Swallowsrest

Easter Vigil – 2010

Matthew

Marian Free

In the name of God who in Jesus brings us from death to life, from darkness into light. Amen.

That baptism has always been associated with the great events of Easter is made evident in Paul’s letter to the Romans. “³Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” The prayers in our baptism service ask that the one baptized: “may be so buried with Christ in baptism that the new nature may be raised up in them. May the fruit of your Spirit grow and flourish in them” and we bless the water with the words: “sanctify this water so that those who are to be baptized in it may be made one with Christ in his death and resurrection.”

In baptism we enter a new form of existence. It represents a movement from the material world into the spiritual realm, a movement away from sin (separation from God), to union with God. In baptism we die to the law and invite the Holy Spirit to direct and regulate all that we do – at least in theory.

In actual fact, I wonder how many of us have moved into the spiritual realm. How many of us have truly died to this world so that we may begin the process of living in the next? How many of us are so confident in the Holy Spirit that we are able to rely entirely on her to determine our behaviour and our decisions? It is easy enough, I think, to believe that because of our baptism we are assured of the resurrection to eternal life. It is less easy to believe that we are set free to live that life now. It is relatively easy to accept the resurrection as an historic event, but much harder to accept that the resurrection opens for us a new reality, a new way of living.

As Paul makes clear, the resurrection is so much more than an historical event. Through our baptism we share not only in Christ’s death, but in his resurrection. Dying and rising are an integral part of our Christian journey. In his death and resurrection, Jesus defeated the law, sin and death. In our baptism we are called to participate in that victory – to live in such a way that law, sin and death have no hold on us, to give ourselves wholly to God so that our lives may be transformed and that we might live life to the full.

Dying to sin means dying to those aspects of human nature which lead us to focus on ourselves and our own needs rather than relying on God to meet our every need. Instead of placing our trust in God, we place our trust in power and material possessions, and we compete with others to demonstrate our prowess. Instead of seeking the values of the kingdom, we are seduced by the values of the world.

Dying to the law means dying to the sort of independence which assumes that we are capable of knowing how God wants us to behave. Instead of relying on the Spirit, we establish our own codes of behaviour, these in turn, take the place of reliance on the Holy Spirit and instead of bringing us closer to God, take us further away.

Dying to death means dying to those things which prevent us from being truly alive. Instead of living life to the full, we can get stuck in grief, frustration and anger. Instead of rejoicing in the life which God has given us we can find ourselves allowing our circumstances to determine our attitude to life. Being bound by negativity, sorrow or disappointment prevents our growing into the newness of life received through our baptism.

The difficulty that we have lies in distinguishing the spiritual from the material. Ironically, it is often our attempts to be “good” which are more likely to draw us away from the spiritual world than our being “bad”. When we are bad, we usually know that we are bad. It is much harder to discern when our being “good” is actually driving us away from God. A focus on being “good” can become a form of self-absorption – it can lead to a complacency about our relationship with God. For example, we can become so concerned with our prayer life that we are no longer listening to God, so intent on doing good, that we have no time for a relationship with God, so resigned about “carrying our cross” that we forget that the cross is meant to lead to resurrection. We may be blind to the fact that our spiritual exercises become and end in themselves rather than opening a way to God. We may fail to recognise that the ways in which we regulate our lives might in fact be a way of our taking control rather than relying on God. We may not realize that we have become so absorbed in our troubles that instead of we are in the grip of a certain kind of death.

Walking in newness of life is the promise of our baptism, the promise of the resurrection. We are called out of darkness into light, from the realm of this world into the spiritual dimension that is God’s world. Christ has set us free – to claim that freedom we need to live to God, to consciously and conscientiously determine to live in the spiritual world, to die to all that binds us to the present and focusing solely on God allow our lives to be determined by the Spirit.

In that perfect freedom, we will discover that we are truly alive and we will know for ourselves the power of the resurrection.

Lent 5

John 12:1-12

Marian Free

In the name of God whose wanton extravagance draws out our own. Amen.

A son takes half his father’s property, spends it all in a very short time and returns home to work as a servant. Instead of berating him, his father runs out to meet him and immediately re-instates him with all the privileges of being a son. So we heard last week in the story of the prodigal son.

Such gestures of extravagant love are re-iterated throughout the Old and New Testaments in both story and action. Over and over again, God threatens dire consequences if Israel does not repent, and over and over again, God relents and refuses to carry out the threats. From the very beginning, God’s extravagant love is evident. Creation does not consist of the bare necessities for existence, but is filled with beauty and wonder. From the tiniest bird to the largest whale God doesn’t stint or limit God’s creative genius. Later, God’s extravagant love is shown to Abraham when he promises not only that the old man will become a father, but that his offspring will be as many as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the beach. In today’s reading from Isaiah God promises the seemingly impossible – rivers in the desert – and so the list goes on.

In the New Testament, this theme of abundant generosity is continued in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus feeds 5,000 people and there is more than enough to go around. Jesus changes water into wine not just ordinary wine, but the very best wine.  Jesus didn’t limit his love to those who deserved it, but spread his love liberally to all people – even to tax collectors, prostitutes and so on. Jesus’ parables continue this theme – the shepherd who is so concerned with one sheep that he leaves the others to fend for themselves, the mustard seed which grows profusely and the grain which produces abundantly. The theme of abundant love is difficult to miss.

Add to this the Incarnation and the crucifixion – not for those who were good, but for those who were far from good – then we see the fullest picture of a love that is poured out without measure on a largely undeserving world.

Sadly, God’s bountiful provision is, too often, taken for granted. Though times are changing we barely give a thought to how well the earth sustains and provides for us all, let alone thank God for his bounty. Even if we do appreciate all that God has done for us, our English reserve ensures that we do not express our gratitude with extravagant gestures or demonstrative outpourings of love.

Even the bible, there are very few instances of a grateful response to God’s love – only the Psalms and a few other songs of praise. More often than not, the response is one of complaint: ‘Why did God bring us out of Egypt to die in the desert?” “Why is Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners?” “What about us, we have left everything and followed?” “Can we sit on your right hand and your left?”

