages of modern science to screen potential followers, but he did have some idea of the sorts of hurdles that they would encounter and therefore the personal characteristics that would be required for the journey they were undertaking. He knew that being a disciple would be challenging, uncomfortable and, in some cases, life threatening. For proof, he only needed to look at his own experience. His efforts to relieve the suffering of others and to share the good news of God’s love, were met with scepticism, censure, and downright opposition. Among other things, Jesus was criticised for healing on the Sabbath, for telling people that their sins were forgiven, and for allowing a woman to anoint him. The authorities were threatened by him and were constantly trying to discredit him. Not that Jesus made it easy for himself. He didn’t play it safe – he exposed the hypocrisy of the religious leaders and inverted their sense of the proper order of things, he ate with sinners and tax collectors and generally behaved in ways that flouted the religious and cultural norms his day.

For many, Jesus was not a comfortable person to be around, and, from the very beginning of his ministry, there were attempts on his life (Luke 4:28). It is little wonder that Jesus wanted to be sure of the commitment and the determination of those who expressed a desire to follow him.

In the passage from today’s gospel, it appears that Jesus recognised that in the crowd that followed him were those who were simply caught up in the excitement that surrounded him, those who were only interested in the miracles that he performed and those who were attracted by the fact that he was not afraid to confront the religious authorities. He was conscious that there were some among them who had the potential to discredit his movement by their weakness, their self-interest and their shallow understanding of his mission. Perhaps too, he wanted to protect those who would be unable to withstand the hardships that might come their way as a consequence of their being his disciples. So, he did his own, crude, form of screening.

In a manner that seems to our sensibilities to be abrupt and uncalled for, Jesus “turns on” the crowds who are following him, implies that they are not really committed to the cause and sets what seems to be impossible standards for them to prove their worth. “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” I mean, imagine it – it’s rather like me saying to you: “Don’t bother coming to church unless you are prepared to abandon everything else including those whom you love the most. In fact, don’t pretend to be a follower of Jesus unless you are prepared to die for him!”

It is confronting language and doesn’t fit the Jesus who heals the sick, seeks the lost and eats with sinners. Sure, there are times when Jesus is firm, even angry – but he reserves his disapproval for the self-righteous Pharisees and the self-protective priests. So why now does he turn on the crowds – those who are not connected with the establishment; those who have apparently already left their homes to follow him to Jerusalem? In other words – why does he seem to turn on us?

Jesus, it seems, wants to be sure that we can finish the journey in a time and place that is vastly different. Might we fall away because our expectations have not been met? Could we be accused of hypocrisy because our lives and our faith do not match up? Is there a possibility that disappointment and bitterness would lead us to disparage him and to discredit what he stands for.

Our lives are not in danger as a consequence of our faith, but that does not mean that life is entirely without its hurdles or that there will not be times that will test our trust in and our reliance on Jesus. Life can and will throw us all sorts of curved balls – the death of a child, the loss of our job, our health, or our home. Our reaction to events such as these will reveal whether we follow Jesus for the sense of security and comfort that our faith gives us – or whether we have completely abandoned ourselves to God and to God’s will for our lives. Those whose faith is based on a belief that God will take care of them and protect them from the dangers of this world, will be confused and hurt by trauma and loss. They will bear the wounds of perceived betrayal that may never heal, and their bitterness and anger will cause them to speak ill of God and of Christ. They did not understand what they were committing to.

Those who faith is deep and strong and who truly understand what they have signed up for, will grieve their loss and acknowledge their pain, but will hold fast to Jesus, knowing that he did not promise a pain-free life and understanding that faith alone will see them through their anguish.

If today’s gospel is a form of screening for discipleship – how do we measure up?

Tags:, , ,
Posted in cross, discipleship, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on How do we measure up?

God has no favourites

August 27, 2022

Pentecost 12 – 2022
Luke 14:1, 7-14
Marian Free

In the name of God who has created us all and who has no favourites. Amen.

Imagine that your niece (or close friend) is being married. You receive your invitation to the wedding and the reception. When you arrive at the church you know just where to sit – on the bride’s side and, because you are close family, somewhere near the front. Similarly, at the reception you can confidently expect that the bridal party (sometimes including the parents of the couple) will occupy the top table. Then, depending on the layout of the room, you will be seated somewhere close. Distant relatives and friends will be placed on the tables furthest from the bride and groom. At least that is what the normal social protocol would dictate.

