Swallowsrest

Pentecost 19
Matthew 22: 34-46
Marian Free

In the name of God, who asks that we have integrity in ourselves and that we do not compromise our faith in order to conform to the world around us. Amen.

During the past year we have witnessed just how bloody and brutal dictators can be, and how ruthlessly they act to crush any opposition to their rule. We have the violent repression of protests throughout the Arab world as non-elected and non-democratic leaders have tried to cling to power in the face of increasing dissatisfaction with their authority. We have seen too the lengths that repressed peoples will go to in order to bring about change in their nations. In Libya alone it has been estimated that up to 25,000 people have been killed in the course of the uprising. For those on both sides of the political divide, the struggle has been costly and deadly.

Those who have the courage to take on authoritarian governments and those who follow their lead do so knowing that their lives are at risk. Throughout the Arab world this year, there have been attempts to oust despots and military rulers. Thousands have lost their lives in the process, economies have been compromised, basic services have been severely disrupted and homes and livelihoods have been destroyed. Even in the case of victory the protestors will have to completely rebuild their country.

There is no romance in resistance. For many, living under a repressive regime is the lesser of two evils. The rule of a dictator may be tyrannical and harsh, but so long as one stays within the law one can avoid the sort of brutal crack down that we have witnessed in Libya, Yemeni, Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. One can go quietly about one’s business without fear of reprisal. The situation may be bad, but it could be a lot worse. It is easier to fit in than to face the consequences of rebellion.

It was just such a situation that the leaders of the Jews were trying to avoid in first century Palestine. Rome had occupied that land for sixty three years and, while the Empire had brought many benefits to the countries it had conquered, it kept the peace by ruling with an iron rod and imposed heavy taxes which impoverished the ordinary people. Within Palestine there were many who resented the occupation and who organized or participated in resistance movements.

These groups were seen as a threat to the peace and security of the region – not only by Rome, but also by the Jewish leaders who had come to some sort of accommodation with the occupying power. The leaders knew that as long as they didn’t tip the boat, as long as they co-operated with the Roman Government, they could be reasonably confident that they could go about their business undisturbed. For this reason it was in their interest to confront and discourage any resistance among the people.

On the other hand, those who felt the full weight of Rome’s might were drawn to anyone who dared to confront the power of the Empire. At the time of Jesus there were several such resistance groups that had gathered around leaders who promised to liberate them from Rome’s dominion. These leaders were called in Hebrew “Messiach” which, when transliterated, is our English word “Messiah” and their activity threatened the peace and stability of the region.

In today’s gospel, the Jewish leaders are continuing the line of questioning that began at the start of chapter 22. Their intention is to trick Jesus into saying something that will discredit him in the eyes of faithful Jews, or that will prove him to be an insurgent and therefore bring him to the notice of the Roman rulers. However, as we saw last week, Jesus is not so easily drawn into their ruse.

The Pharisees try one more time to catch Jesus out: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus responds by quoting scripture and demonstrating that not only does he know the sacred texts, but that he also knows how to interpret them.

Jesus has answered the questions of the Jewish leaders and now it is his turn. Demonstrating that he knows what the Pharisees and Sadducees are up to, Jesus asks a question of his own. He knows that one of the things that they are trying to prove is that he is an insurrectionist, someone claiming to be the “Messiach” who is gathering followers to mount a rebellion against Rome. Jesus knows too, that in popular imagination this “Messiach” is considered to be the son of David – Israel’s most powerful king – the one who will set Israel free. So he poses a trick question of his own: if the “Messiach” (the anointed one) is the son of David how is it that David calls him Lord?

Jesus is quoting Psalm 110 to create a conundrum – how can the Messiah be both David’s son and his Lord? The anointed one cannot be both son and Lord. Jesus might be of Davidic descent, but this does not have to mean that he plans to lead an armed uprising against the Roman Empire. Jesus’ question challenges not only the conclusions that the Jewish leaders have drawn from scripture, but also their assumptions about himself and his role. They have presumed that he is an insurrectionist, but Jesus has shown that the premise for their assumption is baseless. His question has no easy answer. Jesus has done to the Pharisees what they hoped to do to him. He has exposed their lack of understanding and managed to silence them. From then on, no one dared to ask him any question.

The Jewish leaders who have tried to outsmart Jesus find that they are outsmarted. Jesus knows the Jewish faith as well, if not better, than they do and he will not allow himself to be painted as the leader of a rebellion. He will not be made a fool of in front of the Jewish people nor will he allow himself to be made out to be something that he is not.

Jesus comes through the debates unscathed whereas the Jewish leaders are exposed as both ignorant and petty. Jesus does not have a problem with Judaism or with the Jewish people. His argument is with the leaders of the Jews who have compromised themselves and their faith and become bed-fellows with their oppressors.

We live in a free and democratic society, but that does not mean that we do not make compromises to fit in with the world around us, nor does it mean that we are any better than the Pharisees at discerning who does and who does not threaten our security and stability. Jesus was very clear about who he was and what he stood for. No matter what the cost to himself, he maintained his integrity, his absolute loyalty to God and his commitment to the faith that he held.

This is the example we are called to follow – steadfastness in faith, no matter what the cost, integrity in our lives, no matter what the reaction of others and complete obedience to God no matter what the temptation to do otherwise.

Pentecost 18

Matthew 22:15-33

Marian Free 

In the name of God, whose wisdom surpasses human knowing. Amen.

Even if you don’t have a degree in English literature, you will be aware that writers of novels use a variety of techniques to grab our attention, to develop a plot and to build tension. We are all so familiar with the Biblical texts and so used to reading the Bible in small, designated amounts, that we do not often appreciate the skill with which the writers tell their story.  Each of the gospel writers has carefully arranged and drafted their account of Jesus’ life so as to gain maximum effect and to ensure that the listeners are drawn into the story and, more importantly, brought to faith.

This is most clearly demonstrated in the Gospel of John that gathers impetus and builds dramatic tension until the story reaches its climax in the raising of Lazarus. It is also true of the Synoptic gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke all organise the stories of Jesus’ life in the way that most suits the message that they wish their listeners to hear.