The grateful extravagance of the woman who anointed Jesus stands in stark contrast to the attitude of entitlement or diffidence which takes God’s love for granted.

This story occurs in all gospels though in very different forms. According to Luke, Jesus is eating at the home of Simon the Pharisee whereas in Matthew and Mark Simon is identified as “the leper”. John’s setting is a meal with Lazarus, Martha and Mary – friends with whom Jesus often stays.  Luke situates the story in Galilee and the others place it near Jerusalem. In Matthew and Mark the woman anoints Jesus’ head. In Luke and John, Jesus’ feet are anointed and wiped with the woman’s hair.

The response of the observers is similar. Luke’s Simon is shocked that Jesus is allowing a sinful woman to touch him and the crowd, the disciples or Judas are astounded at the waste. In every instance Jesus comes to the woman’s defense. Simon the Pharisee is told a story about two debtors to illustrate the woman’s grateful response and in the other gospels, Jesus commends the woman who, he says is preparing him for burial.

Nard was a very expensive ointment; it came from the rhizome of a plant growing in the foothills of the Himalayas. It was so rare and so treasured that Horace offered to send Virgil a whole barrel of his best wine in exchange for a phial of nard. We are told that that its name stood for an evocation of the perfume of the lost Garden of Eden. According to the gospel records a pound of nard was worth 300 denarii, that is about a year’s pay for a laborer – in our terms something like $30 – 40,000. And Mary simply pours it over Jesus’ feet! No wonder the onlookers were surprised, shocked and even incensed, it extraordinary to think that someone would throw away a year’s salary on a single action which will have no lasting benefit. Where someone like Mary would even get something that valuable is not explained.

The woman, whether it is Mary or the unnamed woman of the other accounts, is utterly indifferent to the cost of the ointment. Her love for and gratitude to Jesus can be shown no other way. In her determination to demonstrate that love and gratitude Mary shows no regard as to what others might think and she appears to have no concern regarding the social or financial cost of her action. Mary’s selfless generosity is illustrative of the response of many who have known themselves truly loved, blessed and enriched by God. Knowing herself loved and blessed without limit, Mary responds with the same wild abandon with which God loves her – giving extravagantly and without a care.

In the story of the prodigal son, the older brother puts himself out of the reach of his father’s love. His selfish resentment and his foolish pride will not allow God’s love to penetrate his defenses. Mary has no defenses just a love for and a trust in Jesus’ love for her. Knowing herself loved, Mary cannot help but love in return.

Mary is the model of one who allows herself to be gathered under Jesus’ wings, who allows the father to welcome her back. She has no false pride, or sense of dignity to create a barrier between herself and God. She is completely free and open to receive the love that God offers to her and having experienced the fullness and the boundlessness of the love is compelled to respond with an unrestrained, unselfconscious generosity of her own.

We can learn from Mary that we need not fear intimacy with God. If we allow God’s love to penetrate our inmost being, we will know ourselves loved simply for who we are. When we know ourselves truly loved all else will fade into insignificance. We will want to bathe in that love and to pour out our selves for the one whose love for us knows no bounds.

Lent 4 – 2010

Luke 15:11-32

Marian Free

In the name of God who asks only that we accept God’s love. Amen.

Today’s parable, which for centuries has been affectionately known as the prodigal son, and more recently as the “forgiving Father”, is really the story of two sons and their relationship with their loving father. It is not a matter of a good son and a bad son, but of both sons failing in different ways to respect their father and of both at different times rejecting the love their father has for them. Both sons behave badly, both sons are lost to and alienated from their father and both sons demonstrate a failure to properly understand the father-son relationship, one by walking away from it and the other by never embracing it. The one who leaves has turned his back on the love and protection of his father and the one who stays allows his resentment to alienate himself from that love and protection and so is as distant as if he had left. In a surprise ending, we discover that of the two sons, it is the one who stayed at home who turns out to be irredeemably lost.

At the beginning of this section of the gospel, Luke tells us that: “all the tax-collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. ²And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.’ Those who are the outsiders are those who “hear” what Jesus is saying and those who should be open to hearing are deaf to Jesus’ teaching as a consequence of their sense of self-importance and self-righteousness.

Today’s parable is the last of three parables about the lost which are Jesus’ attempt to open the minds of the Pharisees to the unconditional nature of God’s love. The story of a father’s love for two very different sons demonstrates not only that the father’s love is extended to both sons regardless of their behaviour, but also that the acceptance or rejection of that love can has serious and eternal consequences.

The story begins with the younger son who is greedy and thoughtless. Instead of shouldering the responsibility of helping to manage the farm, he demands his share of the property and abandons his father and brother to do all the work. However his wealth doesn’t bring the happiness and independence he seeks. Instead he finds himself not only engaged in a humiliating and degrading task, but also starving. It is only when he reaches the depths of despair that he comes to himself. He remembers that even the lowest slave in his father’s household has more than enough to eat. His hunger is sufficient for him to swallow his pride and to return home with a well rehearsed speech. He knows enough of his father’s generosity to suppose that he will be heard and probably received. In fact, his readiness to address his father as “father” is itself an indication that he believes that the relationship has not been completely severed by his going away.

His faith in his father is amply rewarded. Before he reaches home, his father runs to embrace him and before his speech is completed, his father has extravagantly welcomed him back into the fold. The robe, the ring and the sandals are all indications that his place as son was never lost.

The older brother has a very different story. He has stayed at home, but we gather from his reaction that he has not stayed willingly or happily. In fact, he despite having remained with his father, he has no real concept of his father’s love for him. It appears that he has stayed not out of love but out of a sense of obligation and a hope that his good behaviour will eventually earn him a reward. His language indicates that for all these years he has seen the relationship in terms of that between a slave and a master, rather than that of father and son: “For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command.” He obviously thinks that his father’s love is dependent on what he does rather than a natural result of their relationship.

Because he has never understood the true nature of the relationship or grasped the extent of his father’s generosity, this son has failed to recognise the constant state of privilege in which he lived, his equal status with the father. He has worked reluctantly and never taken advantage of his position as equal. It is not just the immediate situation which draws forth such a hostile response, but years of festering resentment. Even when his father comes out to comfort him, his anger will not be appeased.