Now imagine a different scenario. You hear that your niece (friend) is to be married. The time for the invitations comes and goes and you do not receive an invitation. No doubt you are confused, distressed, and probably offended, but perhaps – you think – it is going to be a small wedding – immediate family only. Notwithstanding, you attend the ceremony intending to sit near the back, out of the way. Imagine your confusion when you arrive to discover that the church is full – not with family and friends – but with complete strangers, people who do not fit your nieces’ social profile at all. I imagine that your sense of self and of your place in the world would be seriously challenged!

At first glance the parable in today’s gospel seems to be pointing out the obvious. As it is now, so it was then – there are/were conventions that dictated where people would sit at a social event. In the first century, when public behaviour was governed by notions honour and shame a dinner guest would have been very careful not to presume to take a place of honour. Being moved to a lower place would have been utterly humiliating and would have seriously lessened one’s status in the community. Guests in that time would no more choose their places at the table than would wedding guests in our century. Jesus seems to be stating the obvious.

What this means, is that the parable is not as many preachers and readers assume, a lesson in humility. As in the first century so now, guests at a function expect that their host will have determined where they should sit, and they would not risk humiliation by placing themselves somewhere else. At first glance, then, the parable has nothing to tell us – no one would place themselves higher than their position – in society, in their family – would dictate. That said, we have to remember that the author states that “Jesus told a parable”, and that the purpose of a parable is to shock us or to force us into a different way of seeing. So, if this account of a banquet is not simply a piece of worldly wisdom, what is it?
The clue, I believe lies in the comment Jesus makes to his host after he tells the parable, and which makes up the second part of this morning’s reading. Taken together with the parable, Jesus’ comment makes it clear that Jesus is using an example from our earthly life and contrasting it with life in the kingdom. We might devise concentric circles of relationship and order people (family, friends, and strangers) according to our own categories – familial relationship, friendship, wealth, or prestige – but God makes no distinction. We might compete among ourselves for recognition or status, but no amount of striving – to be better, richer, or more important – will make any difference to the way in which God already sees us.

Jesus is making the point that not only is it a waste of time to try to elevate ourselves before God (to determine of our own accord that we are more deserving of God’s attention than others), but also that so doing will only result in disappointment – not to mention acute embarrassment – when we discover that at God’s table all are welcome and all are valued equally.

Unlike us, God has no favourites. We don’t have to compete for God’s attention. We don’t have to shine in order to gain God’s esteem. We don’t have to do anything to be treasured by God. All the places at God’s table have equal value.

Until we truly understand this and take it to heart, we will continue to feel that we have to stand out in some way, to be better than our peers, to be more holy or to do more good works than they. In our attempt to justify ourselves – to prove to ourselves and to others that we are worthy of God’s love – we end up judging others as more or less deserving than ourselves. We create hierarchies of relationship in the same way that we do when it comes to seating arrangements at a wedding. When we are unsure of our place in God’s love, we are anxious to devise ways of measuring our worth and we do that by comparing ourselves with others. Conversely, when we truly accept that we precious in God’s sight, we begin to understand that God does not choose between God’s children but loves us equally. When we are secure of our place in God’s heart, we understand that there is no need to compete and, as a consequence, we do not begrudge God’s love for others.

In the kingdom there is no hierarchy of achievement or status, there is no inner circle of people who are preferenced over others, no ‘socially appropriate’ people who are a better fit – only the children of God, all of whom belong, and all of whom have a place at the table.

I think the point that is being made in today’s parable and Jesus subsequent comment to his host is this. “Don’t confuse earthly conventions with kingdom values” – in fact, “do what you can to subvert human values and norms, so that our present existence begins to look more and more like God’s future.” There are no hierarchies in the kingdom and all regardless of status, wealth or virtue are welcomed without condition.
What do we need to do to make those kingdom values a reality in our present situation?

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on God has no favourites

And who is a child of God?

August 20, 2022

Pentecost 11 – 2022
Luke 13:10-17
Marian Free

In the name of God who created us and who loves us as we are. Amen.

– ‘She was asking for it’, ‘What did she expect dressed like that?’ ‘Why was she walking alone at night?’ Victim blaming is endemic – especially in relation to women who are victims of crime. It is assumed that if certain conditions had been met (by the victim) they would not have been harmed, would not be living on the street, would not be a sex worker? Blaming the victim frees the perpetrator of abuse from any sense of culpability. The rapist excuses themselves: ‘I wouldn’t have done this – if you weren’t dressed like that, if you hadn’t wanted it, if you weren’t someone who slept around.’) The child abuser who says: ‘you must want this to let me do it’. Blaming the victim diminishes the likelihood that the victim will take things further and so the perpetrator is let off the hook, doesn’t have to face up to what they have done or to go before a court. Blaming the victim means that (at least until recent times) the burden of proof has been on the victim not the perpetrator.