Our weekly diet of selected readings means that we often miss important connections and fail to see how the author has been building an argument or a point of view. Last week, for example, we saw that Matthew’s account of the parable of the banquet is the final parable in a series of three in which Jesus has been attacking official Judaism – in particular that of the chief priests and the scribes who had been questioning his authority.

In today’s gospel, we begin a series of confrontations between Jesus and the Jewish leadership.  The Jewish leaders – first the Pharisees (and Herodians) then the Sadducees, then the Pharisees again try to trick Jesus with clever questions – should one pay tax to Caesar, what happens in the resurrection and what is the greatest commandment? These confrontations serve two purposes in the narrative of the gospel. Firstly, they expose the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders and secondly they demonstrate Jesus’ wisdom and discernment. The debates reveal that not only are the leaders of Judaism unable to trick Jesus, but that they are ignorant in regard to the workings and teaching of their faith.

The two questions are carefully thought out. They are designed to trick Jesus into saying something that will expose him as a radical or as someone whose teaching is contradictory to the teachings of Judaism. The first question is about taxes, but in fact, as Jesus is aware, it has nothing to do with taxes. It is in reality a question about the Empire and about Jesus’ attitude to Rome.  Romans coins were, from Caesar’s time onwards, stamped with an image of the Emperor. Very often the image was presented in such a way as to make the Emperor look like a god. The coins were the only coins that could be used in trade and their use was associated with Emperor worship. Some Jews, particularly the Zealots, refused to use the coins. They felt that having in their possession a coin that depicted someone who claimed to be a god would compromise their faith.

The Pharisees thought that if Jesus responded by saying that taxes should be withheld, that they could accuse him of being a trouble-maker, a revolutionary and that this would put Jesus in a difficult position with regard to the Roman authorities. On the other hand, if Jesus argued that the taxes should be paid, it could be made to look as though he supported the Roman rule of Palestine or even the worship of the Emperor. This response would lose him the support of the Jewish people. However, Jesus is aware that his questioners are trying to entrap him, so he side-steps the question. He makes it clear that he belongs in neither camp – ‘give to the Emperor the things that are the Emperor’s and to God the things that are God’s’.

The second question is about the resurrection. In the first century, the matter of resurrection was of some contention. The Pharisees believed that the dead would be raised and the Sadducees did not.  So the Sadducees bring a question to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to believe in the resurrection. According to tradition if a man dies childless, his brother must take his wife as his own to try to ensure that his brother’s line continues. If seven brothers all die childless a woman would, in effect, have seven husbands in heaven.

Jesus responds by pointing out that it is not that the resurrection is a foolish idea, but that the Sadducees do not know what they are talking about. Heaven, Jesus says, is vastly different from earth, and heavenly relationships will not be the same as earthly relationships. As to the resurrection, Jesus quotes God speaking to Moses ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? Thus he use scripture to  prove that the dead will be raised.

We live in interesting times. Not only do we live in a culture in which many faiths are represented, but we also live in a time when atheists such as Richard Dawkins are becoming increasingly aggressive and antagonistic to Christianity.

Very often, those who reject the faith, reject things that you and I would not even consider to be a part of our faith and that, if we ever believed them, we have long since ceased to do so. What I have seen of Richard Dawkins leads me to believe that he is operating from a number misapprehensions. That I consider these people to be wrong, does not alter the fact, that among a number of people it is considered not only OK, but cool or smart, to denigrate the Christian faith as irrational and un-scientific, and to dismiss God as judgmental and demanding.

We can no longer count on sympathy, tolerance or even blithe indifference to our beliefs. For this reason it is beoming increasingly important for us to have a clear understanding of our faith and of the scripture that lies behind our faith. There are many texts that on the surface are difficult to understand and that may be used by our opponents to discredit us or to turn others against us. It is important that, like Jesus we learn not to be caught up in the agendas of other people and to engage in fruitless arguments. We need to learn to make our case clearly and directly and not to be distracted by arguments that are not relevant to our core beliefs or that are designed to trick us into saying something that we might regret.

We can no longer assume that our neighbours share our faith, that they have an accurate knowledge of our faith or that they know anything at all. We must be sure of what we believe and equip ourselves to share that knowledge with friend and foe alike.

Pentecost 17

Matthew 22:1-14

Marian Free 

In the name of God, who calls us and calls us. Amen.

Last week, we considered the problem that the early church had in accommodating those who were not Jews into the Jewish faith – or at least into that part of Judaism that accepted Jesus as the anointed one, the one sent by God. At the time that Paul was writing his epistles, this was a burning issue for believers. The Jewish nation, had over centuries, developed rituals, behaviours and patterns of belief that set them apart as a distinct community. We saw that this was especially important for a nation of people who often found themselves in a minority and who had endured exile and centuries of foreign rule. Paul’s letters give us some insight into how difficult it was to find a way to include non-Jews into what had been in many ways a closed society.

The gospels were written some twenty to forty years after the letters of Paul. Much had happened in that time. In the year seventy, the Romans brutally crushed a revolt by the Jews, destroying Jerusalem in the process. This led to the further dispersion of Jews throughout the Empire and, as best we can tell, to a more rigid adherence to the law. In the absence of the Temple, the law became one of the defining characteristics of Judaism. At the same time, the Jewish revolt and destruction of the Temple seems to have been a defining moment in Jewish/Christian relations. Those who believed in Jesus had refused to join with the Jews in the revolt against Roman rule. This caused an irreconcilable rift that led to the exclusion of Christians from the synagogue and from the Jewish source of their faith.

In the letters of Paul, a major issue is the inclusion (or not) of the Gentiles. In the gospels an overwhelming concern is the failure of the Jews to believe in Jesus. The problem was this – if Jesus was the culmination of all that at the Jews had been promised and all that they had hoped for, why was it that so many refused to believe in him? This is the question that is played out in the three parables that Matthew has placed together in chapters 21 and 22. In response to a challenge to his authority, Jesus asks the leaders of the Jews a question about John the Baptist that they are unable to answer. This leads Jesus to tell three parables that exposes the failure of official Judaism to understand who he is and what he is here for. These parables also make it clear that it is in fact the Jewish failure to believe that has led to the inclusion of the Gentiles.

The first of the three parables is the parable of the two sons. In this parable a father asks his sons in turn to go into the vineyard to work. The first son says that he will not go, but changes his mind and goes anyway. The second son says that he will go but does not go In the second parable we have a barely veiled account of the death of the prophets and of Jesus. A landowner plants a vineyard and lets it out to tenants. When the harvest is due, the landowner sends two successive groups of slaves, both of whom are beaten and sent away without being given what their master is due. Finally the landowner sends his own son, expecting that he will receive the respect that is his due and that the tenants will pay the rent to him. His confidence is misplaced, the tenants take him and kill him thinking that if they kill the son and heir that the vineyard will be theirs.

In the first parable we are meant to assume that the son who said he would not go represents the Gentiles (those who didn’t believe in Yahweh but who do what God requires). The son who says he will go and does not represents the Jews who claim to believe, but who do not accept Jesus as the anointed one sent by God. The second parable presents a much more vivid description of the rejection of Jesus. It points out that the tenants who rejected the son (the Jewish leaders) will lose their place and another group of tenants (the Gentiles) will take charge of the vineyar

The third parable is that which we have heard this morning. A king gives a banquet for his son’s wedding but, at the appointed time, the invited guests (the Jewish people) refuse to come. In his anger the king destroys their city and invites all and sundry (the Gentiles) to come.

These three parables all illustrate the point that those to whom Jesus was sent rejected him and refused God’s invitation to be part of something new. As a consequence, God unexpectedly extended the invitation to a much broader and more diverse group of people. Through these parables, Matthew radically redefines the notion of who is chosen and who is not. The Israelites, the descendants of Abraham were so convinced that they were God’s chosen people and so keen to protect their position that they rejected anything – including Jesus – that threatened this sense of identity or that de-stablised their concept of reality. Their very attempt to hold on to their place before God led to their failure to see that God was doing something new. They saw no need to work in the vineyard when asked, to pay rent to the landowner or to respond to the invitation. As far as they were concerned their place was assured.

Through the parables (and through other means) Jesus makes it clear that their birthright alone is not enough to maintain their place as members of God’s chosen. In fact, their failure to respond led God to invite others – the son who did what the father asked, the new tenants of the vineyard, and those who were gathered in from the highways and the by-ways – these are invited to become members of the new people of God.

What is clear is that the Israelites no longer had the sole claim and right to be God’s chosen people, anyone who does what God requires, accepts Jesus as one sent from God and responds to God’s call can in this new way of seeing things be considered among God’s chosen. “Many are called but few are chosen.” This apparently exclusive statement in fact points in the opposite direction. Those who can be counted among the chosen “few” are no longer only those who are descended from Abraham and who keep the law, but all those who accept God’s invitation to belong – Jew AND Gentile.

Contrary to what we might think, these parables are not an attack on Judaism or Jews per se. They do not provide us with an excuse to denigrate or vilify our brothers and sisters of the Jewish faith. In their context, they are a means to help the early church come to terms with the fact that the faith from which they emerged was no longer the faith in which they found their home and to explain why those to whom Jesus was sent did not accept and follow.

Jesus’ death and resurrection flung wide the doors to salvation such that any who believe – Jew or Gentile might go through.

The parables give us an insight into the historical context of the gospel but they also provide a caution against the sort of self satisfaction and complacency that allows us to believe that we have a monopoly on salvation and that by virtue of faith or some other criterion others are excluded. We are challenged to accept the fact that it is sometimes the most surprising of people who will respond to God’s invitation and that if we are not careful we will be left behind.

Pentecost 16

Philippians 3

Marian Free

In the name of God, who calls us to freedom from rigid moral codes in order that we might submit ourselves completely to God. Amen.

 Recently I watched a movie called “Sabah”. It relates the story of an Arab family who had moved to Canada for a better life.  As is the case with many migrant families there is a tension between those who want to keep the traditions of their culture and homeland and a younger generation who, exposed to the values of a new land want to be free of the limitations imposed by their cultural heritage.

When the movie begins, the family is celebrating the birthday of the eldest daughter Sabah. One of the gifts is a photo of Sabah and her father at the beach. The photo awakens in her a desire to swim – something she has not done for years because it is considered an unseemly behaviour for a Muslim woman. Despite this, Sabah cannot suppress her longing to swim. Without her family’s knowledge she takes up swimming. In the process she meets and falls in love with a Canadian man. This is totally unacceptable to her family who give Sabah an ultimatum – she must end the relationship or no longer be a part of the family.

Sabah makes the choice to stay in the relationship. Fortunately, first her mother and sisters and then her brother come around to the idea of her being with a Westerner. Together they come to terms with the fact that adapting to the culture of their current home may involve relinquishing some of the rigid practices of the past, but it does not mean that they have to lose their identity nor does it necessarily mean that their moral values have to be compromised.

Stories such as this are common in our multi-cultural world. In Australia there are stories of tensions within families in which an older generation of migrants wants to hold to the traditions and values of their country of origin whereas a younger generation wants to feel that they belong in the country that has become their home. It would be foolish to think that it is easy for families to make the sort of transitions that are required to enable them to fit into a new community. Habits and traditions are not only comfortable and reassuring, but they often carry with them moral overtones. To break with the past, is not only to reject one’s culture but to expose oneself to criticism for moral turpitude.

This is the sort of clash of cultures that caused so many problems for the early Christian community. As we know, Christianity emerged out of Judaism – Jesus was a Jew, the disciples were Jews and Paul was a Jew. The earliest believers simply incorporated their faith in Jesus into their practice of the Jewish faith. Difficulties arose when non-Jews began to believe in Jesus. Members of the Jewish faith were challenged what they perceived as the intrusion of the Gentiles. They struggled to maintain the traditions and rituals that were essential for their self identity and tried to impose them on the new-comers.

We should not underestimate how difficult it was to combine the two communities. Years of exile and foreign rule had meant that the Jewish people had had to fight hard to maintain their identity. They did this, it appears, by putting a great deal of emphasis on those things which set them apart – the food that they were allowed to eat, the cleanliness rituals that they observed, circumcision of all males over 8 days old and so on. These behaviours and observances not only affirmed their identity as a people, they were also considered markers of their purity and holiness. This meant that failure to observe the cultural and religious mores would jeopardize not only their membership of the community but also their relationship with God.

The problem for the early church was that the very things set the Jews apart – those things that identified them as God’s chosen people – were the things that made it impossible for them to be part of a community that had non-Jewish members. Associating with those who were not Jewish, especially eating with them would make them ritually unclean – unfit for God. It was not something to be taken lightly. A way around this problem was to insist that the Gentiles should become as Jews observing the same rules and regulations as themselves – including being circumcised.

This is a solution that Paul strenuously opposes as we can see in the letters to Galatia and Rome. In the letter to Philippi we get a sense of the strength of Paul’s feeling on this matter. He warns the Philippians: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh!” Paul was convinced that it was knowledge of and faith in Jesus that was important, not the observation of rituals and laws or by external identity markers such as circumcision. These were all things that he once considered important – in fact, in terms of these outward forms of identification – circumcision, membership of the people of Israel, a Pharisee and so on- Paul says that he exceeded his fellow Jews. However, now that he knows Christ Jesus, everything that he once considered important – not only for his identity but for also for his salvation, he now considers as nothing more than rubbish.

According to Paul the criterion by which one is saved is faith, and if it is faith, then Jew and Gentile are saved by the same means – by faith in Jesus Christ. This does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong in the practice of the Jews, but it does mean that the Gentiles do not have to observe the same rituals. It also means that the Jews will not find themselves excluded from salvation if they rely on faith for their salvation and relax some of the rules to enable them to accept the Gentile members of the new community and to worship with and eat with them. When it comes to faith, it is not the externals that matter, Paul says, but the state of the heart.

This long ago dispute serves as a warning to our generation. It reminds us not to take ourselves and our practice too seriously, not to place too much importance on the external observance of our faith and not to hold so rigidly to the past that we are unable to see what God is doing in the present. Times change and so too must we. If we are not to be left behind, we must distinguish between that which is at the heart of our faith and those things that we have added to enhance our expression of that faith. The former must be brought with us into the future whereas the latter can be safely left behind. Paul reminds us, as he does the Philippians – that in the final analysis, it is the strength of our belief and not our outward display that matters.

Pentecost 15 – 2011

Philippians 2

Marian Free 

In the name of God who calls us to hold fast to the values of the kingdom and not to be seduced by the values of the world. Amen.

Most of us have seen such BBC dramas as Pride and Prejudice or comedies like To the Manor Born. Both illustrate the way in which the landed gentry of their time felt that it was their right to determine not only the behaviour of the clergy, but also the content of their sermons. In other words, they saw the church and the faith it imparted as something under their authority. This attitude relates in part to the fact that the Church of England is the established or state church. Since the time of Henry VIII church and state have been intimately entwined such that those who felt that they represented the state felt that they also represented the church.

One of the consequences of this relationship between church and state was the belief that the church and its members conformed to and upheld the establishment. Societal norms were assumed to be indistinguishable from Christian norms. Members of the Church of England were good, pious citizens who supported the status quo. The role of the church was in part to produce good upstanding citizens who did not rock the boat. Many would say that this was still the case today – that the role of the church (and of church goers) is to be responsible citizens who conform to societal values.

It would probably come as a surprise then, to discover that even the most conventional of we church-goers are in fact, non-conformists. We live in a world that values material possessions as a sign of success and a successful career as a means of distinguishing oneself. We inhabit a world in which ambition leads to competition with each other for recognition and in which there are many are who are judgmental, hard and unforgiving.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that for most of us, even though we are comfortable, we do not let our possessions define us, that while we might strive to succeed we try not to do so at the expense of others and that by and large we understand our own frailty enough to be forgiving of the frailties of others – that means, believe it or not, that we are all counter-cultural. We represent a subversive element in a materialistic, competitive and unforgiving world! (Try telling that to your children or grandchildren!)

It is this counter-cultural attitude that Paul is trying to encourage when he writes to the community in Philippi. The church at Philippi have been particularly supportive of Paul, and the letter is primarily one of thanksgiving. At the same time, Paul takes the opportunity to reinforce behaviours and attitudes that he thinks are essential for the Christian life.  He reminds the community that as a result of their faith in Jesus their citizenship is in heaven (3:21).  This means that their values and ideals are to be measured by heavenly and not earthly standards.

Paul himself now regards everything that he formerly held to be important to be nothing more than rubbish compared with the benefits of knowing Christ. His status by birth, his position compared to other members of the Jewish faith, his blamelessness under the law – all the measures that he once considered essential, he now considers a loss.

The basis of, and example for, this radical, counter cultural attitude is none other than Jesus. According to Paul, Jesus overturns the standards and expectations of his day, Jesus not only refuses to conform by seeking recognition, power and wealth, but he encourages his disciples to follow his example by rejecting them. Jesus exemplifies the behaviour of a Christian. As Paul says: “though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.”

The idea that someone could be God and yet not exploit the situation is beyond comprehension to those who hold fast to the values of the world. That that same person (despite being God) would choose to be obedient to the point of death is a radically shocking idea – especially in a first century world that was populated with a multitude of gods who completed for the attention of the community and in the context of the Roman Empire in which power and might were all important. It would have been inconceivable to most of the residents of Philippi that someone one would have both power and might in their reach and would surrender them of their own volition.

Paul understands that Jesus, through his teaching and by example, confronts and overturns the values of the world and he urges the Philippians to have the same mind as Christ Jesus – to regard others as better than themselves (2:3-4), to do nothing from selfish ambition (2:3), or from rivalry or conceit, not to look to their own interests but to the interests of others (2:4), not to place value in appearances or in worldly distinction (3:7f) and to believe that God will supply everything that they need (4:19).

Paul understands the ultimate goal of such reversal. He knows – again through the example of Jesus, that it is by surrendering everything that Jesus gains everything: ‘Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”, This reversal of expectations is Paul’s experience and the experience of all who follow Christ. For example, instead of limiting Paul’s missionary activity, his being in prison, has actually helped to spread the gospel! In the same way the suffering of the Philippians is not a sign that things are going badly, but rather that they have the privilege of sharing in Christ’s suffering and that as they share in Christ’s suffering, so they will share in his resurrection.

Jesus was a radical, counter-cultural, revolutionary and subversive figure. In his battle to change society, his weapons of choice were love, vulnerability, humility and compassion. He demonstrated that acceptance and understanding were more potent agents of change than exclusion and censure.

If we are to follow in his footsteps and make the world a better place, we too must choose weakness over strength, compassion over condemnation, co-operation over rivalry. If we choose heavenly values over earthly values, we will shine as a light in this troubled world and, contrary to all expectation, not only will we discover that we lose nothing but gain everything, but we can be sure that with Christ, we will inherit life eternal.

Pentecost 14

Matthew 20:1-16

Marian Free

 In the name of God who loves us all and desires that we might be saved. Amen.

I don’t know if any one does this anymore. When I was a child there was a clear rule about sharing food. If there was one banana and two children – one child was allowed to cut it in two and the other was allowed to choose which of the halves they would take to eat. As you might imagine, the process was taken very seriously. The child who made the division went to a considerable amount of trouble to ensure that the banana was indeed cut into halves and the one who made the choice between the two pieces went to an equal amount of trouble to discern if one piece was bigger than the other. This method had two advantages, not only did the person with the knife try very hard to ensure that the division was equitable, but both children had an opportunity to determine what half a banana looked like. No one could say that the process was not fair.

It seems that we are born with an innate sense of fairness. I wonder if there is anyone here who has never said: “It’s not fair!” We have such a concern with equity, that it can come as a surprise to discover that not only is the gospel NOT about God being fair, but just the opposite. The gospel consistently reminds us that God is blatantly unfair.

In simple terms we think like this – those who are good will get to heaven and those who are bad will not.  Those who obey the law will find themselves in God’s good books and those who do not obey will find themselves on God’s bad side. The problem with this point of view is that God does not have a bad side! God does not measure out God’s love according to a pre-determined principle. God cannot restrict God’s love only to those who reach some pre-determined standard.

This point is so important that Jesus hammers it out in the gospels – people who behave badly do not get their just desserts and those who are good according to the law are not always rewarded in the way that they expect. Over and over again, in story and parable, Jesus reminds us that contrary to expectation, the kingdom of God is simply not fair. The prodigal son wastes his inheritance and yet the father welcomes him home and kills the fatted calf. It’s not fair. The Pharisee who invites Jesus to supper obeys all the commandments, and yet Jesus commends not him, but the woman (a known sinner) who washes his feet. It’s not fair. Ninety-nine sheep do the right thing and stay together, but does the farmer care? No he seeks out the one who has wandered away holds a party when it is found. It’s not fair. More than once Jesus says: “The last will be first and the first will be last.” It’s not fair!

The fact that God is unfair is so contrary to our sense of justice and our notion of fairness that Jesus wants to be absolutely sure that we understand – that we see that the values of the kingdom are completely different from the values of this world. Justice in the kingdom is God’s justice which is not limited by human ideas of equity or fairness– if they were, we would have been abandoned long ago for our ingratitude, our failure to trust in God, our propensity to worship other gods and our failure to heed the warnings of the prophets. However, instead of rejecting us, God sent Jesus to save us.

The problem with believing that God will be just according to our understanding of justice is that there are not grades of salvation. One is either saved or one is not. It is impossible to be more saved than someone else. For that reason there is no point measuring oneself against someone else and determining that because you are more honest, or more generous that God will favour you above that person because there will always be someone more honest, more generous than you and by your own standards you will be found wanting.

God’s kingdom does not fit with our sense of justice because there is only one reward and only one way to achieve it. The reward is eternal life and the way to gain that reward is simply to believe in Jesus Christ. Let me say that again. There is only one reward and only one way to achieve it. That means that everyone who believes in Jesus will inherit eternal life. God will not be measuring us against each other according to how good we have been, or how bad we have been – because there is only one criteria – faith.

Of course that makes sense if we think about it. If the measure relates to our goodness or lack of it, where would the cut off mark be? Would only the absolutely perfect pass the test or would those who had only been a little bit bad slip through? How much is too bad? Is goodness enough or does it have to be accompanied by humility and love? If only the perfect can enter heaven, we are all in trouble because only Jesus is perfect. On the other hand if the imperfect (and that includes us) can enter heaven – where does it all stop? At what point is someone too imperfect to have eternal life?

Today’s parable is a perfect example of the problem of God’s justice. I imagine that all of us can relate to the attitude of those who have worked all day in the hot sun. When they see those who have only worked an hour being paid a full day’s wage, they naturally expect that their work will be more amply rewarded. If some get a day’s wage for only one hour’s work, then perhaps those who have worked all day will get 12 days wages for 12 hours work. That’s only fair!  No wonder they are disappointed – despite working all day they only get paid the same as the other workers. “It’s not fair!”

It’s not fair. That’s the point – it’s not fair. It’s not fair because there is no hierarchy in heaven. The extra-good don’t get better treatment or a more comfortable spot than the not quite so good. The not quite so good don’t get better treatment or a more comfortable spot than the good enough. The good enough don’t get better treatment or a more comfortable spot than the nearly good enough and so on. If heaven is the reward of those who believe, then those who believe must expect to be mixed up with all those who believe – the very good, the not good, and perhaps even the bad. It is a challenging thought – that those whom we consider less deserving than ourselves may well be spending eternity with us. At the same time, it is humbling to consider that the saints of every age will have to share eternity with those who are as imperfect as us.

God is not fair and that is good news. Our sense of justice might see many excluded from the kingdom, but if we relied on our own efforts, the very standards we set might exclude even us. It is because God is unfair that we can be assured that we will be saved and if God should choose to save us, why should we begrudge that salvation to others?

Pentecost 13  2011

Matthew 18:21-35

Marian Free

In the name of God whose forgiveness of us knows no bounds. Amen.

During the second world war, a Dutch woman. Corrie ten Boom. was complicit in hiding Jews from the Nazis. When her family’s action was discovered, she and her sister Betsie were sent off to the concentration camps, and at the end of the war they found themselves in Ravensbruck. Their story is remarkable, in particular the way in which they managed to maintain and share their faith – and even remain thankful in what were horrendous circumstances. During their time in the camps they made a plan. When the war was over, they were determined to establish places of forgiveness where those from both sides of the conflict could meet and find ways to set the past behind them. It was their wish that the enmity created by the war not be extended by a failure to forgive and to move into the future.

Unfortunately Betsie died before the war ended, but Corrie was determined that their vision be brought to fruition. One of the ways in which she achieved this goal was to travel the world to spread the message of forgiveness. In theory it seems that it was relatively easy to share with others a message she passionately believed. However, one evening Corrie was called to put into practice what she had been preaching. At the conclusion of an evening’s lecture a man approached her. She recognised him at once as one of the most cruel guards from Ravensbruck and one who had been guilty of humiliating her beloved sister. He walked up to her and as he reached her he said: “A fine message, Fraulein! How good it is to know that, as your say, all our sins are at the bottom of the sea! I have become a Christian, I know that God has forgiven me for the cruel things I did at Ravensbruck, but I would like to hear it from your lips as well. Fraulein – will you forgive me?”

Corrie reports that she was frozen. Nothing could make her extend her hand to meet his, or to say the words that he longed to hear. (Could he erase Betsie’s slow and terrible suffering just for the asking?)  She says: “I stood there with coldness clutching my heart. But forgiveness is not an emotion – I knew that too. Forgiveness is an act of the will.” Corrie’s only recourse was to pray, “Jesus help me!” She forced herself to raise her hand and as she reached out to take the hand of the guard, she felt a current flow down into her hand, and felt a healing warmth flood her whole body. “I forgive you brother with all my heart![1]”

I tell this story, not only because it is so powerful, but also because it demonstrates that forgiveness is not an action that comes easily. Sometimes it depends on an act of will that requires supernatural power to put into effect. Forgiveness is not an easy facile thing. It is often a difficult, powerful act that requires, as Corrie reminds us, not only an act of will but divine intervention. Those who have experienced abuse, oppression or violence at the hand of another need to find an extraordinary strength to hold out the hand of forgiveness to the perpetrator. If and when they do, they will experience the amazing healing that forgiveness can bring to themselves and to the other.

“Forgiving and forgetting” is not an easy thing to do as we are sometimes made to feel by the way the phrase is bandied about so lightly[2].

Today’s parable makes this clear. In the parable, a slave who is forgiven a huge debt, refuses to forgiven the infinitely smaller debt of another slave. For some reason, the former slave has not seen how like the other he is. He is unable to equate his failure and the failure of his fellow slave. His indebtedness to his master had exposed his own weakness. Instead of feeling gratitude, instead of grasping the power of forgiveness, he feels embarrassed and humiliated. To restore his sense of self he exercises his power over someone weaker than himself.

Jesus’ parable aptly sums up the problem for many of us – we see too clearly the faults of others and are blind to our own faults. Because we don’t understand that we too need forgiveness, we are often unwilling to extend that forgiveness to others. It is only when we truly understand our own frailties and acknowledge our own weakness and sinfulness that we come to understand that we share with all humankind the failure to live as the people whom God created in his image. It is only when we understand how far short we fall from the glory of God, that we see that however, “good” we are, we are far, far from perfect. It is only when we fully comprehend our own shortcomings, that it becomes a little easier to accept and overlook the shortcomings of others.

What is more, it is only when we truly understand that not only are we not perfect, but that we will not – in this life – ever be perfect,  that we will be overwhelmed by the enormity of God’s grace, that we will understand how little we have done to deserve God’s love for us, and that we will be completely astounded that God has forgiven and will continue to forgive us.

Once we know how little we ourselves have done to deserve God’s forgiveness, we will find it a little easier to extend that forgiveness to others whom we might previously have believed did not deserve it.

At the centre of our faith is the cross – an act of love and forgiveness freely given to an undeserving and uncaring world. To truly grasp the message of the gospel is to accept the message of unconditional love demonstrated by the cross, and having truly accepted that love we will find it impossible not to extend it to others. In a million lifetimes we could not do enough to earn such love, why then should we expect others to earn it in one?

Pentecost 12 2011

Romans 13:1-7

Marian Free

In the name of God who desires that we seek peace and justice for all. Amen.

“Rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad.” So writes Paul in his letter to the Romans. If we were to apply this literally today, we would have to condemn the actions related to the so-called “Arab spring”. We would have to agree with the Burmese government that Aung San Suu Kyi is a threat to stability in that country and that Nelson Mandela should never have been freed. If those who resist authority resist what God appointed and should incur judgement, then we should not be incensed by the imprisonment and torture of political activists in many parts of the world.

A literal interpretation of this section of Paul’s letter allowed the German people, many of them Christians, to stand by or even support the actions of Hitler during the second World War. Government, even oppressive and violent government could be seen as ordained by God and its actions therefore not to be questioned.

Texts such as Romans 13, force us to consider how we are to approach our biblical texts. Do we accept and apply every word without question or do we seek to understand the context in which the bible was written and then try to see how it might apply in our own time? Do we take every sentence literally or do we try to see how the writers used drama and rhetoric to make their point? Do we pick and choose what to accept and what to ignore according to our own theology?

What we know as our Holy Scriptures is the most complex set of writings. They include story, history, poetry, prophecy, gospels and even letters! Across the breadth of the Bible we find repetition and contradiction, we discover both fact and fantasy and we see that some things were written for a particular time and place and others are truths that remain so forever.

When Paul was writing to the Romans, he almost certainly had no idea that two thousand years later his letter of introduction to the people there would be being treated as Holy Scripture. He certainly had no thought that one part of that letter would effectively result in the extermination of six million of his fellow Jews!

The situation in Rome was a difficult and sensitive one for the first believers for a number of reasons. Firstly, around the year 49 the Jews had been expelled from Rome “on account of disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (a term is commonly believed to refer to Christ). This meant that those to whom Paul was writing were living in a precarious situation. Drawing attention to themselves would not have been helpful if they hoped to remain in Rome.

Another problem was that the early Christians created a situation hitherto unknown in the Roman Empire. The God whom they worshipped was a universal God, not the God of a particular nation. Romans worshipped a number of gods and they were reasonably tolerant of the gods of the nations over whom they ruled – including Yahweh whom the Jews worshipped. They could not understand and therefore not tolerant of a god who was not restricted to a particular nation but who was claimed as THE God with power over all the world. While the Jews had permission to worship their God, the Christians (whose God was not related to their nationality) did not. This meant that were they to draw attention to themselves, they may have been forbidden to gather for worship.

Thirdly, in the first century, government was very different to that with which we are familiar. Power was restricted to a few and held by force. An empire as large as that of Rome had to be tightly contained and unrest had to be quickly put down. Add to this the fact that a majority of those who lived in Rome were slaves and it is easy to see that it would have been impossible for any group to consider taking on the might of the Emperor. It is in this context that Paul cautions the believers in Rome against causing trouble.

Circumstances have changed considerably since the writing of the New Testament. We live in a very different time and under a very different form of government. We have the right not only to choose who will be in our parliaments, but also to challenge their decisions. Many other things have changed in the intervening years – the printing press has been invented making the bible accessible to all not just a few, most people in the Western world have access to education and can read, slavery has been abolished (at least in theory), women have legal rights, can work for a living and own property.

When we read the scriptures, it is important to take into account the circumstances in which they were written, to understand the intentions of the writers and the nature of the communities to whom they were written in this way we avoid taking literally things that we intended to be understood figuratively, we avoid being dogmatic about things that that pertained to a particular time and place and we avoid applying outdated mores to a different time and culture.

It is true that God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. However, scripture was written by fallible human beings who wrote to particular groups of people at a particular time and place. As we seek to live out the faith they knew and proclaimed and we must look beyond the surface of what is written to the truths are revealed and maintain an openness to the Holy Spirit who, working in, through and with us continues to make God known in every place and in every age.

Pentecost 11 2011

Matthew 16:21-28

Marian Free

 In the name of God who calls us into being, and into being in him. Amen.

For those of us who grew up with the 1662 prayer book, the words of the Collects that were repeated on the same Sunday year after year both formed the pattern of our lives and formed our spirituality. I know that many of us developed the habit of making our Christmas cakes and puddings on the feast of Christ the King. On that day the collect included the words “stir up your hearts”  – words that became so familiar that the Sunday became known to the cake-makers of the English world as “stir up Sunday”. The collects also formed us spiritually because the language that we heard each year was rich and beautiful and tapped into the deep places of our hearts.

These collects have not been discarded entirely but continue to form part of the menu of our daily worship. The collects used during the week for Morning and Evening Prayer and for the daily Eucharist come from the Book of Common Prayer. They not only bring back memories of the time in which the faith of many of us was formed, but they also reveal profound truths that inform and shape the way we understand our faith.

Take for example, the collect that is now set for the second week of Lent: “Remember, O Lord, what you have wrought in us and not what we deserve, and, as you have called us to your service, make us worthy of our calling; through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Or one of my favourites which was the Collect set for last week: “Creator God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you: teach us to offer ourselves to your service, that here we may have peace and in the world to come may see you face to face; through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The words, “Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you” express the deepest longing of the soul that cannot be content so long as it is separated from the one who created it. It recognises the truth that we do not really belong in this world, but in the world to come.

Today there are many people who experience a deep sense of dissatisfaction with the world and with their place in it.  Failing to understand the true reason for their restlessness, they seek to fill the void in their lives with the pursuit of prestige, of wealth and even of relationships instead of exploring the reason for their distress. They live life on the surface, seeking contentment in superficial, material, transient things. These people measure their lives by what they achieve, by what they accomplish, by what they own or by how many friends they have. [It is impossible for these people to conceive that there is any value in failing to achieve, in not reaching the standard they have set for themselves. ]

Suffering and failure have no place in a life focused on getting ahead – or even in a life concerned with maintaining the status quo. Every ounce of energy is focused on reaching out for more or, at the very least, holding on to what one According to this world view, growth can only be measured in physical, material terms. There is no comprehension of the sort of inner growth that comes as a result of learning from one’s mistakes or from overcoming adversities. There is no recognition of the deeper, spiritual values that are honed in the fires of experience and won through taking risks and facing difficulties head on.

This is Peter’s problem in today’s gospel. He has thrown in his lot with Jesus and while it is true that he has given up a great many things to do so, it also appears that he has no real understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus or what Jesus’ real purpose is. In his eyes, as indeed in the eyes of many, Jesus’ death at the hands of the scribes and Pharisees would signify the failure of Jesus’ mission. Everything that he, Peter, had expected and hoped for would come to an undignified end. “This must never happen to you,” he says.

Jesus’ response to Peter’s cry is the most stinging rebuke in the New Testament: “Get behind me Satan!”  Peter is firmly identified with the world and its values. He has demonstrated that despite his recognition of Jesus, he is still measuring achievement and failure by earthly standards. His focus on worldly success has blinded him to a different way of evaluating growth and accomplishment. It is impossible for Peter to understand how Jesus’ death can, in any way, be viewed from a positive point of view – to him it is utter foolishness.

It is in this context that Jesus says: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.” In order to find true contentment, to ease the sense of dissatisfaction and to quell the restlessness of our souls, we have to learn to measure our achievements according to different values. We have to let go of those things that give up value in the eyes of the world, to give up our striving for worldly success and material possessions and place ourselves completely in the hand of God- to let God determine our future.

Peter wants to remain in control, to determine Jesus’ – and therefore his own -fate. If everything stays the same, he can feel safe and secure – he can ignore the restlessness at his core and continue to believe that he is achieving what he is meant to achieve. Jesus demonstrates in both word and action, that it is only by letting go of everything that this world holds dear, that one truly lives, and that success and failure are measured differently in the kingdom.

Taking up our cross, seems an unlikely way to achieve life’s goals. In fact it turns upside down everything we know and believe about success. However, Jesus knows that without the cross, there is no resurrection, that unless one is willing to give up everything, one will achieve nothing. For this reason, Jesus is urging us to have the courage to surrender our ego and acknowledge the Creator’s greater wisdom, to risk everything in the belief that the one who made us knows us better than we can ever know ourselves, and to recognise that it is only by placing ourselves completely in God’s hands that the deepest longings of our souls will be met and the restlessness that drives our existence will find itself at peace.

Pentecost 10 2011

Romans 12:1-8

Marian Free

 in the name of God who longs for all creation to know and acknowledge him. Amen.

 Paul’s letter to the Romans is considered his finest work. In fact for centuries, scholars referred to it as Paul ‘s last will and testament. By this they meant that in this letter, Paul gathered together and summed up his theological endeavours in one final document. It was felt that, rather than writing to address the problems of a particular community – as is clearly the case in say the letters to Corinth – Paul was setting out the theology that he had honed over the extent of his missionary travels. In recent times this view has been revised.

It is now understood that Paul’s letter to the Romans addresses issues within the Roman church and is not just a theological treatise written in isolation and ignorant of the situation in Rome.

Paul was a tour de force in early christianity. While there were almost certainly other missionaries, it is only Paul who has left us with such a huge body of writing, and it was he who interpreted the story of Jesus for new believers. It was Paul who gave us the notions of grace and of justification by faith, Paul who understood and taught the idea that the cross reversed the way in which we viewed the world and God. It was Paul who had the courage to grapple with the problem of how to include non-Jews in a faith that had developed out of Judaism. In fact, without Paul, Christianity and our understanding of it would have been remarkably poorer. Thanks to Paul and the letters that he wrote, we have a much  fuller understanding of a the beginnings of our faith and the struggles that made it what it is.

Paul had an experience of the risen Christ that turned his life around. He changed from someone who had persecuted those who believed in Jesus to being a passionate believer.

His passion led him to spread the word – in Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, Philippi. his visits to these communities were not long – eighteen months at best. That meant that when he moved on to another place, there were likely to be questions and misinterpretations of what he had said. Often these were sufficient to cause serious strife for the new communities. Paul wrote his letters to inform, correct and even chide those whom he had left behind. He almost certainly had no idea of his letters being included in our scriptures and being read and studied some 2000 years later!

Broadly speaking there were two major issues. In Corinth and Thessalonica, the believers had either not understood Paul’s teaching or had misunderstood it. In both communities there was confusion about the resurrection and in particular – what happens to those who die before Jesus comes again? The letters also reveal that there were tensions within the community that were causing divisions, competition among members and so on. Paul’s wonderful exposition on love in first Corinthians is, in it’s original context, Paul’s censure of the unloving Corinthians who were competing with each other, taking each other to court and engaging in immoral behaviour.

The second major issue that Paul’s letter address is the problem of creating a new community (albeit one that grew out of and had strong links with Judaism) that included both Jew and non – Jew. this was a matter of some sensitivity. Jews had strict law of ritual cleanliness and equally strict food laws. this made it impossible for them to associate with those who did not adhere to these rules. In particular, it meant that Jews were not allowed to eat with Gentiles – a grave difficulty when the central act of worship included a meal. Another  difficulty for a faith that grew out of Judaism was that of circumcision. In order to become a Jew a male had to be circumcised- a step that few were willing to take.

The difficulty for the early church was that there were many Gentiles who had come to believe in Jesus and who, as a result wanted to join in worship with others. In both  Romans and Galatians we see something of how this played out in reality. (Of course, in re-constructing the situation, we are relying on our best guess as we have only the information in the letters to go on.)

It appears that the community in Galatia were being troubled by those who were teaching a message different from that of Paul. Whether it was the pagans trying to convince the believers to give up their new found faith (because it required circumcision) or Judaisers who were arguing that the converts had to first become Jews (be circumcised) in order to be Christ followers, the community of faith was wavering. In fact it appears that they were in danger of abandoning their faith altogether, In response Paul says some very negative things about the Jewish law and it’s ability to save.

When Paul decides to write to Rome – a community which he did not found, and which knows him only by repute – he is aware that what he has written to the Galatians is known in Rome. The believers in Rome seem to have the idea that Paul has rejected his Jewish heritage. As a result, they are asking questions about the faithfulness of God. Can God be trusted if God has abandoned the Jews – God’s chosen people? What guarantee is there that God won’t change God’s mind again?

The letter to the Romans deals with this issue – God’s faithfulness to GOD’s promises. Paul has to demonstrate that the inclusion of the Gentiles was always part of God’s plan and that even now, the Jews who do not believe in Christ have not been cast aside. He does this in a number of ways. First of all he argues that all people are equal before God because all have sinned. Then he argues that the way to salvation is – and always was – faith. Finally, he points to God’s right to choose the make-up of God’s chosen people.

Our understanding of our faith is based in part on the way in which the early believers grappled with and applied the teachings of Jesus – whom they had come to believe was the Son of God. Years before the Gospel writers made an attempt to record the life and teaching of Jesus, Paul struggled to make sense of this new belief system and how it applied to Jew and Gentile alike. We owe him a great debt and if we make the effort to read and study what he has to say our lives and our faith will be greatly enriched.