The father doesn’t play favourites, but treats both sons in the same way. When he sees the younger son coming home, he has compassion and runs to meet him. He doesn’t berate him for his bad behaviour, but simply welcomes him home. When he senses the hurt and anger of the older son, he goes out to plead with him. Again, he doesn’t accuse the older son of ungraciousness, but tries make him part of the celebration.

The older son, however, having never understood or taken advantage of the benefits that were his, cannot bear that his brother has gained those benefits without doing anything to deserve them. Instead of allowing himself to be loved, he wants that love withheld from his brother.

Interestingly, it is the son who goes astray who best understands the strength of the bond between father and son and who has recognised the nature of the father’s generosity. The older who has stayed has never appreciated just how much he was loved, and because he has not understood, he has not seen that he was his father’s equal with all the privileges that entailed. The younger son is willing to swallow his pride and to accept love that he has done nothing to deserve. The older son stands on his dignity and demands love as a reward instead of receiving it as a gift.

The grumbling Pharisees are like the older son. Despite having never left the shelter of God’s love, they have utterly failed to understand God’s ongoing, unstinting love for them. Instead of rejoicing in their place as God’s chosen and wanting to share that love they have created boundaries and conditions which lock people out. The sad irony is, that those who have been locked out are those who now understand, whereas those who have always belonged are, as a result of their sense of self-righteousness, unable to find a way in.

God’s love is a constant. It is never withdrawn even from the most miscreant of God’s children. The difference between those who are saved and those who are not, is not their good or bad behaviour, but their willingness to recognise their need for God’s love and their readiness to sacrifice their pride and independence to accept that love.

Lent 3

Luke 13:31-35

Marian Free

In the name of God who invites us to invite him in. Amen.

The study which we at Hamilton are using this Lent and for the Bible Studies during the year is titled: “The Hospitality of God”. Its author, Brendan Byrne argues that a central theme running through the Gospel of Luke is that of hospitality. His evidence for this is the number of significant occasions on which Jesus is a guest in the home of someone or present at a meal. For example, his visits to the homes of Simon and Zacchaeus, and the dinner with the Pharisee which follows today’s gospel reading. Jesus hosts the Passover meal and joins two disciples when they stop for the evening at Emmaus. It is not just the meal which is important, but the fact that on these occasions, much of Jesus’ teaching takes place.

Luke is doing much more than simple reporting. The theme of hospitality provides an over-arching purpose. In the person of Jesus, God has entered the world as a visitor. This raises the questions: “How will Jesus/God be received?” and “What sort of hospitality will Israel and the rest of the world offer to this divine visitor?” Interestingly, the theme has a flip-side. Those who offer hospitality to Jesus find themselves invited into the hospitality of God. The one who comes as a guest is revealed as the host.

This guest/host reversal is demonstrated in the account of Jesus’ meeting with Zacchaeus the tax-collector. This man, who was generally avoided and reviled because of his profession finds himself in the unlikely position of offering hospitality to Jesus. At the same time, Zacchaeus who was marginalized and rejected, discovers that he has become the recipient of hospitality or welcome. By choosing to visit Zacchaeus’ home, Jesus demonstrates an acceptance and inclusion, bringing the one who was excluded back into the fold. By saying: “He too is a son of Abraham”, Jesus indicates that Zacchaeus is a member of the people of God.

According to Luke, when someone welcomes Jesus they find themselves welcomed in return and drawn into the hospitality of God – no matter who they are.

Of course, even an untrained eye could observe that there is a great deal of inhospitality in Luke’s gospel. The Pharisees in particular, appear to want to shut Jesus out. Not only are they unable to welcome Jesus, but their failure to welcome him means that they effectively turn their back on the hospitality of God.

More subtle than the rejection of God’s hospitality by the Pharisees is the failure of Israel. The dilemma which faced the Christian community at the end of the first century was the puzzling and confusing fact that while a great many Gentiles had accepted the gospel and joined the community, those to whom the gospel was promised, had not only not accepted it, but had turned their backs on it. How was this to be understood? The issue facing the community was: “tCould God’s promises be believed, if those whom God had chosen appeared now to be the unchosen? Luke is at pains to provide an assurance that God’s promises can be trusted. He does this by demonstrating the failure of God’s people to offer hospitality.

All of which brings us to today’s gospel in which we see that the visitor (who is rejected), becomes the host (whose hospitality is rejected) which demonstrates that the promise is fulfilled, but that those to whom God extends the invitation refuse the invitation. There are four parts to the account – the rejection by the Pharisees, the anticipated rejection by Jerusalem, Jesus’ invitation and its rejection and the summing up.

In the first instance we meet the Pharisees, who appear to be warning Jesus not to continue. If this seems out of character, it is because it is. The Pharisees’ general antagonism towards Jesus should warn us that something else is happening here. In fact, it would seem that it is their intention not to warn Jesus but to prevent him from going to Jerusalem. (Herod’s attitude towards Jesus is generally benign.) The Pharisees seem to understand the significance of Jesus’ going to Jerusalem and they want to persuade him not to go for one of two reasons. If he can be tricked into not entering Jerusalem, they will be able to claim that he is not a true prophet. Alternatively, if they can keep him away, he will not be able to fulfill his destiny.

Real or imagined, the threat that Herod wants to kill him, will not prevent Jesus from fulfilling his mission – in the meantime he will continue to cast out demons and cure the sick. The Pharisees’ antipathy towards Jesus is an indication that they have refused to accept his hospitality.

Secondly, we are made aware that Jerusalem itself will not be hospitable – it has a reputation for killing or stoning its prophets (though in fact, it is primarily Jeremiah who has such a bad experience). Jesus knows beforehand what awaits him there but nothing can stop his present trajectory.

Thirdly, we hear of Jesus’ offered hospitality and its rejection. “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings and you were not willing!)  The visitor reveals himself as host. He has extended an invitation which has been turned down. He has opened his arms to embrace the people and they would not enter that embrace. There is nothing more that he can do.