As a society we have many ways of distancing ourselves from the sufferings of others; making their suffering/isolation/experience of abuse their fault – not ours, not the social structures, not the government of the day. If it is not our fault, we are free from any responsibility for their suffering and therefore from any need to take action. Victim-blaming reinforces the way things are and resists any attempt at change.

Today’s gospel is an unusual, apparently stand-alone story that occurs only in Luke’s gospel. It is a healing story that interrupts a series of sayings and parables and Jesus’ observations about the signs of the times. The setting, the time frame and therefore the audience changes. Whereas Jesus was outside, now he he is in a synagogue. Whereas he was addressing the crowds who had gathered in their thousands (12:21) now his audience is limited to only those who can fit in the synagogue. Previously we had no idea what day of the week it was, but now we are told that is a sabbath.

Despite that at first glance, the story of the bent over woman is deceptively simple – a woman who has been bent over for 18 years appears in the synagogue and Jesus heals her. A closer look though, reveals a number of important details. Jesus is teaching when the woman appears in the synagogue. He sees the woman, stops teaching, and calls her to him. He says: “Woman you are set free” and then he lays his hands on her. The woman responds by standing up straight and praising God.

Jesus sees the woman and sees her pain, her exclusion, and her diminished lifestyle. It doesn’t occur to him to wonder if she deserves to be healed. He doesn’t ask the causes of her condition – bad diet, accident, abuse. How she got here doesn’t matter to him. It is how she goes forward – healed, restored to her community, and freed to live a full and integrated life – that is of interest to him.

It is the reaction of the leader of the synagogue that is surprising – not that he is irritated (we are used to Jesus eliciting that sort of behaviour). As we might expect, the leader of the synagogue is outraged that Jesus should be ‘working’ on the Sabbath but, instead of directing his anger at Jesus, he engages in victim-blaming. It is the woman’s fault that Jesus has broken the law! Addressing everyone present the synagogue leader reminds them that there are six days on which work can be done, six other days on which they can seek out healing from Jesus. If they want to be healed, they should come on those days – not the Sabbath. In other words, he is saying don’t come to the synagogue on the Sabbath if you are seeking healing, comfort, or release. Don’t come to the synagogue if you want to be restored to the community, if you want to be declared a child of God!

Jesus sets the woman free, whereas the synagogue leader wants people to remain where they are – bound by their condition, bound by his interpretation of the law. Believing that he is upholding the law, the synagogue has lost sight of the law. Believing that he is confronting a challenge to God’s sovereignty, he is in fact denying God’s sovereignty.

So many things can weigh us down and there are so many ways in which culture and society can make us feel responsible for our situation, situations for which sometimes there really is no way out. Today, as in Jesus’ time, poor health, disability, race, poverty, gender diversity, same-sex attraction, childhood abuse, domestic violence, and much more, separate people from their peers, their communities and even from their churches.

Today’s gospel which “challenges all who have settled into narrow interpretations of Scripture or ungenerous theological positions – those who miss the heart of what it may mean to be a ‘new creation in Christ’ (2 Cor 5:17)” is timely. During the week, news broke that GAFCON has created a company which they have named the “Anglican Diocese of the Southern Cross.” There are many reasons for the action, but according to reports the decision is based primarily on their objection to the blessing of same-sex marriages . As the Rev’d Penny Jones wrote, this is another example of
“when queer Anglicans yet again being made to unjustly to feel shame and as though somehow this fracture is ‘their fault’” – a case of victim-blaming .

When we use scripture to enslave and weigh down any of God’s children, we have lost sight of the Jesus who came to set us free. When we oppress and exclude any of God’s children, we have lost sight of the Jesus who came to make us whole. When we hold fast to rules or tenets of faith in the belief that we are preserving the truth of the gospel, we align ourselves with the synagogue leader and demonstrate that we have lost sight of the Jesus who broke the rules and who came to turn everything upside down (healing on the Sabbath, re-interpreting scripture and challenging church practice).

I want to say to all my rainbow brothers and sisters, to all who feel bowed down and who feel that their wholeness is denied – Jesus sees you and if Jesus sees you it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. Stand tall, children of God.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Children, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on And who is a child of God?

I have come to bring fire

August 13, 2022

Pentecost 10 – 2022
Luke 12:49-56
Marian Free

In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.

