Swallowsrest

Pentecost 9 – 2011

Matthew 15:21-28

Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us into a relationship that is robust and true. Amen.

Over the past year, I have reflected on the fact that most of us are too timid when it comes to our conversations with God. Timid as to what we ask for, timid as to the way in which we ask, timid as to our expectations. Timidity is not a biblical characteristic. Consider the example of Abraham. Not only did Abraham question whether or not God was able to provide him with an heir (even though God continually re-iterated God’s promise), Abraham also had the nerve to argue with God about God’s decision to destroy Sodom.

The conversation in Genesis is instructive – Abraham basically wears God down. When God tells Abraham of his plans to destroy Sodom, Abraham says to God: “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” God replies: “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.” Abraham then asks God: “What if there are 45?” and so on until God agrees not to destroy Sodom if ten righteous people can be found there (Gen 18:17-33).

Moses also, was not afraid to let God know what he thought. Despite the fact that God brought the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, the people constantly complained about their lot, failed to trust in God and worst of all, made for themselves an idol to worship instead of God. Over and over again, Moses stood between the Israelites and God – who threatened dire consequences for the Israelite’s bad behaviour. What is more Moses had the effrontery to point out to God that God would loose respect in the face of the nations if God destroyed God’s chosen people and as a result God would relent and either not punish or limit the consequences of Israel’s actions.

For example, when the people complain that it would be better for them to have stayed in Egypt than to die in the wilderness, God threatens: “I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you (Moses) a nation greater and mightier than they.” However, Moses stands in the breach and says to God” “The Egyptians will hear of it, and they will tell the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that you, O LORD, are in the midst of this people. Now if you kill this people all at one time, then the nations who have heard about you will say, ‘It is because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land he swore to give them that he has slaughtered them in the wilderness.’ And now, therefore, let the power of the LORD be great.” (Numbers 14:1-20). In effect, Moses has the nerve to tell God that God’s reputation as a great God will be nullified if he carries out his threat to destroy Israel!

It seems then, that our forebears did not have a problem with tackling God head-on, being honest about how they felt and challenging God about what God planned to do. As a result, on occasion, God does indeed change his mind.

All of this brings us to today’s gospel and the Canaanite woman. Her daughter is tormented by a demon, so she seeks out Jesus and asks for his help. However, it doesn’t look hopeful – Jesus’ reaction is to ignore the woman and his disciples urge him to send her away. That alone seems cruel and heartless, but what comes next is worse. When Jesus finally responds he says: “I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel,” – the woman and her daughter are simply not his responsibility. The desperate woman falls to her knees and pleads: “Lord, help me.’ Even then Jesus is not moved: “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” The barrier between the Jews and the Gentiles is firmly fixed, and Jesus can see no reason to break it. The woman does not belong to the people of Israel therefore she is not his concern. Furthermore, if Jesus helps her, he is taking something away from those he came to save.

Many of us would be cowed and put off by Jesus’ harsh reaction. We would loose our confidence and slink off to where we came from. This woman, however, is persistent. She loves and values her daughter and nothing is going to deter her. Even though Jesus bluntly refuses her request and compares her to a dog, she will not be stopped. She challenges Jesus and his world-view, taking his description of outsiders and using it to her advantage: “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master’s table.” In her own eyes, even though she does not belong to the people of Israel, she is worthy of Jesus’ attention. Just as dogs lick up the crumbs that fall from the table, so the outsiders – the Gentiles – may benefit from Jesus’ presence in the world, even if they receive only the crumbs it will be enough.

The woman’s determination and confidence pay off. Jesus is persuaded by her argument and agrees to heal her daughter. Not only is the woman’s request granted, but she has changed Jesus’ mind. According to this account, the whole history of humankind is changed in this transaction, the people of Israel no longer has exclusive hold on God and Jesus’ mission “to the lost sheep of Israel” has been extended to include all people. The outsider has become one of the insiders, the one who was ignored and turned away has made her point to the Saviour of the world, the one who was considered of no account, has proven her worth and received her wish.

I wonder how many of us would have persisted in the face of such resistance. I wonder whether in the face of difficulty or unanswered prayer do we simply think: “It’s too hard”, “God doesn’t want to help.” I wonder whether we too often quietly and meekly put our requests aside and accept silence as rebuke, or as the “will of God.”

I do not know, any more than you, why some prayers seem to be heard and others seem to be lost in the void, but in the light of the stories of Abraham, Moses and the unnamed Canaanite women, I ask myself: Do we really engage with God when we are angry confused or disappointed? Or do we ask too little, set our expectations too low or give up too soon?

Pentecost 8 – 2011

Liturgical Revision

Marian Free

 In the name of God who makes all things new. Amen.

Last week after the service, someone commented to me that while he enjoyed the Holy Communion from the 1662 Prayer Book he missed the flexibility of our modern prayers that allow for the inclusion of the sick and the departed. He also admitted that he missed the Greeting of Peace. When I replied that I was sure that the Peace Greeting would have been quite contentious when it was first introduced, he agreed, telling me how cautiously it was received in this Parish. As was the case in many churches in this Diocese, if not elsewhere, the Greeting of Peace was met with resentment and suspicion by many parishioners. At St Augustine’s. Forty years later most of us take it for granted and, like my friend, miss it when it is not used.

The Anglican Reformers demonstrated great wisdom when they wrote number 34 of the 39 Articles. It reads in part: ”It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like: for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word”. Those who wrote this had the foresight to recognise that across the Empire and across the centuries, there would be a need to change and adapt the Prayer Book such that it was culturally appropriate and relevant to its time.

Despite this freedom, it took a long time for there to be any real change to the Prayer Book for at least two centuries. One could attend an Anglican Church anywhere in the Commonwealth and expect to use the Book of Common Prayer. However, that didn’t mean that liturgy and its practice remained static from 1662 until the last century – unofficial changes in ritual and  practice were common, but rarely were they of such magnitude as to make the liturgy unrecognisable[1].

It had been the intention of the Reformation to increase the frequency of Holy Communion. From the time of Queen Elizabeth I until the late nineteenth century, the weekly fare for Anglicans consisted of Matins, the Litany and Holy Communion (or at least ante-Communion). This resulted in a “marathon of prayer, scripture and praise”[2] that could last for up to two and a half hours. A s a consequence many had left before the Eucharist had even begun, thus defeating the purpose of increasing the numbers at Holy Communion.

By the 1800’s there were calls for the separation of the three services – a practice that was already becoming customary. A Convocation was called which encouraged the shortening of the services and an increased participation by the laity. The Act of 1872 allowed for the separation of the three services and for greater freedom with regard to the materials in the Prayer Book. However, the greatest impetus for change came in 1908 when the Lambeth Conference established principles for liturgical reform. It was this that drove the revisions throughout the world during the 1900’s.

In 1928 a revision of the prayer book was defeated in the House of Commons. However the Bishops decided to allow its use provided the practice was consistent with that book or the Book of Common Prayer. For much of the latter part of the twentieth century, the Eucharist as a stand-alone service was the primary form of worship in most Australian churches and over time, even this was shortened by the omission of the exhortations.

While Cranmer and the Reformers looked to the bible as their source for liturgical reform, the reformers of the 20^th century looked to the practice of the early church which they modified to suit the current habits of thought and language. Among other changes, the recent reformers reinstituted the offertory – not as an offering of Christ to God, but as the offering of bread and wine as tokens of our own offering, our own ministry. They also brought back the greeting of peace we find in Paul’s letters and from some of the earliest liturgies. The penitential element of the services was reduced and the full recitation of the Ten Commandments was replaced with the two great commandments. An Old Testament lesson and a Psalm were added to the readings, to make up for the loss of the regular use of Morning Prayer.

Another major difference of the most recent service books is that they give the people a voice, not only in saying the liturgy, but also in leading parts of the services – reading the scriptures and leading the intercessions.  Our modern Prayer Books also offer much greater variety than that of our forebears – for example the opportunity to compile our own intercessions and to choose one of five forms of Thanksgiving Prayer.

Over the centuries since the Book of Common Prayer was compiled, language and our use of it has changed dramatically. Who today for example would understand that “let” means hindered or prevented? How many young people would understand that “manifold” is not simply something related to a car’s engine? We no longer use the word “divers” and the word “property” is used more for real estate than it is for the nature of things. The last fifty years have also seen developments in theology that need to be recognised in our liturgy. For example, referring to God constantly as Father or Almighty overlooks the many, many qualities of God that are acknowledged in our scriptures and the fact those who have been abused by their fathers do not find Father a useful expression for God.

There will always be a tension between holding on to the language and forms of liturgy that we have come to love, and finding ways to speak afresh to new generations. As we move into increasingly changing times and into an era in which fewer come to church, it will be important to understand and be true to our history, while at the same time finding ways that enable yet another generation to engage in worship that expresses in words and actions the praise that they long to offer from their hearts.

Pentecost 7 – 2011

The Book of Common Prayer

(We will be using the Book of Common Prayer in our worship today. If you are reading this, you might like first to read the Service for Holy Communion published in 1662. It can be found on a number of web sites if you do not own a copy.)

Marian Free

In the name of God to whom and before whom we bring ourselves in grateful praise. Amen.

One of the things that you will notice about today’s liturgy is the penitential element, and the threats of dire consequences for anyone who dares to receive communion unworthily. This element is quite different from the liturgies of the first centuries which did not even include confession and our modern services which place the stress on forgiveness. The emphasis on sin and the consequences thereof is an innovation introduced during the Middle Ages. During this time the church became obsessed with both private and public confession and the Eucharist became increasingly penitential.

The obsession with sin meant that the Eucharist became more morbid, thanksgiving and proclamation gave way to subjective prayer – which tended to concentrate on the unworthiness of the participants. The people were increasingly distanced from God – who needed to placated and propiated. To this end there developed a theology that in the Eucharist Jesus was once again sacrificed for us – as if there was something missing from the crucifixion such that to secure God’s favour Jesus had to be crucified again and again and again.

At the same time accessory actions (incense, washing and so) were included in the service and increasing layers of symbolism were added. The introduction of ablutions in this period represented a deepening respect for the elements that led to the reverencing of the consecrated bread and the wine as if they were Jesus himself. The lay people became increasingly excluded from the Eucharist (especially the wine) out of fear that any might be spilled and Christ in some way injured or suffer disrespect.

There were a number of factors that led up to the Reformation – political agendas, corruption within the church, the selling of indulgences, an obsession with (and adoration of) saints, an increase in ritual practices and an emphasis on sacramentalism to the exclusion of the scriptures. A quick glance at the thirty nine articles tells us that the Reformation in England was a reaction against such practices. This reaction is very much reflected in the form of the liturgy that we are using this morning.

Of particular concern at the time was the desire to make scripture the foundation of all that was done liturgically and sacramentally. The sixth article reads that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith.’ For this reason the number of sacraments was reduced to seven with baptism and Eucharist given primacy as the only two of the sacraments that could be traced back to Jesus. Ritual was reduced to a bare minimum. There were even arguments as to whether or not to use the sign of the cross in baptism and whether or not to kneel to receive communion.

While the Anglican Reformers affirmed that in the Eucharist participants received the Body and Blood of Christ they made it quite clear (in article 28) that it was taken in a heavenly and spiritual manner and that the bread and wine did not change in substance. They also stated in no uncertain terms that the “Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

Kneeling to receive communion was so contentious that a rubric had to be written particularly to address this problem. It was decided that kneeling be allowed, however: “It is hereby declared, that (by kneeling) no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. “

One of the tragedies of the Reformation was that the reformers did not recover original praise of the liturgies of the first six centuries. Instead of basing their liturgical revisions on the earliest texts, they took as their starting point the liturgies of the Middle Ages, bringing with them all their penitential flavour and sense of unworthiness. However, a major contribution was to make the liturgy accessible to the people. The Eucharist was said in the language of the day, the Bible was translated into English and both the bread and wine of communion were restored to the people. Henry VIII went so far as to insist that the creed and the ten commandments be written on the walls of Parish churches, and that the Bible be placed (open) in a situation in which anyone could read it.

The 1549 Prayer Book was based on the Sarum rite – the form of liturgy developed and used at Salisbury Cathedral. In 1542 this rite had been widely adopted for use – even by Canterbury Cathedral. Cranmer’s first revision of the Sarum rite was deliberately ambiguous to ensure that it met the needs of both the Catholics and the Reformers. However, in 1552 Cranmer moved to take out any ambiguity. For Cranmer the goal in writing the liturgy was to base the theology of the Eucharist on the person and work of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, Christ’s presence in the sacraments and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Cranmer dealt with those things he judged to be in conflict with biblical theology. Ideas of sacrifice, transubstantiation, reservation, the confessional, the invocation of saints and prayers for the departed were all reformed or totally removed.

Cranmer was particularly concerned to ensure that the Eucharistic prayer contained no sense of sacrifice – as you are about to hear – ‘you gave your only Son Jesus Christ, to suffer death on the cross for our redemption: who made there by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world’. It could not be clearer. Everything that was necessary for the removal of sin happened once for all on the cross. There was nothing missing in Jesus’ death that needed to be repeated, no lack that required Jesus to be sacrificed again and again at the Eucharist.

The final version of the service was published in 1662 and is still the official form of worship for the Anglican Church throughout the world. Our use of language has changed as has our theology, but it is difficult to argue with the beauty of the words and the depth of faith which lies behind them.

Pentecost 6 -2011

A history of liturgy

Marian Free

In the name of God, who draws us into God’s presence through scripture, sacrament, prayer and praise. Amen.

 One of the extraordinary aspects of our Sunday liturgy is how much it has in common with the earliest liturgical practice of the church. There are two reasons for this, one is that what we know as the ministry of the word developed from the practice in the synagogue and another is that from the beginning, the believing community used words that Jesus himself had given them at the last supper. A combination of the service of the word and the words of institution formed a pattern that we use for the Eucharist to this day.

The gospels record Jesus’ association with the synagogue. In today’s gospel, after Jesus finishes teaching the crowds he heads for the synagogue to teach the people. In Luke’s gospel we have a brief account of Jesus’ teaching – he stood up to read, was given the scroll, read from Isaiah, then sat down and began to teach. From this we can deduce that Synagogue worship included, among other things a reading from scripture and an exposition on the same.

Worship in synagogues arose during the exile of the Jews to Babylon. The temple had been destroyed and was no longer able to be a focus of or place in which to worship. The Israelites, in exile, far from Jerusalem, had to find a way to worship God and to maintain their national identity. A solution was to meet together in small groups, to read and expound on scripture and to praise God. During this period standardized forms of prayers were produced so that people could pray publicly and communally whereas prior to this time people had prayed individually and privately.

For those who were a long way from home, these meetings served the role of bringing their memories to life and of reminding them who they were. They recalled what God had done for them by the reading of scripture, they sang Psalms and offered praise to God, they responded to the scripture through a reflection or sermon, and they prayed together. In this way, the Jewish people could re-live the whole history of their relationship with God and look forward to a time when they would be restored to their homeland.

When the Jews returned from exile, they were able to rebuild the temple, but the habit of worshipping locally and regularly in the synagogue was sufficiently implanted that the irregular festivals at the Temple no longer provided a satisfactory alternative and so synagogue worship continued alongside worship in the Temple.

Given that Jesus was a Jew and that the earliest believers were also Jewish it is not surprising that the first community continued to worship in the synagogues. Nor is it surprising, that when the first believers were expelled from the synagogue,  they took with them the form of worship with which they were familiar –  readings from scripture (which increasingly included Paul’s letters and then the gospels, psalms, a sermon and intercessions. Over time, the Old Testament reading was omitted and a greeting was added. In the fifth and sixth century the service was elaborated to include an introit, kyries, Gloria and collect, giving us a form that is immediately recognizable today.

We know that the first Christians continued to meet in the synagogues. We know too that they also met on the first day of the week and that then (or at some other time) they met to share a meal and to break bread as Jesus had commanded them (1 Cor 11:23-26).  This form of worship also took shape very early. While we do not know the form used by the New Testament Church, the second century document The Didache provides words of Thanksgiving for the bread and the wine and a prayer for after communion. It also gives an instruction in relation to meeting on the Lord’s day to break bread and offer thanksgiving after the confession of sin.

Also writing in the second century, Justin Martyr records: “On finishing the prayers we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and mixed wine are brought to the president of the brethren and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length that we have been deemed worthy to receive these things from him … When the president has given thanks and the whole congregation has assent [with an “amen”], those whom we call deacons give to each of those present a portion of the consecrated bread and wine and water, and they take it to the absent.”

At this time, there were of course no books, so with the exception of the formulas such as the words of institution the language of the Eucharist was fluid. The church therefore required someone who could faithfully represent Christian beliefs and keep the faithful from heresy. It was the Bishop who presided, and who in the absence of written and/or standardized texts said the Thanksgiving which could record the whole history of salvation from creation to the cross!  (Hence Justin’s comment about the thanksgiving being of some length.)The prayer was (and still is) both proclamation and creed and contains within it a sense of absolution. For this reason there was no need for a separate creedal statement, or confession and absolution.

The form of the Eucharistic prayer is still recognizable today. It consisted of the Sursum Corda (Lift up your hearts), the Sanctus (Holy, holy, holy), the Thanksgiving, the Words of Institution (On the night he was betrayed..), Anamnesis (bringing to mind), the Oblation or offering, the epiclesis (invoking of the Holy Spirit), intercessions and the doxology (Blessing, and honor etc). A major difference from our service today is the inclusion of the intercessions within the Eucharistic prayer.

From at least the 6^th century, if not the second century, the two services – the service of the word and the Eucharist were bound together in the form that we know it today. Given the changes that we have experienced over the last forty years, it is remarkable to consider that the form of worship that we use Sunday by Sunday, is much the same as that used 2,000 years ago. It calls to mind the word of Dom Gregory Dix written in 1945: Was ever another command so obeyed? For century after century, spreading slowly to every continent and country and among every race on earth, this action has been done, in every conceivable human circumstance, for every conceivable human need from infancy and before it to old age and after it, from the pinnacles of earthly greatness to the refuge of fugitives in the caves and dens of the earth. Men have found no better thing than this to do for kings at their crowning and for criminals going to the scaffold; for armies in triumph or for a bride and bridegroom in a little country church; for the proclamation of a dogma or for a good crop of wheat; for the wisdom of the Parliament of a mighty nation or for a sick old woman afraid to die; for a schoolboy sitting an examination or for Columbus setting out to discover America; for the famine of whole provinces or for the soul of a dead lover; – one could fill many pages with the reasons why men have done this, and not tell a hundredth part of them. And best of all, week by week, and month by month, on a hundred thousand successive Sundays, faithfully, unfailingly, across all the parishes of Christendom, the pastors have done just this to MAKE the PLEBS SANCTA DEI – the holy common people of God.
(The Shape of the Liturgy, Dacre Press, A& C Black, 1945, 744.)

Pentecost 5 2011

Matthew 13:24-43

Marian Free

 In the name of God who alone knows right from wrong and good from evil, and who alone can see and judge the hearts of humankind. Amen.

Some time ago there was a particularly gruesome movie called 16mm. The plot goes something like this. On the death of her husband, a woman finds a 16mm film in his safe. The film in question is a “snuff” film – a film of someone being killed. Not only is the wife disturbed by the find, she feels that it is important to see that justice is done for the victim in the film. To that end she employs someone to investigate. As the investigator uncovers the story of the young woman and enters the murky and unsavoury world of the filmmaker, he becomes more and more distressed and obsessed with bringing the perpetrator to justice. When the investigator finally catches up with the movie-maker his anger is so intense that he beats the man to death and hides the crime by setting fire to the movie set. The audience is led to assume that this form of summary justice will go largely undetected and therefore unpunished. The viewer has sympathy for the investigator and his action, but at the same time is conscious that the one who was in the right has now placed himself in the wrong.

Earlier this year, members of the United States Army stormed the home of Osama bin Laden, shot him dead and disposed of his body at sea. The news was greeted with jubilation across the world. The Australian newspaper stated: “Today, the US basks in righteous triumph.” However, there were some who questioned the “rightness” or otherwise of this action and asked whether a better course of action would have been to arrest bin Laden and to bring him to trial. The community was divided. There were those who felt that bin Laden’s death was justified as an act of war and others who believed that true justice demands its day in court.

These stories, one fictional and one true, illustrate the difficulty of making moral and or righteous judgements. They serve to remind us that the line between good and evil is not always clear. There is no question that someone who murders people should be brought to justice, but should that justice be administered outside the law? No one would question that the man who made “snuff” films deserved to be punished. The question is what should the punishment be and who should administer it? And what about the investigator – should he be arrested and tried for murder or should he be lauded for killing someone who profits from the death of others?

Is murder not really murder if the one killed is a particularly distasteful or dangerous person? Few in the Western world would have mourned the death of bin Laden. However, did the extent of his crimes justify his being killed in his home before his wife, or should he, like Ratko Mladic, have been arrested and tried before facing capital punishment? How will history judge those who made the decisions to carry out the attack – as saviours or murderers?

The answers to such questions are not always clear or simple, nor do we always find consensus. “Thou shalt not murder” seems to be a straight forward commandment – killing another person is obviously wrong. However, the commandment doesn’t apply to soldiers in a war zone and even our legal system accepts that killing another person is not always murder. A person can be convicted of first degree murder, second degree murder or manslaughter, depending on the level of pre-meditation behind the deed, whether or not it was an accident and so on. Today, victims of domestic violence are often acquitted of murder of a violent spouse. The distinction between good and evil is not clear- cut. “Thou shalt not murder” is obviously open to interpretation.

Zizaniov or darnell– the weed planted by the enemy in today’s parable – looks almost indistinguishable from wheat. There was a real risk that had the householder allowed the slaves to weed the crop, much of the wheat would have been destroyed in the process. For that reason, it was much better to wait until harvest time when the plants could be more easily recognised and therefore separated from each other.

Clearly the point of today’s parable is judgement. However, the central point is not that that the good are rewarded and the not so good are punished. The point is that the good and the bad are often difficult to distinguish. Furthermore, it is not our task but God’s to make the distinction and that at a time of God’s choosing.

Jesus is warning us against the presumption that we are able to see with God’s eyes, or that we have the wisdom to judge rightly. This is a point that he makes elsewhere. When determining right from wrong, most of us have a tendency to use a broad brush and to overlook our own faults. For this reason Jesus shocks us by saying that calling our brother or sister a “fool” is the same as committing murder, that looking at someone with lust in our eyes is the same as committing adultery and so on.

When we judge others, we put ourselves in the place of God and make the assumption that we are able to distinguish clearly between good and evil, right and wrong. Jesus confronts such arrogance and in a variety of ways illustrates the difficulties and dangers that we face when we try to put ourselves in the place of God as judge and jury of our peers.

In human terms, we need to devise laws and to develop ways to administer and interpret the same. To ensure that society runs smoothly and that the majority are safe and free, we need to establish and enforce boundaries and to define acceptable behaviour.  We know however that the law is only as good as those who legislate it and those who apply it – it is good, but it is not perfect.

Only God is perfect and that means that when it comes to eternity, only God can determine who shall inherit the kingdom. Until then, we have to live with the tension of knowing that good and bad are growing together both in the community as a whole, but also in ourselves. We have to accept too, that only God can see the secrets of our hearts and only God can determine what must be weeded out and what can remain forever.

Pentecost 4 2011

Matthew 13:1-23

Marian Free

Loving God, open our eyes that we might see, our ears that we might hear and our hearts that we might love you. Amen.

I said: “Isn’t …….. it ……… a ……….. love-ly ……. day?”

I’m sure we’ve all seen it, even if we haven’t done it ourselves, the way in which someone slows down their speech and raises their voice when speaking to  a person who doesn’t understand English. Apparently slowing down and shouting makes English intelligible to the person whose first language is Swahili or Portuguese! A similar scenario is played out when one person tries to belittle another who just doesn’t understand. “I ….. told ….. you …… ADD ……. the ……. salt ……. and ……… THEN ……  add ……. the ……..flour.”  Again, there appears to be a belief that speaking slowly and loudly will help the stupid person to get it right.

We have lots of ways of trying to make sure that we are understood – many of them bad. One technique is simply to repeat ourselves word for word when someone hasn’t understood the first time. It never occurs to some people that the reason they are misunderstood is that they have expressed themselves badly, or that the person whom they are addressing might understand better if it is put another way.

All kinds of things get in the way of good communication – language, culture, age (especially in our facebook, mobile phone era), hardness of hearing, the level of interest on the part of the hearer and so on.

Today’s gospel reading includes an interruption that is about hearing but not really hearing. At first glance, it would appear that by speaking in parables Jesus is deliberately trying to obscure his message so that only a select few understand and come to faith.

One way to understand this break in Jesus’ teaching is to understand that it was added later. That is, that Jesus (who is in a boat addressing the crowds, doesn’t stop mid-story to talk to a few disciples) but addresses the disciples at a later time, or that the writer of the gospel added this reflection to explain the situation of a later time.  Whether the words are from Jesus or the evangelist, the question asked by the disciples addresses an important issue – why is it that some understand and believe and that others fail to understand not only what Jesus is saying, but who and what he is? In the context of the community for whom this gospel is written, the question might be: “why is it that the Jews, those to whom Jesus came, still steadfastly refuse to believe?” “Why don’t they understand?”

In order to find an answer to these questions, the disciples ask Jesus why he speaks in parables. In response, Jesus uses a quote from Isaiah, in which Isaiah is instructed to tell the people:

‘You will indeed listen, but never understand,

and you will indeed look, but never perceive.

For this people’s heart has grown dull,

and their ears are hard of hearing,

and they have shut their eyes;

so that they might not look with their eyes,

and listen with their ears,

and understand with their heart and turn—

and I would heal them.’

In its original context this was intended as a sarcastic comment. God knew that no matter what Isaiah said, the people would not really pay attention or understand the gravity of their situation. If only they understood, they would turn to God and be healed and restored, but it will take more than Isaiah’s words to wake them from their complacency. The people were too caught up with their own concerns, too self-absorbed to hear what God was saying through the prophet. Isaiah might well have been speaking to the air – the people that he addressed would rather to continue going their own way than heed his warnings about the consequences of their behaviour.

The words of Isaiah describe a real situation. It is not that God closes the ears of the people, just that they will not listen. Their failure to see and hear relates to their own egocentricity rather than a deliberate attempt by God to blind or deafen them.

About seven centuries later Jesus experiences a similar response to his message. Among the Jews, especially among the leaders of the Jews there are many who are so complacent, so self-satisfied that they are certain that there is nothing new that this itinerant preacher has to offer them. Their eyes and ears are closed because they believe that they already know all that there is to know. Jesus could speak in parables or not speak in parables – either way they would fail to grasp what it is he is trying to say to them or its significance for their lives.

The parables are designed to awaken and surprise us, but they are not designed to confuse us or cloud our vision so that we do not see or hear Jesus.  Any failure to see or hear is caused by our own self-certainty and smugness or by a belief that there is nothing more that God can teach us. The difficulty is that if we are smug and self-satisfied we will be blind to the fact that we do not hear!

It is important then, to recognise our own human limitations, to accept that God is far beyond our human understanding, to measure our wisdom against the wisdom of God, to maintain an openness and expectancy to the Spirit and a to develop a willingness to have our assumptions challenged and our beliefs shaken. It is only by staying alert, by refusing to be complacent and accepting that we will never know all that there is to know that our hearts and minds will be free to hear what God is saying to us.

God might be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but our understanding of God should be constantly developing and growing and changing, so let us keep our eyes open, our ears alert and our minds free from stagnation, that we may indeed listen and understand, look and perceive, and understand with our heart and be healed.

Pentecost 3  2011

Romans 7:14-25

Marian Free

In the name of God who sets us free. Amen.

Martin Luther is a significant figure in the history of the church. It was his critique of the abuses of the church in his day that began the process of the Reformation and it was through his study of Paul that we recovered the important notions of justification by faith and grace. Unfortunately, though he uncovered one of the central elements of Pauline teaching, he misunderstood how it was that Paul came to that understanding. In fact, Luther read into the letters of Paul his own experiences and feelings of failure.

The young Luther was deeply troubled by his inability to achieve the degree of goodness and holiness that he felt was expected of him. As a consequence he indulged in practices that were designed to punish or quell his sinful urges and assure his salvation. He would fast for up to three days at a time and throw his blankets aside so that he nearly froze to death. His study led him to Paul and to a longing to understand Paul’s letter to the Romans in particular the notion of the justice of God. He felt that he could not love a just and angry God.

At last he came to the statement that the righteous shall live by faith. It was then that he understood that “the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy, God justifies us by faith.” All his anxiety melted away, his fears of hell disappeared, his anger at an unjust God turned to gratitude and understanding. He knew from that point that all his striving was to no avail, that Christians are justified by faith, set free by God’s grace, not by anything that they do. Grace/justification is a free gift from God that does not have to be earned but only received.

This knowledge was so liberating for him, that Luther made the assumption (based in part on today’s reading from Romans 7) that Paul had had a similar struggle and a similar release. However a reading of Paul’s genuine letters gives the lie to this theory. If anything Paul was a proud and confident Jew. Until the revelation that he describes in Galatians, Paul appears not to have had a troubled conscience from which the love of God set him free.  In fact, more than once he informs us that rather than being insecure about his place before God, he was confident in his position as a righteous Jew.

Instead of reading back into Paul’s letters our own experience, it is important to understand the context in which they were written, the situations to which he was responding and the techniques that he used to make his point. In the case of the letter to the Romans, Paul is responding to accusations that he has rejected the law – a reasonable assumption on the basis of the letter to the Galatians. Before Paul visits Rome, he must ensure he is welcome and reassure the Roman church that he still holds to the law and that God who gave the law remains faithful to the people of Israel (and is not a capricious untrustworthy God).

It is impossible to follow Paul’s argument on the basis of only a couple of isolated passages including one that has been misinterpreted for centuries. Romans 7:14-25 has been used to justify self-loathing and a distrust of our fleshly bodies. It has succeeded in personalizing and externalizing sin – “it wasn’t me, it was my carnal desires”, “the devil made me do it”. Certainly, that is how it reads out of context, and how it reads to any of us who are not able to follow Paul’s argument from the beginning.

There is no evidence anywhere else that Paul suggests that he had any difficulty fulfilling the law or that he believed himself to be a sinner as a consequence, or that he was troubled by his fleshly existence. In face, just the opposite is the case. “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:5,6).

In order to make sense of today’s passage from chapter 7, we must go back to verse 6: “If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” This is essential for our understanding. According to the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, the only person to have lived without the law was Adam. This would mean that the “I” in this instance refers to Adam. Paul is using a dramatic technique to demonstrate that the law – though given by God – is not without its problems. In the case of Adam, it was when God said: “Do not eat of the tree” that the tree became interesting to eat. The law is good, Paul points out, but it is not able to achieve what it was intended to achieve. By using the law to make Adam break the law, sin made the law not an instrument of life, but of death. In fact, was the law that enabled sin to spring to life.

According to Paul, sin is not something we do. It is a power which exercises control, a power to which we can choose to submit. A person can make a choice – to be under sin or under grace. Being under grace or led by the Spirit does make someone perfect, but it does mean that they have placed their trust and their hope for salvation in God and in God’s righteousness.

Paul’s problem with the law was not that it was bad, but that it was under the control of sin. The law it led people to rely on themselves, to believe that they could fulfill every requirement of the law. Such self reliance led to a belief that a person could achieve their own salvation instead of relying on Jesus’ saving power. So you see, Paul is not struggling with or overwhelmed by his carnal desires. Instead, using the voice of Adam, he is trying to stress that while the law “is just and holy and good”, it is in the end ineffectual – no effort on our part will save us, only God’s goodness and grace.

If we find this difficult to understand, Chapter 8 makes this point very clear: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”  The “I” of the past few verses has been the voice of Adam, for now those who believe are set free. The law, under the power of sin is unable to set humanity free, but those whose lives are determined by the Spirit are no longer subject to condemnation. Salvation is not measured by an ability to keep a lifeless law, but by the willingness to allow the Spirit to direct our lives.

Paul is not saying that we should despise or subdue our physicality. He is trying to say that no law, no amount of law will enable us to achieve perfection. God’s love isn’t measured out in doses according to how we behave, but is God’s free gift held out to all who will accept it. It is so easy that we find it difficult to believe. It demands so little of us, that we find it almost impossible to trust that it is true. But as Paul constantly reminds us, the base line is that “since we are justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1).

Christ has won us our salvation, we need only trust in God to claim our prize.

Pentecost 3  2011

Romans 7:14-25

Marian Free

In the name of God who sets us free. Amen.

Martin Luther is a significant figure in the history of the church. It was his critique of the abuses of the church in his day that began the process of the Reformation and it was through his study of Paul that we recovered the important notions of justification by faith and grace. Unfortunately, though he uncovered one of the central elements of Pauline teaching, he misunderstood how it was that Paul came to that understanding. In fact, Luther read into the letters of Paul his own experiences and feelings of failure.

The young Luther was deeply troubled by his inability to achieve the degree of goodness and holiness that he felt was expected of him. As a consequence he indulged in practices that were designed to punish or quell his sinful urges and assure his salvation. He would fast for up to three days at a time and throw his blankets aside so that he nearly froze to death. His study led him to Paul and to a longing to understand Paul’s letter to the Romans in particular the notion of the justice of God. He felt that he could not love a just and angry God.

At last he came to the statement that the righteous shall live by faith. It was then that he understood that “the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy, God justifies us by faith.” All his anxiety melted away, his fears of hell disappeared, his anger at an unjust God turned to gratitude and understanding. He knew from that point that all his striving was to no avail, that Christians are justified by faith, set free by God’s grace, not by anything that they do. Grace/justification is a free gift from God that does not have to be earned but only received.

This knowledge was so liberating for him, that Luther made the assumption (based in part on today’s reading from Romans 7) that Paul had had a similar struggle and a similar release. However a reading of Paul’s genuine letters gives the lie to this theory. If anything Paul was a proud and confident Jew. Until the revelation that he describes in Galatians, Paul appears not to have had a troubled conscience from which the love of God set him free.  In fact, more than once he informs us that rather than being insecure about his place before God, he was confident in his position as a righteous Jew.

Instead of reading back into Paul’s letters our own experience, it is important to understand the context in which they were written, the situations to which he was responding and the techniques that he used to make his point. In the case of the letter to the Romans, Paul is responding to accusations that he has rejected the law – a reasonable assumption on the basis of the letter to the Galatians. Before Paul visits Rome, he must ensure he is welcome and reassure the Roman church that he still holds to the law and that God who gave the law remains faithful to the people of Israel (and is not a capricious untrustworthy God).

It is impossible to follow Paul’s argument on the basis of only a couple of isolated passages including one that has been misinterpreted for centuries. Romans 7:14-25 has been used to justify self-loathing and a distrust of our fleshly bodies. It has succeeded in personalizing and externalizing sin – “it wasn’t me, it was my carnal desires”, “the devil made me do it”. Certainly, that is how it reads out of context, and how it reads to any of us who are not able to follow Paul’s argument from the beginning.

There is no evidence anywhere else that Paul suggests that he had any difficulty fulfilling the law or that he believed himself to be a sinner as a consequence, or that he was troubled by his fleshly existence. In face, just the opposite is the case. “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:5,6).

In order to make sense of today’s passage from chapter 7, we must go back to verse 6: “If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” This is essential for our understanding. According to the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, the only person to have lived without the law was Adam. This would mean that the “I” in this instance refers to Adam. Paul is using a dramatic technique to demonstrate that the law – though given by God – is not without its problems. In the case of Adam, it was when God said: “Do not eat of the tree” that the tree became interesting to eat. The law is good, Paul points out, but it is not able to achieve what it was intended to achieve. By using the law to make Adam break the law, sin made the law not an instrument of life, but of death. In fact, was the law that enabled sin to spring to life.

According to Paul, sin is not something we do. It is a power which exercises control, a power to which we can choose to submit. A person can make a choice – to be under sin or under grace. Being under grace or led by the Spirit does make someone perfect, but it does mean that they have placed their trust and their hope for salvation in God and in God’s righteousness.

Paul’s problem with the law was not that it was bad, but that it was under the control of sin. The law it led people to rely on themselves, to believe that they could fulfill every requirement of the law. Such self reliance led to a belief that a person could achieve their own salvation instead of relying on Jesus’ saving power. So you see, Paul is not struggling with or overwhelmed by his carnal desires. Instead, using the voice of Adam, he is trying to stress that while the law “is just and holy and good”, it is in the end ineffectual – no effort on our part will save us, only God’s goodness and grace.

If we find this difficult to understand, Chapter 8 makes this point very clear: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”  The “I” of the past few verses has been the voice of Adam, for now those who believe are set free. The law, under the power of sin is unable to set humanity free, but those whose lives are determined by the Spirit are no longer subject to condemnation. Salvation is not measured by an ability to keep a lifeless law, but by the willingness to allow the Spirit to direct our lives.

Paul is not saying that we should despise or subdue our physicality. He is trying to say that no law, no amount of law will enable us to achieve perfection. God’s love isn’t measured out in doses according to how we behave, but is God’s free gift held out to all who will accept it. It is so easy that we find it difficult to believe. It demands so little of us, that we find it almost impossible to trust that it is true. But as Paul constantly reminds us, the base line is that “since we are justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1).

Christ has won us our salvation, we need only trust in God to claim our prize.

Pentecost 2 2011

Matthew 10:40-42

Marian Free

In the name of God who desires that we share Jesus’ love and compassion with all. Amen.

 Today’s reading brings to an end chapter 10 of Matthew’s gospel in which Jesus commissions his twelve disciples giving them authority to “proclaim the good news, cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers and to cast out demons. In other words, Jesus gives to his disciples the same authority that he has. They are empowered to do what he does, to preach what he preaches. This privilege however is not without some cost. If the disciples are to share Jesus’ authority, they must expect to share Jesus’ suffering – Jesus sends them out as “sheep among wolves”, warns them that they will be handed over to synagogues and flogged, hauled before governors and kings, persecuted and hated by all because of Jesus’ name. However they are not to worry what to say, for the Spirit of the Father will speak through them.

Despite all the difficulties that they will face they are to have no fear but are to proclaim the word from the housetops, for those who can hurt the body cannot destroy the soul and God who sees the sparrow fall, knows even the number of hairs on their heads so there is no need to be afraid. Besides those who endure to the end will be saved.

Discipleship does not lead to a life of ease. Those who represent Jesus, must expect to experience with him the world’s hatred and rejection. Jesus’ presence and teaching is divisive – he creates strong reactions of love or hatred. Families are split apart by their reaction to him. Finally, discipleship cannot be half-hearted – those who love father, mother, son, or daughter are not worthy of him. In fact, whoever does not take up the cross and follow him is not worthy of him.

A number of things become obvious in this chapter. First of all, when Jesus commissions his disciples, he does not give them subsidiary roles, instead he empowers them with all the power and authority that is his to give. Secondly, Jesus makes clear that being his representative in not without cost. If the disciples are to represent Jesus, they must expect the world to react to them in the same way that it has reacted to Jesus – that is with antagonism and outright violence. Thirdly, the disciples are assured of God’s concern for them and are encouraged to place themselves in God’s care.

The disciples are sent out, warned and reassured. Today’s gospel must be read in this context – the sending out, warning and reassurance of the disciples. In its immediate context, it follows the pattern of the previous verses that insist that love of Jesus have priority over all else. “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.“

In these verses there is a repetition of “whoever” and a consequence for behaviour: ‘whoever loves x more than me is not worthy of me”. These arefollowed by a statement that earthly realities are as nothing compared to the life that Jesus offers. The same pattern is found in today’s gospel. We read:“whoever welcomes”, “whoever welcomes”,“whoever welcomes”, “whoever welcomes” and “whoever gives”. Two sets of welcome are followed by receiving a reward and the third by the assurance that the welcomer will not lose their reward.

Those who are welcomed include the disciples, the prophets, the righteous and the little ones. In the first verse we are taken back to the beginning of the chapter the disciples – those whom Jesus sends – are his representatives. So whoever welcomes them welcomes him (just as whoever welcomes Jesus welcomes the Father whom Jesus represents). The remainder elaborate who these disciples are.

They are listed in order of perceived importance. Everyone would have known the significance of prophets and the value of welcoming them. “The righteous person” is another term that comes from Judaism meaning the faithful follower of Jesus – they too are to be welcomed.  The last to be mentioned would have caused some surprise, “the little ones”, the ordinary and the insignificant, find their place among the prophets, the righteous – even the disciples and Jesus himself!

Of course, we are not surprised at the inclusion “of the little ones” in this list. It fits with what we know Jesus’ egalitarianism, and after all, this whole chapter affirms that Jesus has the disciples his equals. There is no hierarchy among those sent by Jesus.  Jesus is keen for the Christian community to understand this. Up until now, Jesus has been addressing the disciples, those whom he has sent. These last few verses are addressed to the settled communities.  They are to welcome not only the prophets and the righteous, but all those who take the gospel to the hostile world and to understand that they are blessed by the presence of missionaries among them.

Through this instruction to the communities, Jesus is ensuring that those whom he sends, will be welcomed by the settled faith communities. At the same time, Jesus is reminding the faith communities that they will be blessed by the presence of these wandering teachers – their welcome will be more than amply rewarded by what they receive. Furthermore, if “the little ones” represents the ordinary Christians, these verses contain a reminder that all of us (not just the prophets and the righteous) are called, commissioned and empowered to spread the gospel, to heal the sick and to cast out demons.

Missionary endeavours have changed over the centuries. The association of mission and colonization and oppression has led to a certain embarrassment and confusion about the place of mission in the modern world. Proclaiming the gospel is different from imposing the gospel. In a multi-cultural, multi-faith world, we should not lose confidence in the faith that we hold, nor should we deny others its power to save. The challenge is how to share our conviction with integrity and with respect.

We are entering a new era in the life of the church. Whom can we send? How can we encourage them? How can we share in their mission?

Jesus says: “Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.”

Easter 7 – 2011

John 17:1-11

Marian Free

In the name of God in whom we have life in the present and life everlasting. Amen.

I wonder what would happen, if I gave each of you 100 words and asked you to use just those words to write an essay that was 1,500 words long. I imagine that it would take a considerable amount of creativity to complete such a task. Even if you used words like “the” and “and” disproportionately often you would have to use some of your words at least 10 times and you would find it difficult to say what you wanted to say because you were restricted to the 100 words provided. Even if I allowed you to choose your own 100 words, I imagine that the amount of repetition required to complete a 1,500-word essay might be a real test of your ingenuity.

With this in mind, you might be surprised to note that the writer of the gospel of John uses only 1,011 words to write the entire gospel. As there are 15,416 words in the gospel as a whole that means that of those 1,011 words, many are repeated over and over and over again.  To give you a few examples, the word “light” appears 22 times, “glory” 19 times, “glorify” 12 times and “hour” occurs 20 times. The fact that the word “life” occurs something like 47 times and the word “know” is repeated something like 100 times takes up some of the slack – and allows for other words to be used much less frequently.

It is a characteristic of John’s gospel that key terms are repeated and also that many of these terms have double meanings. For example, John uses “light” to refer to physical light, but also to the revelation of God through Jesus. “The hour” means not only a point in time, but also the point at which Jesus’ mission comes to fulfillment. “Life” refers to eternal life, which is not something to be expected in the future, but a life that is available to believers in the present. Jesus uses the words “the name” or “your name” when he is speaking of God. “Know” or ”knowledge” is used in the sense of the knowledge of God that leads to salvation.

It is almost as if the author is speaking in code – a code which does make superficial sense to the average listener, but which has a much deeper meaning for those in the community that he is addressing.

I’m certain that the author of John does not have a limited vocabulary. The reason that he uses so few words to write the gospel is that his record of Jesus’ life is condensed into themes – light/darkness, blindness/sight, coming and going. He wants the readers to understand that Jesus existed with God from the beginning of time, that Jesus and the Father are one, that Jesus represents light in the darkness and that light and darkness are two different forms of existence and that no one can inhabit both at the same time. Jesus comes from heaven, is sent by God and will return to heaven. On earth, Jesus’ role is to give people the knowledge of the Father that leads to eternal life.

The author does not need to use a great variety of words, because his intent is simply to share these themes and to record the life of Jesus in such a ways as to draw out these over arching themes.

Today’s gospel reading is, as might be expected, filled with some of John’s key terms – the hour, glorify, life, name, know – all of which the reader will now be familiar with from the earlier chapters.

We have seen over the past few weeks, that the gospel of John concludes with this – Jesus’ farewell discourse. His final speech to the disciples shares many characteristics with other farewell speeches including those of Jacob and Moses. One of the characteristics of such speeches is the prayer for those whom they will be leaving behind. Jesus too concludes with prayer. He prays for himself, for the disciples and finally for those whom the disciples will bring to faith.

There is a sense that Jesus has already moved on, that he has already left this world behind him. His concern now is whether or not the disciples will be able to continue his mission. Will they abide in him as he abides in the Father? Will they be one as he and the Father are one? Will they keep the faith in a world hates them? Jesus’ role in the world has come to an end, now he must rely on his disciples to make God known and so he prays for them – that they will hold fast, that they will be one.

Despite Jesus’ apparent confidence that the disciples have kept his word and have believed that he has come from the Father, there is an element of uncertainty in his prayer. He is after all leaving his mission in the hands of a group of people who have been slow to understand, and who in his moment of need will abandon and deny him. Can they really be trusted to carry on his mission.

Two thousand years later, we might think that over the centuries Jesus’ worst fears have been realised. Jesus’ disciples have not always demonstrated a confidence in God. It would be hard to argue that those who believe in Jesus have always behaved in a way that is consistent with making the glory of God known and it would be impossible to suggest that the church has been one, as Jesus and the Father have been one.

When Jesus prays for the disciples, he prays not only for those who were present with him at the time before his death, but for all who will be his disciples in every generation. As he prays for them, he is praying for us. We must look to ourselves then if his prayer is to be fulfilled in this day and age. We must ask ourselves – Do we strive for the unity with Jesus that Jesus shared with the Father? Is God glorified through our lives? Are we in the business of making God’s name known in the world?

Make no mistake – the answer to Jesus’ prayer does not depend on anyone else, in the past or in the present – it depends on us – on our faith, on our willingness to be one with Jesus and our desire that God be glorified on earth through our lives. Jesus has placed all his trust in us. Are we able to rise to the challenge?