Finally, the quote from Psalm 118 has one of two purposes. It could refer to a time when Jerusalem will welcome Jesus. Alternatively it could allude to a later part of the Psalm “the stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone”. Their failure to recognise and welcome Jesus was, according to Luke, anticipated.

None of this is to suggest that Luke is anti-Semitic. He, with others of his generation is simply trying to grasp why it is that the Gentiles have apparently inherited the promises of Israel’s God and whether God can be trusted if the promises to Israel appear not been fulfilled.

All this gives us pause for thought. What sort of welcome do we give Jesus and having welcomed him are we prepared to move over and allow Jesus to become the host? Are we willing to be gathered under his wings or do we resolutely refuse to admit our need for his embrace?

In Jesus, God has visited the world. As part of that world what hospitality do we offer and are we willing to accept the hospitality offered by God?

Lent 2 – 2010
Luke 13:1-9
Marian Free

In the name of God who desires that we turn our lives around. Amen.

Blood mixed with sacrifices, falling towers and a non fruiting fig tree. At first glance these sayings don’t appear to belong together. The first section, in response to a question, is full of violence and implied judgement and punishment. The second expresses compassion and the possibility of a second chance.

Unless you repent, you will perish as they did. Though Jesus explicitly denies it, our minds we assume that the Galileans were killed by Herod as a punishment for sin and that the tower fell on the eighteen because they had failed to repent. The logical conclusion is that if we fail to repent that we too will experience a similar gruesome fate. Further, the two stories create a picture of a cruel and exacting God who will willfully destroy us if we fail to comply with his will.

The second section of today’s gospel is quite different. Firstly, it is a parable, and secondly it leads to a different conclusion about the nature of God.  A fig tree fails to fruit and the landowner’s response is to uproot (kill) the tree. Thanks to the gardener’s intervention the fig is given another chance to prove itself. Although the parable doesn’t excuse the fig’s shortcomings, it does indicate that it, and therefore us, will be given a second chance. This account is much more compatible with the image of a kind, compassionate and forgiving God.

While the two parts of today’s gospel seem to be making opposing points, a careful study will show that in fact, Luke has placed them together because they reinforce one of Luke’s key themes: “Today is the day of salvation.”

If we look more closely we will see that in the first saying Jesus is not depicting a cruel and vengeful God. In fact, he is not talking about God at all, but about the vagaries of existence which mean that none of us know what the future holds or when our end might come. Jesus is quite explicit –the Galileans were not punished because they were sinful, neither were the eighteen crushed by the tower because of their faults. On the contrary, Jesus insists, in both cases those who were killed were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their sin is no greater than that of anyone else. The issue is not whether or not they have sinned – all have sinned. The issue is whether or not they have repented – that is turned to God. Jesus implies that they have not repented (turned to God) which means that they face an eternity without God – in Jesus’ language, they perish. The consequence of not turning to God is not so much punishment in the present, or punishment for eternity, but rather a complete end, or an endlessness that is devoid of God.

The message of these two events – Herod’s slaying of the Galileans and the fall of the tower is that NOW is the time to turn one’s life around, because no one knows whether they will have the time to do it tomorrow.

When we understand the first part of today’s gospel, the meaning of the second short story becomes clearer and we can see that the two parts are closely related in Luke’s mind. According to the parable, the landowner has been expecting fruit from his tree for three years and still there is none. He is disappointed and angry, but he accepts the recommendation from the gardener to give the tree one more year. The tree might fruit yet. Importantly, the reprieve is not open-ended; it has a time limit – after twelve months the fig will be cut down. Using a different illustration Jesus makes the same point as he did in the first part. Time is limited. now is the time to turn one’s life around. God may be compassionate and forgiving, but our time is finite and we are asked to accept God’s love and forgiveness now and not to put it off till another day.

Contrary to our initial reading of the passage, we now see that both sayings emphasise the fact that in terms of salvation, sin is NOT the primary factor determining what happens in this life or even in the next. Towers fall on the less sinful as well as on the more sinful. Sinfulness is a characteristic of our human nature. Sin is what identifies as being different from God. Sinfulness is what separates us from God. It is the recognition of our sinfulness which is important, the recognition of our sinfulness and turning towards God which makes the difference between perishing and not perishing.

There is a sense of urgency in all this. Time is short and the time to turn to God is always NOW.

According to Luke’s time scale, NOW is the time of salvation, not the time of judgement. To you and I this time of salvation can seem like an eternity. It has been two thousand years – what difference can another day, another year make? It is hard to grasp the sense of urgency besides which it is impossible and even unhealthy to live in a permanent state of expectation about our own death. That is not the point. Whether it is two thousand years or two seconds the point Jesus is making is the unexpected and unpredictable nature of the end. For this reason, it is important to always be ready because the time is always now. The gardener might buy us more time, time is still finite and a decision needs to be made before it is too late. We need to choose to turn towards God or to continue on our way to a godless eternity.

By pairing the two stories in his gospel, Luke confronts the misconception that our sinfulness is punished by unexpected acts of terror.  We will not be punished by having towers fall on us or despotic leaders kill us – those are random acts that could happen to anyone – sinful or not. At the same time, while we do not need to live in constant fear, we cannot afford to be complacent the time of salvation is limited and we must make the best use of that time to turn to God – it is possible to be rooted out of the garden. There is a then a sense of urgency. Turn to God, because we do not know what might happen tomorrow. Turn to God because the day of salvation will come to an end.

Towers, assassinations, fig trees – there is too much at stake to put off till tomorrow what God is asking of us today.

Just what is it that separates us from God and is this Lent the time to put that right?

Lent 1 – 2010
Luke 4:1-15
Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us to persevere to the end. Amen.

There are no quick fixes in this life. If you want to become a concert pianist, you must practice and practice until you get the pieces just right. If you want to become an Olympic swimmer, you must give up your social life and your sleep and train everyday until you reach a speed at which you make the grade. If you want to paint, sew, ride a bike, play an instrument, you have to do the hard yards, you have to experience the disappointment of the initial failures, and slow progress until at last you have mastered the technique and achieved some sort of competence.

Many things have their own time and trying to speed the process can lead to difficulties down the road. Grief for example needs time to be worked through. Being stoic and pushing the sadness aside may seem useful at the time, but it may only delay the effect. The grief may find other, less healthy ways to work itself out. Cheating on an exam may get good results in the short term, but it defeats the purpose of becoming competent in a subject and eventually the one who cheated will be discovered to be a fraud.

In today’s gospel the devil offers Jesus a number of short cuts – miracles, absolute power and getting God do it all. At first glance they all make sense – which is why they are tempting. What better way to get everyone in the world to believe in you than performing a few miracles? Turning stones into bread would certainly get people’s attention. The problem is that those who believed would not believe in Jesus because he was Jesus, but only for what they could get from him. When the miracles came to an end so would their faith. Jesus would have to keep on performing miracles to keep their attention.

Absolute power appears to be another good idea. If Jesus ruled the world, then surely he could make people believe in him. The whole enterprise would take much less time, if only he could force people into doing what he wanted. Again, this method has its limitations. Belief that is the result of force is not really belief at all. Given freedom to choose, those forced to believe might choose to turn their backs on him.

That leaves the last temptation – throwing yourself off a cliff and waiting for God to catch you. In other words, give all the responsibility back to God, after all, God could do the job much more efficiently and quickly. However, this too would fail. For it is only through the human Jesus, that humanity can be restored to its proper relationship with God. Knowing all this, Jesus says: “no” to the easy options which the devil presents.

Jesus knows that his role (even though he is God’s Son) is to fully experience the human condition, to take on the pain and suffering of the world, to demonstrate that perfect obedience is possible and to thereby undo the damage that willful disobedience has caused to the relationship between human beings and God.  It is the whole story not half the story which will lead to salvation for all.
Taking a short cut, even with all the pizzazz and the power which the devil offers might have a positive effect in the short term, but it will lead to a completely different end result. In fact, it will lead to no result at all because the difficult question of humankind’s disobedience will not have been answered and God will have been relegated to a being a source of miracles, a safety net, or a despot to be outwardly obeyed, but inwardly ignored. What appears to be a quick fix is actually leaves us with the status quo.

Throughout his life, Jesus indicates that he is not interested in quick fixes. He has taken on a task and he will see it through to its painful, disgraceful and ugly end. When John suggests that he doesn’t need to be baptized, Jesus insists that it is the proper thing to do. When it would be easy not to antagonize the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus refuses to compromise what he believes to be true. When Peter suggests that Jesus should not face the cross, Jesus accuses Peter of being Satan. When Jesus prays in Gethsemane, he ultimately decides to accept the difficult way ahead. When Peter later draws his sword, Jesus rebukes him and when passers-by suggest that he should save himself, Jesus ignores them.

To heed the devil and take the easy way out would be to cheapen what Jesus is trying to achieve. Already he knows that there is no magic formula, just hard slog – to preach the message of God’s love and forgiveness, to challenge the complacency of the religious leaders,  to demonstrate complete trust in God, and ultimately, to accept rejection and to be forsaken by all. Jesus knows that he can only defeat sin, if he refuses to give in to sin. He can only defeat death, if he faces death head on and comes out the other side. Jesus knows that the only way to the resurrection is through the crucifixion and that the only way to achieve salvation for humankind is to see the journey through to its bitter end.

So, even though he is famished, Jesus refuses to focus on material things. Even though he has the power to rule the world, Jesus chooses to be a servant and even though he has the choice to call on God to save him from his fate, Jesus refuses to be lured into accepting an easier alternative. While it might appear that Jesus begins his ministry from a position of weakness by refusing to use the resources available to him, his early defeat of the devil indicates his strength. At the end, he will again refuse the temptation to take the easy way out and by so doing he will finally deprive the devil of his power.

Lent is a time for us to test our resolve. Over the next forty days we have an opportunity to see whether we are more attracted to material things than to spiritual things, whether we are more concerned with seek power and status for ourselves or to recognising God’s power in our lives, and whether we are more interested in treating God as a magic talisman or in entering a mature and authentic relationship with God which will lead to our ultimate transformation.

This Lent let us ask ourselves, are we looking for a quick and easy fix, or is our relationship with God one that will overcome any obstacles to deepen and grow until we at last face the final hurdle and share in the resurrection which Christ has won for us?

Epiphany  6 – 2010
Luke 6:17-26
Marian Free

In the name of God who desires that all people know freedom, peace and justice. Amen.

All things bright and beautiful,
all things great small,
all things wise and wonderful
the Lord God made them all.

The rich man in his castle,
the poor man at his gate,
God made them high or lowly
and order’d their estate.        Frances Cecil Alexander

God made them high and lowly. It is hard to believe that less that forty years ago, we sang those lines with gusto and impunity! Does this mean that God not only condones, but that God created situations in which some (in fact a majority) of this world’s people spend their lives in poverty and misery while others live in comfort and contentment? Does this mean that God not only looks contently on while women and children are sold into slavery and men risk their lives to provide a meager living for their family, but that God ordained that it be so? Does it mean not only that God is satisfied with, but actually intended that the largest proportion of people live on less than $2 a day, and a child dies of hunger every three seconds?

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The author of that most beloved hymn was a product of her age. Victorian Christians really did believe that God had ordered the world as it is and that while one might do something to alleviate the plight of the poor, there was no reason to examine the causes of poverty or to create a more equitable or just society. That generation apparently saw no contradiction between an inequitable God and a just God and could see no reason to question the way things had always been.

“Blessed are you who are the poor for yours is the kingdom of God”. Unlike Matthew, Luke does not spiritualise the beatitude, “blessed are the poor in spirit”, but leaves it as a bald statement. Taken alone, it would seem to support the Victorian world view and allows those who are comfortably off to complacently accept the status quo – the poor are blessed, that makes everything alright. However, that Luke has a different intention becomes quite clear when we read on: “woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.” This is a far less comfortable world view. Those who have had the misfortune to be born to poverty are assured that their situation will be reversed – which is good – but those whose birth has endowed them with comfort will find a reversal of their position quite discomforting.

Luke’s vision is quite clear. From the beginning he has indicated that he believes that Jesus’ coming will turn the social order upside down, that God favours the poor over the rich and the vulnerable over the strong. Mary’s song indicates that there will be a radical re-ordering of the world: “God has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.” Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth is equally confronting: “I have come to bring good news to the poor and to let the oppressed go free.” It is only in Luke’s gospel that the disciples “leave everything and follow Jesus” and Jesus actually says: “none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions”. In his second book, Acts, Luke reports that in the earliest communities property was shared equally among the believers and there were fatal consequences for those who withheld their worldly goods.

So what do we make of all of this? Luke’s gospel is compelling and leaves no room for doubt about the expectations for discipleship and about God’s preference for the poor. The problem in our age is that most of the issues are too big to comprehend let alone solve. Poverty and disease are global issues that we as individuals simply cannot resolve. The solutions to many problems are political and geographical and therefore beyond our reach. We can make donations to the earthquake relief in Haiti, but on our own we will be unable to solve the poverty and lack of resources which has intensified the fallout of the disaster. We can pray for the people of Burma but we cannot do anything about a political situation which refuses our aid when disaster strikes. Even our good intentions can have unintended results. High quality grain provided by aid programmes in the past has reduced the variety which ensured some sort of crop whether the season was good or bad. Now a good season means a good crop but a bad season means no crop at all.

Does this mean that we who have had the misfortune to be born in or migrated to the Lucky Country are destined at some time to have everything taken away from us? Do we have to give everything away in order to be followers of Christ? Or is it possible to wiggle our way out of the dilemma by finding a spiritual meaning to the teaching?

I have to confess that I do not have the sort of clarity and certainty to answer these questions for you. However, I believe that the questions raised by Luke’s beatitudes are serious questions which have the potential to affect our salvation and I believe that all of us must all prayerfully struggle to find answers. At this stage of my Christian journey I believe that it is important for us to recognise how blessed we are to live at this time, in this part of the world. I believe it is important that we determine to give a portion of our income, not only so that others might benefit, but so that we learn to be happy with less. I believe that we must live in such a way that our lifestyles and our actions cause no one to be hurt, treated unjustly or oppressed by what we do. Above all, I believe that we are called to place our trust entirely in God and God’s future and not to depend on worldly things which will not last forever.

We are going to spend a whole year with Luke and will continue to be challenged and confronted by Luke’s view of the gospel and of the world. We have a good opportunity, as we enter the season of Lent, to examine once again where we stand, to ask ourselves how much we trust God with our present and our future, and how willing we are to work with God to create a world in which all have enough to eat, meaningful employment, shelter from the elements and the ability to build a future for themselves and for their children.

Epiphany 5 – 2010
Luke 5:1-11
Marian Free

In the name of God who can use the most unlikely people as his disciples. Amen.

Most of you will know that our Lectionary follows a three year cycle. We read in turn the three Synoptic gospels – Matthew followed by Mark and then Luke. (During this cycle the gospel of John is inserted at times like Advent and Lent so that we cover all four gospels over the three year period.)

This year as you will have noticed, we are reading the Gospel of Luke. Already we have noticed some significant characteristics of this Gospel. For instance, Luke has an extensive birth narrative, in which he interleaves the stories of John the Baptist and Jesus in such a way that it is clear that Jesus is to be the more significant of the two men. Further, he elaborates Mark’s account of Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth and moves it to the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. A major theme is liberation. Judgement will occur, but that does not belong to this period of time or to this part of the story.

In today’s gospel, the calling of the first disciples, Luke once again embellishes Mark’s version and changes the placement to suit his own purpose. In Mark’s gospel, the calling of Simon and Andrew, James and John occurs at the very beginning of the gospel and is a stand alone account. Jesus is walking beside the sea, sees the men and calls them to follow him. They leave their nets and follow him. It is not until chapter 4 of Mark that we hear the account of Jesus teaching from the boat.

Luke situates the call of the first disciples in the account of Jesus’ teaching from the boat and he includes in the story the account of the miraculous catch of fish – a miracle which is only found here and in John’s post-resurrection stories. When Jesus has finished teaching, he (a carpenter, not a fisherman) presumes to tell the experienced fishermen to put out to sea. Any fishermen would know that this is a foolish thing to do in the middle of the day if the night has not yielded a catch, but such is Jesus’ authority and confidence that Simon agrees to do what he asks. The result is more fish than one boat can safely bring in – in fact more fish than two boats together can manage.

Though it is clear that Luke is telling the story of Simon and Andrew, James and Johns’ call to ministry, Jesus doesn’t use the words: “follow me”. It is only in response to Simon’s fearful “confession” that Jesus says: “Do not be afraid, from now on you will be catching people alive.”

There is so much of interest in these eleven verses but I want to focus on Simon Peter’s reaction to Jesus. It is fascinating that, in a world in which miracles were an accepted part of life; Simon is completely overwhelmed by the catch. Despite the fact that a night of fishing has yielded nothing, Simon’s reaction to the number of fish is not one of gratitude and joy but rather of terror and shame. It is easy for us to understand that he would fall at Jesus’ feet in gratitude. It is less easy to grasp why he would urge Jesus to get away from him. What is the connection between the miracle and Simon’s recognition of his sinfulness?

It is Simon’s language which tells us that something more than a miracle has happened here. In addressing Jesus as “Lord” instead of “Master”, Simon is indicating that, through the miracle, he has grasped the divine nature of Jesus. In the presence of the divine, Simon is overcome with awe, even terror. The Old Testament tells us that presence of the divine is a terrible and dangerous thing. The Israelites believed that it was impossible to look on God and live. Moses hides his face so that he need not look at God. At Mt Sinai, the Israelites were kept from the holy mountain for fear that they would be killed if they were to get too close to the presence of God. Elijah is allowed only to see God’s back. The splendour and glory of the God are believed to be too much for ordinary human senses to bear. No wonder Simon wants Jesus to go.

There is another source of fear. The holiness of God exposes the sinfulness of human beings. In the face of God’s goodness and justice Moses, Isaiah, Paul and now Simon recognise how unworthy they are to be in God’s presence. How can they possibly measure up? How can they be holy as God is holy or good as God is good? When we understand this Simon’s response to Jesus seems not only reasonable, but totally logical. He filled with awe and fear in the presence of the divine and at the same time he feels vulnerable and exposed. He is not a bad person, but in Jesus’ presence he is all too aware of his human limitations and inadequacies. He wants the source of his discomfort – Jesus – to go away.

The presence of God in the miraculous is often associated with the call of God. Again we can think of Moses and the burning bush, Isaiah’s vision of the temple and Paul’s experience of the risen Christ. God gets a person’s attention and then commissions them for ministry. They all reply that that are not worthy to carry out the task God asks of them. Jesus does not use the words: “Follow me” here, but it is quite clear that this is a story of commission. Jesus is calling Simon – from now on he will be catching people alive.

Jesus’ does not set out to terrify Simon, but Simon’s response indicates that Jesus has chosen the right person for the task. Simon demonstrates that he has the humility and self awareness that is needed for ministry. His knowledge of his own weakness and sinfulness will mean that he will look to God for guidance and direction instead of relying on himself. Simon, as we will discover, will not reach perfection, yet his faith in, and dependence on God will mean that God will do great things through him.

God can’t work through us unless we first recognise our human frailty and vulnerability and our need to depend entirely on God. When we understand that we are not worthy of God’s trust, and when we realise that we, on our own, cannot do what God requires, then we open ourselves to allow God to use us for God’s purpose. If, in the presence of the divine, we do not throw ourselves to the floor in awe or cover our eyes in fear, we can be sure that our arrogance, our self-importance and our sense of independence will provide a barrier which locks God out of our lives and effectively prevents God from working with and within us.

In our 21st century lives, we may not witness a miracle, or see a vision, but through our baptism we are all commissioned by God to carry out God’s work in the world. It is an awesome and terrifying task. There will be times when, like Simon we do not feel worthy of the responsibility and there will be times when, like Simon, we will let God down. But through it all God will stay true to his choice of us and when we feel ourselves least worthy we may find that our it is the recognition of our vulnerability and inadequacy that leads to a dependence on God and that this is what allows God to work through us to make a difference in the world.

Epiphany 4
Luke 4:22-30
Marian Free

In the name of God who desires that we open our eyes so that we might truly see. Amen.

Imagine that it is time to elect a world leader and that your vote is crucial in the final decision. There are three leading candidates and you have the following information about each. The first associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologers. He’s had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day. The second was kicked out of office twice. He sleeps until noon and he used opium in college. Every night he drinks a quart of whisky. The third is a decorated war hero. He’s a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn’t had any extra-marital affairs. Which of these would be your choice?

If you chose the first, you would have elected Franklin D. Roosevelt. The second would have allowed Winston Churchill to rule the world. Had you voted for the clean living, war hero – number three – you would have voted Adolf Hitler to a position of world domination. Of course, a short quiz such as that is not a fair way to assess your ability to judge someone’s character or leadership abilities, but it is a reminder that some of our judgements of other people are not always based on all the possible available.

It is human nature to make decisions about other people based on limited information. At the same time, we are biased by our own backgrounds, our prejudices and our needs. We give ourselves permission to overlook the faults of those whose achievements we admire and we allow familiarity to blind us to the qualities and the achievements of those closest to us. We have a tendency to let past experiences determine present perception such that some people can never outlive our bad opinion. The result is that we do not always see clearly to assess either the gifts or the deficits of the people around us.

Today’s gospel begins half way through a story which we began last week. It is the account of Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue in his home town of Nazareth. You will remember that Jesus takes the scroll and reads a portion of Isaiah 61 – a classic text of liberation. Then takes his seat and with the eyes of all fixed on him he says: ‘‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.’

One might expect that the congregation would be indignant that Jesus was daring to make such an outrageous claim, but their immediate reaction is very positive. We are told: “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth.” Indeed they evince a certain amount of pride: “Is not this Joseph’s son?” (In other words: Isn’t he one of our own?) It is Jesus’ response to this praise that is puzzling. Instead of humbly accepting the recognition and respect of the people, Jesus, deliberately sets out to antagonize them. First of all he quotes a well-known proverb: “Doctor, cure yourself.” Then he anticipates what they might say to him: “Do here also in your home town the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.” He implies is that they will want to keep him to themselves as their own prophet and miracle-worker. So he uses the Old Testament examples of Elijah and Elisha to remind them that his ministry cannot be confined to a single place.

No wonder those in the synagogue are enraged. So far as we know, their reaction to Jesus has only been positive and his response is to insult them – to accuse them of intentions which they haven’t even verbalised. It’s not at all surprising that they are so incensed that they want to drive him out of the village and off a cliff.

So what is really going on here? What on earth is Jesus thinking? What is he trying to achieve? The members of the synagogue are not part of the religious hierarchy. They are in fact simple peasants, the very people who respond most positively to Jesus and his message and who make up the bulk of his followers. Why, when Jesus’ reception in his home town has been so positive, would he insult and offend them?

It appears that Jesus has discerned that the villager’s understanding is superficial and self serving. Blinded by familiarity, they see not Jesus the son of God, but only Joseph’s son –albeit a new and improved version. He is so well known to them that they do not, and possibly can not, see him for who he really is. They measure him according to known criterion. They know and understand the categories of prophet and miracle worker and can comfortably fit Jesus into one or both of them. However, their imaginations will not stretch to the point where they can see Jesus as the one who fulfils the words of Isaiah.

Jesus is right. The Nazarenes probably do have an expectation that they can appeal to him to do for them what he has apparently done elsewhere – perform miracles. They want him to be their local prophet. This is the reason that he cannot perform miracles among them. Miracle-working is Jesus’ primary function. His role, as the reading from Isaiah has made clear is to set the people free, to liberate them from their false conceptions and to turn their hearts and minds to God.

Jesus’ reaction is born of disappointment and frustration. Jesus’ apparent ungraciousness is his way of confronting their restricted vision and an attempt to open their minds to help them to see who he really is and what he is about.

Twenty centuries later, today’s gospel speaks to us. The reaction of the Nazarenes forces us to ask ourselves: Is our understanding of Jesus based on all the facts – the uncomfortable as well as the comfortable? Have we jumped too soon to a conclusion as to whom and what Jesus is? Are we so confident in our knowledge of Jesus that we believe that we have nothing more to learn? Do we believe in Jesus primarily on the basis of what we believe he can do for us? Do we treat Jesus as someone so familiar to us that we are no longer surprised by what he says or does?

Through his actions and his teaching, the Jesus of the gospels constantly challenges us to be open to new experiences and continually asks us to be willing to give up our pre-conceptions so that we can truly understand who he is and who we can be in relation to him. We have a choice, we can like the Nazarenes, choose to push Jesus away, or we can open our hearts and minds such that we are always ready to see what it is he wants to reveal to us.

Epiphany 3 – 2010
Luke 4:14-21
Marian Free

In the name of God in whose Son, Jesus, we are set free to live. Amen.

In the last fortnight, a prisoner walked out of a court in Brisbane, 12 dangerous criminals escaped from a prison in Papua New Guinea, and all the jails in Haiti were destroyed, freeing any prisoners who might have survived. It makes you think: Is this what Jesus means when he said: “He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives.” Has it come true in our time? I’m sure that many of us would hope this was not the case! However sympathetic we are to other means of punishment and rehabilitation, I imagine that most of us would prefer dangerous criminals to serve out their time in prison.

All three synoptic gospels mention Jesus’ visit to the synagogue in Nazareth and his subsequent rejection. Luke, however, is the only one who records both the text which Jesus uses and his sermon on that text. It is only Luke who gives a detailed account of the reason why Jesus caused so much offence as a result of his preaching. Luke has a particular interest in Jesus’ visit to Nazareth because whereas Matthew and Mark place it towards the middle of Jesus’ public ministry, Luke situates the story at the very beginning. In this way Luke uses the account to set the scene for the whole of Jesus’ story – a story that will swing from acceptance to rejection beginning in a tiny village in Galilee and ending in Jerusalem.

Luke introduces this narrative with the report that Jesus has returned to Galilee from the wilderness. He is filled with the Spirit and receives a warm welcome from all. His renown spreads throughout the countryside. In Nazareth also he goes to the synagogue – on the Sabbath, as was his custom. (Jesus’ Jewish credentials are thereby confirmed. He is not a Greek teacher, but one who teaches in the Jewish tradition, one who understands the interpretation of the scriptures. He is a faithful, synagogue-attending Jew.)

We are told that Jesus ‘finds’ the passage from Isaiah which suggests that it is his own choice. What is interesting to us is that he doesn’t read the passage as it is written. Even though it is only a short passage, some phrases are omitted and Jesus inserts a verse from another chapter in Isaiah. The passage which Jesus reads is from Isaiah 61:1-2, however, Jesus omits the words: “to bind up the broken hearted”. He adds the words “to let the oppressed go free” to the text and when he reaches the end he chooses to leave out the final phrase: “and the day of vengeance of our God”.

The inclusions and omissions allow Luke’s Jesus to emphasise “release” (aphesis) and “acceptable”) and make it clear that the “today” which Jesus announces is not a time of judgement, but of liberation. Luke has already alludes to the theme of liberation in the story of John the Baptist. At his naming, John’s father Zechariah prophecies that the knowledge of salvation will be known in the release from sins and as an adult, John himself announces a baptism of repentance for release from sin. Release or liberation is already a theme of Luke’s gospel
In Jesus’ reading from Isaiah, the idea of release takes a different turn. Not only are the people of God to be freed from their sin, but we discover that liberation has a social justice as well as a strictly religious element. Not that this concept is new – concern for the poor and the outcast is a consistent theme of both the Old and the New Testaments. If we return to Jesus’ text (Isaiah 61), we discover that the context of the prophet’s words is an attack on the people of God – not so much for the sin of turning against God, but for the way in which they turn to God. As we will be reminded on Ash Wednesday, the prophet is criticizing the people for their over-concentration on ritual, sacrifice, fasting and long prayers. Their so-called worship of God takes the place of care for those in need. In contrast to those who are defining religion in terms of ritual, Isaiah reminds them that faith is really about concern for their neighbour.

God through Isaiah asks: “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? 7Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?”

A key Old Testament theme which is carried over to the New Testament is that no one can be truly free unless everyone is free. The Law is very specific about the need to care for the widows and the orphans and the stranger in their midst. So strong is this tenet that built into the Law is the idea of a Sabbatical year (Deut 15:1-18). Every seven years, not only is the land to lie fallow so that it may have an opportunity to recover, but there is to be a remission of all debts and a release from the bonds of slavery. This is further elaborated in Leviticus where it states that every fiftieth year, or year of Jubilee, not only is there to be a remission of debt and release from slavery, but any land that has been taken from a clan or family due to hardship, had to be returned to its original owners. Every 50 years the playing field is leveled.  So we see in the Old Testament a strong and consistent social policy not only to provide for the vulnerable, but also to create a just and fair society.

There was an understanding that the health of the whole society relied on this care and respect for one another.

This is a truism not only for the people of Israel, but for us all. In the past week, we have become only too aware that our own peace of mind depends in part on the health and well-being of society as a whole. We have been bombarded on our television screens and through our newspapers with images of the unimaginable horrors that have occurred as a result of the earthquake in Haiti. As we watch the grief, the frustration and agony of so many people, we come to understand that we cannot be truly happy while so many suffer such extraordinary pain and hardship. What is true on a global scale is no less true close to home. If we listen to the voices around us, we discover that our sense of well being, our dignity and our self-respect depend to some extent on the degree of dignity and self-respect of our neighbours, of our indigenous brothers and sisters, of the migrants who come to our land and of the poor and dispossessed among us.

Jesus, quoting Isaiah, speaks a universal truth, that freedom for one requires freedom for all. We are not truly free unless all are truly free. Jesus announces a new era of liberation for all. As we receive the gift of liberation which Jesus offers, our eyes are opened to the suffering which is all around us, we are liberated us from the blind indifference which allows us to ignore the effects of poverty and disadvantage, we are released us from our captivity to selfishness and greed. Through the gospel our lives are transformed, we are set free to live, and to bring life to others. As we respond to Jesus’ message of liberation, we are caught up in Jesus’ mission “to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”