The Australian tennis player Bernard Tomic is a controversial player whose matches have featured “epic displays of ranting, racquet-wrecking and trash-talking”. He has thrown tantrums over not having been provided with a white towel, tossed a tennis racquet at a ball boy, and even spat at spectator during a match. At Wimbledon recently he accused a judge of being “a snitch with no fans”. It is hard to know what leads to such outbursts. Is it that he feels under pressure to succeed having been a child prodigy. Could it be that he is frustrated that he is not playing as well as he knows that he can? Are his expectations of himself too high? Is is irritated by comments from the crowd or other distractions that he believes have put him off his game? Or is it as fellow-tennis player and four times Grand Slam winner Kim Cliijsters was reported as saying that: “He feels like he’s being disrespected”. Whatever the cause of his behaviour, it appears that in the moment his annoyance cannot be contained, and it spills out in what is sometimes a vicious attack. His anxiety or frustration builds to a point where he can take it no longer and the sense of injustice, inadequacy or whatever it is spills out into an attack.

One does not expect such outbursts from Jesus. Jesus (at least as we perceive him) is more measured, more in control of his emotions. Certainly, his teachings can be confrontational and challenging but, in general we hear him as encouraging and reassuring. After all, hasn’t he just told us that if God feeds the birds and clothes the grass of the field that God will surely feed and clothe us? When he does have outbursts they are not directly at us but at Pharisees and lawyers (“Woe to you Pharisees”). In our minds, those attacks are justified – after all aren’t the Pharisees hypocrites; aren’t they driven by the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law? They are the opposition. They represent the establishment which holds Jesus in suspicion, and which seeks to discredit him – not the disciples and the crowds who follow Jesus.

The only other instance in which Jesus loses his cool is when he discovers that the Temple is being used as a marketplace. He simply cannot countenance such disrespect for Judaism’s most holy place. Again, that makes perfect sense to us. Of course, he would be incensed by the traders and money changers plying their trade in what should be a place of worship!

It is all very well for Jesus to be angry with and frustrated by the teaching and behaviour of the Pharisees, the lawyers, the scribes, and the priests, but today his outburst is personal and, while not directly aimed at us, is certainly intended for us. Apparently without warning, Jesus launches into an expression of such frustration and exasperation that we cannot ignore it: “I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” “Do you think I came to bring peace to the earth? No!” This is explosive language, language that has us looking for shelter, a rock under which to hide. It is difficult, confronting and unexpected. This is not the Jesus we are used to.

Jesus, the Prince of Peace, the one whom the angels announced with promises of peace is now declaring that peace is the last thing on his mind! It is true that he has come to “bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, the recovery of sight to the blind and to let the oppressed go free.” But that is not all that he has come to do. He sees only too clearly the complacency and self-satisfaction of the pious, the uneasy accommodation that the Jewish leaders have with the Roman colonisers, the neglect of the poor and the abandonment of the marginalised.

Jesus did not come into the world because everything was going well – just the reverse. He has come to put the world to rights – to wake people up to themselves, to expose an institution that had lost its way and to reveal the self-righteousness of the religious leaders. It was not his purpose to commend or to reassure the believers of his day. His task was to shake them to their core, to give them a wakeup call and to urge them to see how far they had strayed from the faith of their forbears.

The religious leaders are so entrenched in their ways, so complacent and self-serving that it will take nothing less than a cataclysmic event – a blazing fire – to bring them to their senses. The place of the church, its practices and observances, is so firmly established, so deeply entrenched in the community, so clearly associated with the God of Israel, that it and its community cannot help but be divided when some respond to Jesus and others hold fast to what they have always known.

We can imagine Jesus’ irritation, his impatience when his teaching falls on deaf ears, when no one but himself seems to be able to read the signs of the times and when those with the authority to effect change are so concerned to hold on to their own power that they seek to destroy anyone who threatens their position. It is little wonder that his frustration should come to a head and that he should let fly and tell it how it really is.

“I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” “Do you think I came to bring peace to the earth? No!” Jesus’ words are jarring, harsh and confronting but they are apposite. If Jesus were to come today, nothing would have changed. There would be little to show for his life, death, and resurrection. By and large, the church and its members are indistinguishable from the communities in which it finds itself. It is concerned as much with its survival as it is with matters of equity and justice. There are divisions in the church that are apparently insurmountable. In Australia, fewer people than ever identify as Christians. We live in a world in which a few have much, and the majority have less than enough. It is enough to raise Jesus’ ire, to call forth his disappointment, his despair, and his frustration.

We need to take these words to heart, not to brush them off. We need to ask ourselves again – what sort of world do we want/does God want? And we need to allow ourselves to be tempered by fire so that all that is rotten in can be purged and so that we can be part of the solution – not the problem.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on I have come to bring fire

Where your treasure is

August 6, 2022

Pentecost 9 – 2022
Luke 12:32-34
Marian Free

In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.

I have read Herbert and Harry by Pamela Allan so often that I almost know it by heart. It is a tale of two brothers who lived together, farmed together, and fished together until one day when fishing they pulled up a chest full of treasure. “It’s mine,” said Herbert, “I pulled it up.” “It’s mine,” said Harry, “I cast the net here”. Then Herbert pushed Harry and Harry fell – into the sea. Harry who was a strong swimmer, made it safely to shore while Henry rowed as hard as he could and as far as he could until he reached a lonely piece of shore. Then he started to walk. Herbert wanted to get as far away from Harry as he could. Finally, he lay down to sleep but even though it was dark, and he was very tired, he could not sleep. “What if Harry came and stole the treasure while he slept?” So, he pushed the treasure under the roots of a tree, but he still could not sleep: “What if someone had seen him put it there?”

So, Herbert decided to go far away to the highest mountain in the land and hide the treasure under some rocks, but still, he could not sleep. “What if someone had followed him?” So, he dug a hole deep into the mountain, pushed the treasure in and rolled a huge stone across the entrance. But still, he could not sleep. “What if someone forced him to tell where the treasure was?” He needed guns, lots of guns, but guns were not enough, he began to build a fort. All this took many, many years.

Now, Herbert and Harry are very old men. Herbert still guards his treasure on the top of the highest mountain in the land, but still, he cannot sleep. While Harry, who had no treasure has always been able to sleep.

“Where your treasure is there your heart will be also.”

We are all a bit like Herbert – anxious to hold on to what we have, worried that someone might take it from us, concerned that we will not get by without it. We try to separate ourselves from those who might have designs on our possessions. In places like Cape Town or Port Morseby those who have something to protect build high walls around their homes and top them with barbed wire. They employ armed guards to ensure that no one can get in and steal. Even in Australia where the threat is not so great, people are busy installing security lights, cameras, and alarms to deter anyone from coming in. Gated communities keep the right people in and the wrong people out.
As the story illustrates, alarms, guns and walls are only temporary solutions. Ultimately they exaggerate, rather than diminish our anxiety. Walls and security guards are constant reminders of our what we have to lose, they are a visible symptom of our fear and insecurity. At the same time, they are an indication of how dependent we are on our belongings for our sense of security and well-being – they reassure us that we will have enough for tomorrow, they give us a means by which we can measure ourselves against others and sometimes they are a sign of how far we have come.

And to what end? – possessions can end up possessing us and walls designed to keep us safe hem us in. What is more, our physical treasures are finite and they are vulnerable to loss and decay. As recent events have reminded us, it does not matter what measures we put in place to protect what we own, nothing will keep them safe from fire or flood or other natural disaster. However high our barriers, however extensive our security – those who really want to breach our defences can find ways to do so. However long our life, it will come to an end and no matter how much we have amassed we cannot take it with us.

Thankfully there are treasures that cannot be measured, treasures that are free for the asking and which do not need walls to contain them, because they cannot be contained. Intangible treasures like love, joy, faith, generosity, selfless and hope are imperishable and are designed to endure for eternity. These treasures do not need walls. Indeed, walls would be wasted, because these treasures have no boundaries. They are limitless and they flow outward from those who possess them without being diminished no matter how widely they are shared.

“Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

In her children’s book, Pamela Allan, highlights Herbert’s wasted life. In his desire to protect his treasure he locks himself away, forgoing relationships and experiences which might have enriched his life. Harry, on the other hand, grows old on his farm with wife, children, and grandchildren. In the end, it is Harry – the one without the treasure – who is the richer of the two.

It is possible to spend an entire lifetime amassing wealth and possessions and in building bigger and “safer” fortresses to protect them but in so doing we become so focussed on ourselves and what we have and so anxious about losing it, that we miss out on the enjoyment we might have had from spreading our good fortune with others.

Immediately prior to today’s gospel Jesus has told his disciples: “do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. And do not keep striving for what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep worrying. For it is the nations of the world that strive after all these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.”

Walls that keep others out also keep out God. Relying on our possessions prevents us from learning that we can place our trust in God. Prioritising our earthly treasures prevents us benefiting from heavenly treasures which are already ours for the asking and which nothing and no one can take from us.

Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel, Wealth | Comments Off on Where your treasure is

Does God give us what we ask?

July 23, 2022

Pentecost 7 – 2022
Luke 11:1-13
Marian Free

In the name of God who is ready to be sought out by those who did not ask. Amen.

I have to confess that I have an uneasy relationship with intercessory prayer. For one thing it is not something that has come easily to me and for another I am not entirely sure of its purpose. In recent years I have fallen into a rhythm of prayer. Each day I pray for those whom I know to be in need of healing or hope and I bring before God my concerns for the world. Over the course of my life I have witnessed the miracle of prayers (apparently) being answered – the young woman who falls pregnant, the man who makes a full recovery from a stroke or the mother of two who comes out of a coma. I’m not sure of the relationship between my prayers and the positive outcome, but as someone once said: “When I pray, coincidences happen.”

On a larger scale whether in relation to national or international events, my prayers seem to stretch into emptiness or to hit a brick wall. No amount of prayer it would seem will bring an end to COVID or the suffering and heart ache that has ensued. All the prayer in the world seems ineffective in bringing an end the war in Ukraine, the gang violence in Haiti, the drought in Madagascar or the climate crisis in the Pacific.

My difficulty with intercessory prayer has its roots in the interpretation of passages such as that in today’s gospel: “Ask and it shall be given you, search and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives.” Given that Luke places these words in the context of Jesus’ teaching on prayer, it is easy to interpret them as meaning that God will give us what we ask.

There are a number of problems with this point of view. First and foremost, is the problem of unanswered prayer. If asking means receiving how do we explain all the occasions on which what is asked for is not received? Why does one child die of cancer and another not when both are equally and sincerely prayed for? Secondly, behind the belief that asking is receiving is the concept of an interventionist God; a God who interferes with the affairs of the world to effect justice and to bring about peace. If we believe in a God who interferes in human affairs then we have to believe that God takes sides, that God doesn’t care about those who lose everything in a natural disaster or who are forced to flee their homes because of war. How can God chose sides when Christians in Russia are as convinced that the current war is right and just and the Christians in Ukraine believe equally strongly that the war is wrong and unjust? Thirdly, if asking means receiving, does that make God open and vulnerable to the whims of humankind? Conversely does that mean that humanity knows what is best for the world? Lastly, if asking means receiving, is God to be envisaged as some sort of cosmic supermarket at which we can get whatever we want for free? What on earth would the world look like if everyone got everything they asked for?

This morning’s gospel begins with a request from the disciples: “Teach us to pray.” Jesus’ response is to teach them a very simple prayer. “Father, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And do not bring us to the time of trial.”

In his book The Plain Man Looks at the Lord’s Prayer William Barclay comments that the prayer begins by addressing the memory of the majesty of God, the memory of the purpose of God, and acceptance of the will of God. Before we even begin to think of ourselves we acknowledge God and our submission to God. Three petitions follow this introduction – a prayer for our present need, an acknowledgment of past debts (sins) and a request that God will take care of our future welfare – food for the present, forgiveness for the past and help for the future. Barclay points out that the petitions are Trinitarian in that God the Father is the creator and sustainer of life, God the Son is the Redeemer (of our debts) and God the Holy Spirit is our guide, helper and protector.

There is nothing in this prayer that suggests God’s response to the individual petitions of believers. This universal prayer does not suggest that God intervenes in the daily lives of individuals. Indeed the very language makes it clear that it is a prayer for the community, the people of God. “Give us, forgive us, do not bring us. Furthermore, the prayer itself is relational – our relationship to God and to each other. It is a recognition of God’s majesty and an acceptance of our limitations, and as a consequence leads us to place ourselves in God’s hands. (What it is not, is an invitation to envisage God as a heavenly supermarket designed to meet our every need.)

Which leads us to the remainder of today’s gospel – a parable about persistence and an example from daily life that suggests that what God guarantees us is not our heart’s desire, not the well-being of those for whom we care, not world peace but the Holy Spirit. We will never know why Luke chose to put these three together, but a possible lesson is this: that our primary task in prayer (individually and corporately) is to relinquish our own desires and to give ourselves entirely into God’s hands, that God will not think the less of us when we figuratively batter down God’s door asking that God respond to our needs and that God’s greatest gift to us os the gift of God’s self – the Holy Spirit – for which we only need ask to receive.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Does God give us what we ask?

Not about gender but wholeness

July 16, 2022

Pentecost 6 – 2022
Luke 10:38-42
Marian Free

In the name of God in whom is perfect freedom. Amen.

The work of a translator is not easy. If, for example, a translator came across the word ‘read’ in an English text, they would have to determine from the context whether it was in the past or the present tense. Someone new to English would find it hard to understand why ‘good, better, best’ were not formed in the same way as other comparative adjectives ‘good, gooder, goodest.’

For obvious reasons, Inuit has something like twenty words for ‘snow’. How is it possible to accurately capture the correct nuance of ‘snow’ when translating it into another language?

In the case of modern languages, the work of translation can be assisted by speakers of that language. For example, an Inuit can tell a translator if they have captured the meaning of ‘snow’. The work of translating ancient languages, languages that have not been spoken for thousands of years, is much more difficult and relies to some extent on guess work. Translating biblical texts is even more complex because it is difficult for the translator to approach the text with unbiased eyes. Previous centuries of use and interpretation of the bible mean that it is almost impossible for a translator not to bring preconceptions to the text.

Today’s short story about the dinner at Martha’s home (in which Jesus apparently chides Martha for being busy in the preparation of food and praises Mary for sitting at his feet) is one such example . For much of its history this tale has been interpreted to imply that there is some sort of hierarchy of ministries – that the ministry of serving does not carry the same weight as that of being attentive to the word and that women’s work does not carry the same weight as that of men (Mary has chosen the better part). It didn’t matter what the work was. Being in the kitchen was (in a patriarchal world view) nowhere near as significant as that of being in the board room. (No matter that until the 1950’s in Australia that women were excluded from these supposedly more important forms of service!)

A number of factors come into play when we try to understand what is happening in this account – among these are the translation of the Greek into English, the cultural context of the story and Luke’s purpose in telling it. To begin with the last. Luke, as you may or may not know, is also the author of Book of Acts in which he is concerned with the origins of the church. Niveen Sarras points to Acts 6 as another instance in which there is a discussion about the various roles of ministry in the church. In Acts the gentiles complain that their widows are being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. The apostles decide that they cannot afford to give up their ministry of teaching and ask the gentiles to choose seven men to wait at tables – to serve food, the very thing that Martha is doing . This will free the apostles to teach. Martha’s ministry of service ideally frees Mary to respond to Jesus’ teaching. There is no hierarchy in ministry – service, teaching, prayer are all of equal value and being committed to one ministry does not prevent someone from exercising another. That Luke is using the story of the two women to illustrate ministry in the church is further supported by the strange positioning of Martha’s story – between the parable of the Samaritan and his selfless service and the disciples’ question about prayer.

Hospitality is both a biblical and a cultural imperative. Sarras, a Palestinian Christian, gives us an insight into what this might mean. She writes that in present day Palestine, hospitality is not only a cultural expectation, it is “an invitation to the stranger to be a part of the family circle”. Now, as in the first century, it is a matter of “breaking barriers and providing protection to guests no matter the personal cost.” In such cultures the expectation is that the women in the family will do all of the cooking and the preparation, and it would be unusual for the women to join the male guests until all the preparation is in hand. “Failing to be a good hostess means disrespecting the guest.”

Martha’s concern to look after her guest/s is then perfectly appropriate.

Lastly a look at the Greek is informative. The words used by Jesus to describe Martha’s worry and distraction are violent and destructive – meaning having by the throat and the dragging apart of something that should be whole. Jesus is not criticizing Martha he is seeing Martha. He can see that behind her resentment and anger is a fractured person – “you are anxious and distracted by many things; one is necessary”. Jesus wants Martha to be whole (one) not torn apart (many). Jesus points to Mary, not because sitting at Jesus’ feet is better than preparing food, but because she is not divided, bitter and unhappy. Mary has chosen the good (not the better) portion.

It is important to understand that this story is not gendered. It is not intended to imply that women’s work, represented by Martha, is of little value, and that ‘men’s work represented by Mary is what matters when it comes to discipleship. Nothing could be further from the truth. By inserting this account of the two women, between the story of the Samaritan and the teaching on prayer, Luke appears to be making it clear that women, as well as men have a ministry in the church and that women, no less than men, can be used to illustrate the ideal. Ministry of any kind is only truly effective when it is offered from a place of wholeness and self-assurance, rather than from a position of brokenness and insecurity.

May that which is broken in us be made whole that we might freely and wholeheartedly serve God and serve our neighbour.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Not about gender but wholeness

Sit down, Shut up, Listen up

July 9, 2022

Pentecost 5 – 2022
Luke 10:25-27
NAIDOC Week
Marian Free

In the name of God who shows no distinction but values all people. Amen.

At the beginning of the year Professor Josh Mylne, the Chair of the planning committee for the International Congress on Plant Molecular Biology (IPMB) tweeted a poster for the upcoming Conference. The poster featured head shots of all the headline speakers and the chairs for the various sessions – over 90 people in total. Professor Mylne, who had been working on the Conference since 2018 was proud of the line-up, especially the diversity that it displayed. As he told the ABC programme Science Friction: “We had one of the best gender balances I’d seen, career-stage diversity with younger and older scientists, so much different science — more than ever before — chairs from all around the world, including for the first time Africa and India.”

The poster had been shown to hundreds of people before it was tweeted, all of whom responded positively. It was not surprising then that Professor Mylne was taken aback when one of the responses to the tweet was: “International, and no Africans.” Professor Mylne had just cycled home and, instead of stopping to think, he quickly replied: “Look harder”, directing the tweeter to the one African face among the 94.” Of course, potential attendees did look harder, and discovered that not only was there only one person from an African nation. While Asia was well-represented and there was a good gender balance, African and South America speakers were notable by their absence. A closer look also revealed that the website for a conference that was to be held in Australia failed to include an acknowledgement of country.

Instead of dampening the fire, Mylne’s response ignited a blazing fire with the eventual result that one of the sponsors withdrew their support and the Conference itself was postponed.

By taking the tweet personally and by responding hastily, Mylne made the sort of mistake that many of us make. Instead of recognising the hurt (and sense of exclusion) behind the critical tweet, Mylne responded defensively which turned the hurt into outrage. His response was interpreted as “disrespectful” and “tokenistic”. The situation was only made worse when an email was sent to one of the critics suggesting that it was up to people of colour to fix the problem.

It would be good to report that a occurence such as this is unusual, that seeing a situation only from one’s own perspective was a rare occurrence in today’s Australia, but sadly the failure to listen carefully is illustrative of a common reaction towards those who are different from ourselves – migrants, refugees and most egregiously our indigenous community. Our best efforts – when they do not include diverse voices – can be experienced as paternalistic and condescending. Our responses to criticism often demonstrate a failure to hear and an unwillingness to adequately address the concerns of those who outside our field of vision. When our failures are drawn to our attention, we too often become defensive instead of being open, and graciously listening and responding to the grievances of those whom we have (deliberately or inadvertently) excluded, patronised, or offended.

Not being heard or having one’s concerns ignored or carelessly dismissed are experiences that our first Nations people know only too well. There have been amply opportunities (particularly in the past 50 years) for white Australians, policy makers and members of industry to respond to the injustices wrought upon indigenous Australians for generations, and yet our responses have been inadequate at best and detrimental at worst.

To mention just a few – despite the apology, children of indigenous families are still being removed in greater numbers than children of other Australians, despite the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody people of indigenous background are still over represented in our prisons, despite laws protecting sacred sites it was still possible to blow up the Juukan caves in Western Australia, despite commitments by the former Federal Government and the Uluru Statement from the Heart, first Nations people are still waiting to be recognised in our constitution and given a voice in government.

Since colonisation, we have not only forced indigenous people from their land, taken away their culture and their language, removed their children from their care, but we have also failed to listen to their wisdom, to appreciate their history and to value their knowledge of this land.

We cannot say that we have not been told – and told – what the problems are and how they can be solved. I was shocked, for example, when I heard Rachel Perkins deliver the Boyer Lecture of 2019 and hear her raising issues that had been raised by Professor Marcia Langton AO when she gave the Boyer Lecture in 2012. Nothing, it seemed had changed in the seven years between those lectures. It was a sad indictment on our failure to truly hear what was said or, if we had heard, our failure to respond in ways that demonstrated that we had heard and understood.

There will be no discernible change in this nation until we truly listen to the members of the indigenous community, to their rage, their indignation, their sense of injustice, their grief and their grievances, their sense of loss and dispossession and until we recognise their willingness to work with us and understand that they know better than we do, what the solutions for their own people might be.

Of all the meanings of today’s parable of the good Samaritan, the one that speaks to us today is that the outsider, the despised and the oppressed have much to teach us about generosity, inclusion and forgiveness, and about seeing and responding to the needs of those who are different from themselves no matter how badly the other has treated them.

The theme for NAIDOC week this year is Get up! Stand up! Show up!

Perhaps for white Australians it should be: “Sit down! Shut up! Listen up!”

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Indigenous Australians, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Sit down, Shut up, Listen up

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »