Swallowsrest

All Saints (2009)

Marian Free In the name of God, who sent Jesus Christ to be our only mediator and guide. Amen.

I’d like you all to turn to the back of your prayer books. On page 476 you will find the text of the thirty nine articles – those tenets “agreed upon by the Archbishops, Bishops and the whole clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York” form the basis of the Anglican expression of Christianity. These were the articles of faith, which the Church in England determined in response to the Reformation. Every ordained person and every Liturgical Assistant in the Anglican Church of Australia still signs their assent to these before they are licenced to serve in the church.

That they were written in a time of foment and religious debate – particularly with the Church in Rome – is obvious in more than one of the articles. The one that concerns us today, as we celebrate All Saint’s Day is number XXII of Purgatory. It states: “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

Strong words you will agree, and something of an embarrassment in the context of modern ecumenism.  However, it is important to remember the context in which the articles were written. The Middle Ages were a time of great religious revival. New religious orders were founded, people from all walks of life embarked on pilgrimages, people like Julian of Norwich became anchorites, mysticism abounded and great spiritual works were written. It was also a time of excesses and of a popular piety which placed emphasis on devout observances, saints, relics and pilgrimages to the point that the person and teaching of Jesus took second place. Educated and uneducated people alike were drawn to this popular form of pietism which bordered on superstition. It was against such excesses that the Reformers rebelled.

The popular veneration of saints, and the belief in their miraculous power led to the creation of an industry based around their veneration and belief in their divine intervention. Just as tourism is a vital part of the economy today, so pilgrimages to the shrine of a saint provided a form of income and employment to any place which could claim such an association. This meant that being able to prove that one’s town or village had a relationship with a saint, or that miracles had been performed there led to it being a destination for those looking for a miraculous cure or for a way to demonstrate their personal piety.

As a consequence there was a great trade in Reliques. Bones, pieces of clothing, or other items that had belonged to a Saint were sufficient to draw pilgrims to the place where they were to be found. Even something as small and bizarre as a piece of a fingernail was believed to contain the power of the saint to whom it had belonged and was worth trying to obtain. Perhaps one of the most macabre examples of the practice relates to Catherine of Sienna. Catherine was born in Sienna, but died in Rome. After her death both towns wanted to capitalize on their association with her and a dispute broke out between the two towns. In the end, a compromise was reached – Rome kept Catherine’s body and Sienna was allowed to have her head. If you go to Sienna today, you can see her head displayed in San Domenico the church in which she grew up. A similar conflict arose between San Damiano and Assisi, both of which wanted to capitalize on St Francis’ association with their towns. Francis’ actual burial place was not discovered until 1818. His body had been hidden between two floors of the Basilica because the people of Assisi was so afraid that his body might be plundered by the citizens of San Damiano and his bones sold throughout Europe.

Among other things, the Reformation sought to put an end to such excesses. However, the Anglican Church did not abandon the commemoration of Saints altogether. A glance at our Lectionary will demonstrate that we continue to hold in high regard martyrs, teachers, social reformers and holy men and women. Despite the fact that only Charles the 1st has been canonized since the Reformation, many who have led exemplary and lives are recognised in our calendar – including heroes of the Reformation and missionaries and teachers of the succeeding centuries.

In 1958 the Lambeth Conference clarified the way in which Saints and Heroes of the Church might be commemorated:

• In the case of scriptural saints, care should be taken to commemorate men or women in term which are in accord with Holy Scripture.                                                                                                                                                                                                 • In the case of other names, the Calendar should be limited to those whose historical character and devotion are beyond doubt.                                                                                                                                                                                                             • In the choice of new names economy should be observed and controversial names should not be added until they can be seen in the perspective of history.                                                                                                                                                       • The addition of a new name should normally result from a wide-spread desire expressed in the region concerned over a reasonable period of time.

This means that throughout the Communion, there is a degree of freedom to add to the Calendar people of significance to a particular region. The Calendar which we in Australia use, will differ from that elsewhere, for our pioneer bishops, indigenous clergy and social reformers will mean little to those in other regions.

Saints are exciting, romantic and adventurous like Joan of Arc or George the Dragon Slayer, they are humble and gentle like Francis, compassionate like Margaret of Scotland and Elizabeth of Hungary, intellectual giants like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, poets, musicians and doctors like Hildegard of Bingen. They are great proclaimers of the gospel like Paul and the early Celtic saints – Patrick, Alban, Columba and Cuthbert. They were obedient to their Lord and Saviour, but often disobedient to secular rulers. They were brave and foolish, innocent and wily, comforting and confronting, filled with joy and yet no stranger to suffering.

Holy men and women of every age inspire us to deepen our spiritual lives, to broaden our knowledge of our faith, to stand up for what is right, to fight for justice, to live with integrity, to care for God’s people and to share our faith with the world. May our lives and our faith be challenged by the heroism, commitment, wisdom and spirituality of the saints who have gone before us and may we in our turn, inspire and encourage those who follow after.

Pentecost 21
Mark 10:46-52
Marian Free

In the name of God who opens our eyes that we might see. Amen.

On the surface, the healing of Bartimaeus, is a simple miracle story. A blind man seeks and receives healing. There are a few embellishments to be sure. The crowd tries to hush the man’s cries for help. For some reason the man throws off his cloak when Jesus calls him. And though the man asked for healing, Jesus tells him that he is “saved”. There are also a couple of puzzles. The gospel begins: “They came to Jericho.” We are told nothing more about the visit for the very next sentence is: “As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho.” Mark uses the Aramaic form of the man’s name and then explains it in Greek – the listeners would not have needed to be told that “Bar” means son of. The beggar refers to Jesus as Son of David and even though he is identified as a beggar, Bartimaeus does not ask for money, but for healing. (Healing for a beggar would mean the loss of his source of income and the need to find a new form of employment.)

For the last three chapters – 8-10, Mark has used the language of journey to frame his story. He places Jesus and his disciples on route to Jerusalem and uses the journey to reveal Jesus’ suffering and death, to highlight the disciple’s failure to understand, and to explore the nature of leadership in the community which he is forming. The journey narrative is framed by accounts of the healing of blind men. At the beginning of the journey, Mark recounts the story of a more elaborate healing. A blind (unnamed) man is brought to Jesus who takes him outside the village. Jesus spits on his eyes and the man’s sight returns, but is blurred. Then Jesus lays his hands on him and he sees clearly. When his sight is restored, he is sent away and told to not even enter the village.

In contrast with this, complex, private healing, the journey ends with the very public story of Bartimaeus. Bartimaeus is already outside the town and it is he who calls for Jesus rather than others who take him to him.  Bartimaeus uses the expression “Son of David”, foreshadowing the entry into Jerusalem when the crowds will welcome Jesus with that same cry. The naming of Jesus as Son of David also brings to mind a Jewish tradition that Solomon (David’s son was a healer and magician). The crowds, instead of taking Bartimaeus to Jesus try to silence him, but Jesus seeks him out and calls him to him. The healing is immediate and simple. Bartimaeus is commended for his faith and told that he is “saved”. He is not sent secretly away as is the man in the first story, but he becomes one of Jesus’ followers and follows him on the way – which, as the hearers of the gospel recognise, means to follow Jesus in the way of suffering and death.

The two stories of healing contribute to the larger story which begins with secrecy and ends with the full revelation of who Jesus is, and what it means to be his disciple. The healing of the blind man is followed by Peter’s declaration that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus follows this by revealing what it means to be the Christ – he will suffer and die and on the third day rise. Peter is unable to comprehend this and is rebuked by Jesus who tells his followers that in order to be his disciples they must follow in his footsteps and be prepared to “take up their cross”, to put the call of God before the call of the world.
The nature of Jesus is made even more explicit by the Transfiguration, which is followed by an account of the disciple’s inability to cast out demons. Jesus again foretells his death and resurrection, to which the disciples respond by trying to decide which of them is the greatest. Jesus confronts their struggle for prominence by using a child to teach them about servant leadership. However, they fail to understand and their self-centredness is further highlighted by their attempt to prevent someone else from casting out demons in Jesus’ name.

Children are again used as exemplars of those who will inherit the kingdom, before Jesus predicts his death and resurrection for one final time. This time James and John respond by requesting seats at Jesus’ right and left in heaven – something which Jesus cannot promise. He again stresses that the nature of leadership in the new economy is that of service, not of seeking places of honour and lording it over others. Finally, in contrast to James and John who ask for places of prominence, the beggar simply asks for mercy indicating that it is he, not they who really understands the nature of discipleship. By “following Jesus on the way”, Bartimaeus shows a willingness that the disciples as yet lack – to follow Jesus, no matter what the cost.

So you see, the simple story of the healing of a blind man, is a story of faith which leads to salvation and discipleship which leads to the cross. It brings to an end an unfolding of who Jesus is and how his mission will be played out. Mark uses the story here to highlight the misunderstanding of the disciples, the cost of discipleship and to introduce Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem which begins the final chapter of the story.

In the wider context, a journey sequence that began with blindness and secrecy is now concluded with clear vision and complete openness about the nature and purpose of Jesus. Who he is, and what it means to follow him is now made known to all.

As listeners to this we are challenged to re-examine our own response to Jesus, to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to pay the cost of discipleship, and whether we understand the nature of community as Jesus imagined it would be. Are we, like the disciples, unable to really confront the implications of the crucifixion? Are we guilty of seeking recognitions for ourselves, rather than exercising our ministry in the service of others? Are we willing to express simple trust, or do we like the disciples want to turn away from the difficult things Jesus tells us?

Jesus says to Bartimaeus: “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asks us that same question: “What do you want me to do for you?” Our answer to that question tells him everything he needs to know about our faith, our understanding and our trust in him. What is it that we really want, and what does that say about us?

Pentecost 20

Mark 10:32-45

Marian Free

In the name of Jesus Christ who calls us to share in the work of salvation. Amen.

It is a statement of the obvious to suggest that we are all different and that as a result the way we experience events in our lives differs greatly from one person to another. For example, it is well known that men and women tend to grieve in different ways. We know that some people wear their heart on their sleeves while others are more restrained and keep their emotions hidden. The person who sobs with grief or who leaps with joy may be no more sad than the person who stoically dabs their eyes and no more ecstatic than the one who calmly accepts good news.

Having said this, there still exists an expectation of how people should react in a particular circumstance and a tendency to condemnation or impatience if they do not. I heard the most shocking story on the radio one morning this year. A woman whose husband had died recently rang to say that when she was still obviously sad six weeks after his death she was told that she “should get over it.” How sad and isolating it must have been for her to feel that her experience was not normal, that she could not share her continuing sense of grief with her friends and that others did not understand or try to understand what she was going through.

I am sure that many of us have, at one time or another experienced the loneliness and isolation of being misunderstood – whether it is our anxiety about getting things right or being somewhere on time, our excitement about something which others trivialize or dismiss or our depression relating to losing a job or missing out on the promotion, we can feel completely alone if no one else understands how we feel, or if no one else is able to sympathise with our joy or our sorrow.

Imagine then, what it must have been like to be Jesus. He has specially chosen twelve people to share his ministry. To them he has told things that he has told no one else. He has given to them the interpretation of the parables and he has empowered them to cure the sick and to cast out demons. Now, when he tells them about his death and resurrection, they behave as if they haven’t even heard him. Worse, two of the twelve, James and John, are so unable to come to terms with what Jesus is saying that they change the subject completely – effectively dismissing any idea that Jesus might be anxious or afraid. It’s a wonder that Jesus doesn’t abandon his mission there and then.

This is now the third time that he has told the disciples that he is going to die, and still they do not understand. Instead, they can think only of themselves and what is in it for them. “We want you to do for us whatever we ask.” “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Jesus is talking about being handed over, mocked, spat upon and killed and all James and John can think of is their own future aggrandizement. This is the third time that Jesus has announced his death and resurrection. Each time the pattern has been the same – the misunderstanding of the disciples followed by an explanation of what his mission is really about.

On the first occasion, Peter takes Jesus aside and rebukes him. Jesus responds with a exhortation for his followers to take up their cross and follow him. In the face of Peter’s refusal to accept the reality of Jesus’ death, Jesus concludes that “whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of man will also be ashamed when he comes in his glory” (8:38).

The second time Jesus predicts his crucifixion, the disciples “did not understand what he was saying and were afraid to ask him” (9:32). The disciples are apparently unable to cope with the possibility of Jesus’ death and react by changing the subject. They begin an argument as to who among them is the greatest. They deal with their own fear and confusion by focusing on something that is tangible and concrete. Perhaps this is a way of dealing with the uncertainty of the future – determining roles for themselves on the off-chance that Jesus’ prediction is correct and that they will be left on their own. Jesus takes the opportunity to illustrate what true leadership is – the first must be last and the last must be first.

On this, the third occasion, the disciples begin by being amazed and afraid. Jesus is walking alone. He calls the twelve to him and predicts in detail what is about to happen. Again there is no response. Then James and John make their audacious request: “We want you to give us what ever we ask.” It’s hard to imagine what they were thinking – unless, afraid of what would happen without Jesus they are keen to secure their place for all eternity. Of course, the other ten are furious – why should James and John expect special treatment? (It appears that none of the twelve have learnt the lesson of the previous occasion – they still think that the first should be first!)

Jesus exhibits infinite patience. He tries to explain the concept of leadership in yet another way. They well know that the Romans exercise power through force and intimidation. Jesus suggests that this is not the way to exercise real leadership. True leadership, true greatness is demonstrated in service of others. Jesus will show this to be true by giving his life “as a ransom for many.” Jesus followers, by implication, will live lives of service, be prepared to take up their cross and willing to give their lives for others. Up until the very end, Jesus’ closest friends show an unwillingness to fully enter into the experience. They respond to Jesus’ predictions of his death by changing the subject, implying that he doesn’t know what he is talking about and looking to their own futures with no apparent understanding as to what will happen in his. There must have been moments when Jesus felt utterly isolated and alone.

It is profoundly confronting to think that God, who through Jesus have invited us to share in the work of salvation, might feel disappointed, misunderstood and alone. Despite this, Jesus with infinite patience explains and re-explains to us, what it means, what it looks like and what it costs. We can respond to Jesus’ challenge by demonstrating our ignorance and fear, we can choose to ignore the difficult questions and try to evade the cost of discipleship, or we can join forces with Jesus, take up our cross, learn what it means to serve others and begin to understand what it means to give our lives for the life of the world.

Pentecost 19

Mark 10:17-33

Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us to rely totally on Him. Amen.

I recently read an article about three young Britons who chose an unusual method to raise funds for their favourite charity (Book Aid International). They gave up their jobs and gave away everything they owned in order to travel around Australia – entirely dependent on the kindness of strangers . I read the article with some skepticism. Their idea of dependence included publicizing their intentions before setting out and seeking and gaining sponsorship – notably the use of a Camper Van. So they were not completely without resources. As well as that, they had the advantage of media attention and were able to use the internet to alert towns and regions to their project and to their imminent arrival. Often they were met at the outskirts of a town with offers of work or accommodation. However, as I read on, I realized that despite the apparent advantages they had, they still did it hard. They had to live with constant uncertainty. There wasn’t always work to be had, a shower to be found or a bed to sleep in. Their diet often consisted of greasy food and their health suffered. They were unable to take care of their appearance. They had said that they would do any work which meant that many people gave them job which they had been putting off for some time, or work that no one else would do.

Anna and her friends raised $22,000. At the end of the journey, she says that the experience changed her. She “no longer shops with the same abandon as she used to. She only buys what she needs.” Her plans to spend her trip painting the outback were overtaken by the need to find shelter, food and work and she realized that creativity “needs time and leisure”. While not claiming that she knows what it is really like to be poor, Anna now feels that she has “a greater empathy for the children she is trying to help.”

These people were not Christians – or at least they were not claiming Christ as the reason for their project – but their action seems to comply with Jesus’ suggestion to the young man in today’s story: “sell everything and follow me.” I am not sure that this particular story is asking all of us to give up everything and to throw ourselves on the mercy of the world. However, I do believe that the gospel challenges all of us to consider carefully our attitudes to money and to what we own. Both the New and Old Testaments have plenty to say about money and our use of it.

When Israel was established, there were very clear guidelines about the care of widows and orphans and of the stranger in their midst. The most vulnerable in the society were to be cared for by those who were better off. There were also injunctions about our responsibilities to God and to the church. For how could the people worship God if the place of worship was not maintained and provided for? In the Old Testament we find the concept of first fruits – giving the first and best of the harvest and the flock to God. We are also introduced to the idea of tithing – giving ten percent of one’s income to God.

Our offering to God, which in today’s church is through our weekly contribution during the service, is first and foremost part of our spiritual development. It is a means of deepening our relationship with God and reducing our dependence on the world. Our offering to God reminds us that the values of this world are not the values of the kingdom. So we give in response to God’s generosity towards us. We give in response to the needs of the world which God loves and we give knowing not only that we have all that we need, but that we have much more besides.

In return, we gain a deeper appreciation of what we really need to live on and a deeper understanding of what it means to truly depend on God. We learn not to take ourselves so seriously and to sit lightly with the values and strivings of a materialistic world. We demonstrate by our satisfaction with what we have a peace with ourselves and the world. Scripture demonstrates this to be true. The widow who uses the last of her oil and flour to make bread for Elijah, discovers that she is never without. The boy who gives his lunch to Jesus discovers that not only is he not hungry, but that his small lunch is able to feed 5,000 others. Luke puts it this way: “give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.” And today’s gospel suggests: “there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age and in the age to come eternal life.”

When we give all that we can we discover that the blessings that we receive far outweigh the cost of what we have given. When we put ourselves and our lives in God’s hands, when we trust God to meet our most basic and our deepest needs, when we do our best to do all that God asks, we find that our lives rather than being limited or constrained, are enriched and enlarged. A life lived in and for God will be filled with joy, peace and contentment in this life which in turn foreshadow the rewards of the life to come.

This is quite different from the so-called prosperity gospel, which preaches that a sign of faith is the wealth that you have. If faith and wealth went hand in hand, the Christians in the third world would be abounding in riches and the unbelievers in the industrialized countries would be as poor as church mice.

The riches that we receive through faith cannot be measured by human standards, nor do they necessarily conform to ideas of wealth and success in the society in which we find ourselves. But we know that through Jesus, we possess a wealth which the world cannot give, and as our faith grows and deepens we understand that we would be willing to give absolutely everything in order to retain it.

Pentecost 17

Mark 9:38-50

Marian Free

In the name of God whose generosity and power extend beyond anything we can imagine.  Amen.

There is an old movie, “Leap of Faith”, which tells the tale of a man, Jonas Nightingale who makes an income leading “revivals” and who takes his Miracles and Wonders show on the road around the United States. It’s a great show – there is a full gospel choir, an impassioned message, the frenzy of “Amens” and “Hallelujahs” and of course there are the miracles. We, the movie watchers, know the secrets. The miracles are not really miracles, but are a carefully staged show. Jonas’ staff eavesdrop on the conversations of the audience as they enter the tent. They relay the information to Jonas who can then “miraculously” identify their concerns. When an elderly woman enters, the staff ask if she is local. When she responds that she is from 30 miles away they offer her a place in the front row and a wheelchair to make her more comfortable. Later the same woman is brought to the stage so that she can be assisted from the wheelchair to miraculously walk again! The whole thing happens so quickly and the dynamic is so electric, that no one in the audience realize that they have been had.

In the story, a vehicle breaks down, forcing an unexpected stop in a drought stricken town. It is not an ideal place to set up business and the crew could use a rest. Nightingale sees it as a challenge – his motto is $10000 a day and he doesn’t like the idea of losing four days pay. So despite initial resistance and pleas from the town’s sheriff, up go the tents and out goes the promotion. That night desperate farmers and townsfolk flock to the show and when the buckets are passed around the money pours in.

Nightingale is completely unscrupulous – he is able to turn everything to his advantage – even the exposure of his seedy past! However, this town h as a particular challenge. A teenage boy Boyd has been crippled in the car accident which killed his parents and despite a previous – failed – attempt at a miracle cure, he continues to believe that God’s hand is on his life. During one of the shows, Boyd makes his way to the front and Nightingale, knowing that he can do nothing to help, leaves the stage claiming that he is worn out the miracles. However, the crowd has seen the boy and it rises to its feet calling “one more miracle” until Jonas reappears.

Jonas is stuck, but he falls back on his “insurance policy” – healing is dependent on faith. He tells the crowd that if there is even one doubter in the tent the boy’s healing will be in jeopardy. Boyd is undeterred. Ignoring Nightingale and the crowd he struggles to the life size crucifix at the back of the tent and reaches out to clutch the feet of Jesus. As he steps away his damaged leg is strengthened until, yes, he walks unaided – he is healed! Jonas is stunned, he doesn’t believe in miracles. He doesn’t believe in God. He knows himself to be a conman, yet the evidence is before his eyes – Boyd can walk.

“John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone – casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ 39But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. 40Whoever is not against us is for us.”

Today’s gospel is filled with complexities which cannot easily be understood out of context. It belongs to a larger sub-section of Mark’s gospel which began at verse 30 when Jesus for a second time announced his death and resurrection. The immediate response is fear, followed by an argument among themselves as to which of them is the greatest. Then John, who is given a voice only here in Mark’s gospel, reports that he and the other disciples stopped someone who was casting out demons in Jesus’ name. Apparently an exorcist is using Jesus’ name as some sort of magical formula – and achieving some success as a result. The concern of the disciples is that he is not one of them. Their criticism of the stranger is even more damning when one remembers that in the days immediately before, they had demonstrated an inability to cast out a demon which caused a young boy to cast himself into the fire.

John is probably expecting Jesus to praise the disciples for their action, but if this is so, they would have been disappointed to receive instead his censure. “Do not stop him.” In this brief interaction, the arrogance and self-absorption of the disciples has been exposed, as has their failure to understand. They have obviously thought that because Jesus has chosen them and empowered them to act in his name that this power has become their exclusive right. Worse than that, they seem to be claiming some sort of equality with Jesus. John doesn’t say, “we stopped him because he was not following you”. Instead he reveals the self-centredness of himself and the disciples when he says: “he was not following us”. Instead of giving credit to Jesus for the gifts that they have received, he is claiming leadership, influence and power for the disciples.

The disciples have failed to understand the nature of the power given to them. It is not theirs, but God’s. They exercise their healing ministry and the ministry of exorcism not by any quality of their own, but only by virtue of the power of God acting through them. They argue about who is the greatest, they try to prevent someone doing something good in Jesus’ name, and they assume they have a ministry all their own, rather than one that has been entrusted to them by Jesus.

Today’s gospel is a corrective against any sort of arrogance that assumes that we as disciples can manipulate or direct God. It is a salutary reminder that we are not members of an exclusive club which has a patent on goodness or good deeds. It reinforces the knowledge that miracles are always the work of God, and never the result of our own ability or power. We are always dependent on God, not God on us. Even the cynical Jonas Nightingale who uses the name of Jesus to achieve his own materialistic end, ultimately cannot stop or control the power of God working through him for good. Having experienced Jesus’ power for himself, he cannot help but speak well of him.

“For no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us”.

We cannot stop God working through or with anyone, we can only rejoice that God’s work is done and that we, at times have the privilege to share in it.

Stewardship Sunday – 20 September 2009

Michael Willis

Executive Director – Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association

Mark 9:30-37

Jesus and his disciples left from there and began a journey through Galilee, but he did not wish anyone to know about it.  He was teaching his disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death the Son of Man will rise.”  But they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to question him.

They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to ask them, “What were you arguing about on the way?”  But they remained silent.  They had been discussing among themselves on the way who was the greatest.

Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.”

Taking a child, he placed it in the their midst, and putting his arms around it, he said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the One who sent me.”

It is said that lightning doesn’t strike twice. Well, this is the second time in my life that I’ve been in this spot.

The last time was about 30 years ago, at an annual ecumenical service for the churches of this area. I was then a young student at the Catholic Seminary at Banyo, undertaking a placement in the local Catholic Church in Hamilton, St Cecilia’s. I had to read a lesson for the service.

You made quite an impression on me! Because I didn’t go on to become a Catholic priest. In fact I left the seminary and became an Anglican, got married in the Anglican Church at Toowong, where Marion and I served together on the council. And I have since spent a fair bit of my life working with the Anglican Church – at Anfin, and with Anglicare, and now, I work for the Presbyterian & Methodist Schools Association.

I tell that story to illustrate that things are changing in the way Australians relate to churches. The old order is well and truly gone. Once, religion was in your genes, it was handed down and kept within the family.  Now it is very different – it is very much a matter of personal choice, and (to use the quaint phrases of the computer geeks) is no longer the “default option” for most Australians.

You may have heard of the British journal called The Economist.  Two editors of this financial journal published a new book last week – on religion! One of these two, John Micklethwait, is the journal’s religion editor – a Catholic – and the other, Adrian Wooldridge, is an atheist.

Their book is titled “God is Back: how the global revival of faith is changing the world”

Their thesis is that in recent years, religion has undergone a remarkable global revival.

The conventional secularist view (as propounded by Richard Dawkins and others) is that religion is dying. That it faces too many social advances… scientific discoveries in physics, biology and archaeology;  the growing material wealth that we’ve enjoyed in the last 60 years;  the political, sexual and social freedoms we’ve enjoyed in that time; the technologies that have changed the way we relate to people; the multi-cultural milieu of our society; and a post-modernist understanding of our world.  In the face of all these waves, church membership and religious belief are being eroded; and that the ageing and decline of our churches confirms this.

The authors of this book agree that in the old world – particularly in Europe – this argument holds true, because religion is so bound up with traditional authorities. As examples, they offer:

• In Germany and Sweden, churches are still funded through compulsory taxes;
• In Ireland and Italy, the churches’ moral teachings determine many laws;
• Even in Britain, the Prime Minister still has some influence over who heads the Church of England.

In this old world, people are voting with their feet and leaving the churches. The authors argue that this is a rebellion against religious authoritarianism – that state authority is no different to the old village and parental determinism. People are rejecting religious conscription!

But, they claim, there is life in the new world (ie: the USA). Their argument is that religion actually flourishes in freedom, and prospers most when it has to adapt to modern life, to freedom and to pluralism.

Why? Well, this is where the economists in them come to the fore – they explain that pluralism means choice. And the result is that faith, religious belief, is increasingly being chosen, not inherited.

Where churches have responded to the needs of their communities, rather than controlling their communities, religion has flourished.

(They use the example of immigration – that migrants generally become more religious when they move to a new place, to help them retain their identity. Correspondingly, the host communities also become more religious, as they reassess and claim their own values and identity. If we bear in mind that one in every four Australian was not born here, there is quite an opportunity and a challenge for our churches in that tale.)

So what can this book tell us about what St Augustine’s Church might be in the future?

What it tells us is that

1. Our churches cannot assume a generational hand-me-down. Nobody comes here anymore because they feel obliged to, or because mum and dad did!  It is not the “default option”.
   Our pews are now almost totally filled by people who attend church by conscious choice.
2. And most importantly, our Churches have to engage with our community, to give them a reason to WANT to come here.

I believe our Anglican Church is capable of doing this well – and of doing it a lot better than we do it at the moment.

To me, Anglicanism appeals as a very practical sort of faith. It didn’t waste time on the un-necessary stuff, it doesn’t create false illusions.  It deals with practical Christianity for real people.

We don’t, for example, go in for excessive commitment to any form of authority or fundamentalism – whether it is some centralist authority, or a literalist view of our sacred texts, or for any emotional excesses in our religious practices. We hold the three pillars of faith – scriptures, tradition and reason in a creative and realistic tension.

Our tradition might seem a little bland, but it tries to deal in an earthy way with the challenges of life.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. My son goes to an Anglican school, and has done so now for 8 years. One great trait of this school is that it has a very clear focus, that I think most of its students and parents could express, if asked. It is set out in four simple aims:

1. Academic achievement
2. Personal growth
3. Spiritual awareness; and
4. Service to the community

These four aims cover all of the ordinary, practical stuff of human life. They are easily applied across most aspect of life, and are tools that teenagers, like my son, can take with them for the rest of their lives. Those four tenets might be adapted for all stages of life…

1. Academic achievement
   Can mean achieving the best in the walk of life one chooses – being the best carpenter, accountant, entrepreneur, nurse, parent or partner, in whatever vocation one enters; doing it well, reaching your potential.
2. Personal growth
   At school, this might mean being a musician, a sportswoman or a debater. But beyond that stage, at its heart, it is about building good relationships, acknowledging our own weakness and our need for growth and improvement.

The next two tenets are where a church school might diverge from others, and where there is a real challenge for us as a church.

1. Spiritual awareness
   This is not some prescriptive demand for religious obedience, but a challenge to reflect on the deeper meaning of life, and even death, to consider the question of ultimate meaning and destiny, and how that might impact on how we might live our lives today and tomorrow.
   Fortunately, we can draw on the great teachings of our traditions, particularly our scriptures and the teachings and actions of Jesus, to help us make sense of the challenges we face in life.
2. Service
   “Service” should flow on from the last challenge of spiritual reflection – it means simply the realisation that we all have been given something in our lives, and that we should give back to our community in some tangible way.

There has been an interesting debate this week in the Qld Parliament. The State member for Bundamba, Jo-Ann Miller whose electorate include the emerging Springfield development, made the statement that this new city has no soul – that the absence of churches, and scout halls, means it lacks a genuine spiritual centre and is poorer for that lack.

Now whether that is true is a matter for debate. But it presents a real challenge to our churches, and maybe for you here at St Augustine’s:

What is your church to be? Does this church help to provide a soul for the community of Hamilton? Will it be a place where those twin aims of “spiritual awareness” and community service are evident, so that it engages your community and invites people to want to join?

To use an old desert image used many times in the scriptures, many people “draw from this well”. Some of you come here each week, to be challenged and refreshed, offered some inner meaning to return to your lives, your work, your families and friends.

Others come here in times of need, or at critical moments in their lives – some for help in dealing with death and grief; others come at time of change in their lives, migrants from other cities or countries, maybe to be married or to welcome a new child, some for help in a crisis.

For whatever reason you come here, for whatever reason they come here, this place, your church has been the heart of your community.

How well this church does that today and tomorrow is a choice for you to make. It doesn’t just “happen”, like it once did. And it is not a challenge we can just out-source to our clergy.

It is a task for everyone who chooses to be a part of this place.

Having drawn from this well, what can you and I do to put something back in?

It is not my place to judge or advise how any one of us puts something back.

It is done in different ways, some not obvious at all. Many people do the nuts and bolts of church life – making rosters, cleaning the place, maintaining the buildings.  Others have different gifts to offer, as counsellors and shoulders on which others can cry, or offering business skills, resources and equipment.
I gather that you have a terrific community stall that raises funds and engages with many in need among your local community.

But for many of us in churches, what we draw from this well is then contributed back in other places – we take our nourishment here each Sunday, and it enriches and guides our family life, our work, our relationships and our contributions in other communities.  Many people here will never know what this place offers to you, and how you contribute elsewhere.

But wherever we do contribute, it is important to remember that this well-spring must be maintained. If this place is to provide a soul for your community, and for you in your wider life, then it has to be supported and provisioned.

So, to return to my school story, if St Augustine’s Church provides you with that spiritual awareness, or if it helps you to serve your community in some way, then please take some time to reflect on what you might do to maintain the well-spring.  It needs your support, for this place to offer those two core elements, both to you and to the many other people who come here to be nourished.

“Anyone who wishes to be first should be the last of all and the servant of all.”  (Mk 9:35)

Or in other words…  We will only get out of life what we put in.

May God keep St Augustine’s Church, for many years to come, as the place where the soul of Hamilton is nurtured and your community is cared for.

Pentecost 15

Mark 8:27-38

Marian Free

In the name of God, revealed in Jesus Christ, ever present through the Holy Spirit. Amen.

“Fairest, Lord Jesus” – I have always loved this hymn, but as I get older I wonder what it really means. Jesus is fairer than the woodlands and the meadows? as a Palestinian Jew, Jesus was almost certainly not fair. Much as I love it, the hymn tend to be rather sentimental even cloying. Does it mean that Jesus is lovelier than a meadow? The language doesn’t seem to grasp the strength of character and purpose of Jesus or reflect the saving grace of Jesus. It gives no indication that following Jesus comes at a cost.

I know nothing about the author of this hymn, so I can’t judge his or her faith, but I have met a number of people who seem to see Jesus as some sort of benevolent being whose primary purpose is to look after their well-being. Such people often come completely undone when they discover that all their prayers and confidence in this Jesus cannot protect them, or those whom they love, from illness, accident or tragedy. Sadly no one has helped them to understand that a relationship with Jesus is a robust entity like any other and like any relationship, not only requires a response from us, but must be constantly worked on. It is probably that those whose faith is easily shaken have never truly grappled with the concept of suffering and the idea of losing one’s life in order to keep it.

Many of us grew up with the gentle Jesus meek and mild of the late 19th century. Jesus was depicted as someone who conformed to the society of the time, who did good works, didn’t rock the boat and whose primary purpose was to make people feel better. In our childhood we may have learned that all we had to do in response was to ensure that we didn’t do anything dreadfully bad. Simply being good would keep us on the right side of God and get us into heaven. Thankfully, we all know that our relationship with God is more complex than that. As we grow in our faith we come to understand that there is no magic and that, no matter how faithful we are, we are not protected from the things of this world which cause hurt and distress. Over the course of our faith journey we also come to realize that being “good” is not necessarily measured by the avoidance of being bad, that “goodness” is measured by our relationship with God, by our willingness to recognise that we fall a long way short of God’s glory, and by making a decision to allow God to direct our lives.

Today’s gospel throws out not one, but two, serious challenges. Who is this Jesus and what does he require of us? Jesus asks: “who do you say that I am?” Following Peter’s declaration that he is the Christ, Jesus tells the crowds what it means to follow him: “‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.’” From this we can deduce that a relationship with Jesus requires at least two things: a genuine understanding of who and what he is, and a preparedness to give up everything to follow him. Knowing who Jesus is, leads to an acceptance of the cost of discipleship.

In order to answer the question: “Who do you say that I am?” it is important to engage with the gospels and try to come to grips with the Jesus presented there. This means hearing the challenges in the parables and Jesus’ teaching and not glossing over or explaining away the difficult bits. It means understanding that Jesus’ frustration with his disciple’s ignorance might translate to a frustration with us. It means accepting that the criticism directed at the Pharisees (the establishment of Jesus’ day) might well be aimed at we who are the establishment today. It means accepting that God loves us no matter how imperfect we are.

Being open to the challenges which Jesus presents and willing to enter into an authentic relationship with him, will inevitably lead to a desire to follow his example and to ensure that our lives conform more closely to his. Jesus uses the language of the cross for this process of being conformed to his image. He asks us to share his journey and to give up absolutely everything for the prize of being united to God forever. He promises that should we, like him, let go of everything we hold dear we will discover, like him, that we will lose nothing and gain everything, that death, even the deaths we experience day to day, will lead to fullness of life in the present, and eternal life in the future.

That is not to say that we are all called to be martyrs, or that we should actively seek a painful and gruesome death. Neither should we patiently endure the little irritations of life as if they could be compared with the cross of Calvary. It is true that some are called to literally give their lives, but for most of us losing our life simply means giving up some of the characteristics, attitudes and behaviours which are ultimately not helpful for our development as whole and holy human beings, which are not helpful in our relationships with others and most importantly are not helpful in our relationship with Jesus.

This can be a costly and life-long process. It is not always easy to recognise that we have behaviours and attitudes that prevent us from truly living. It can take time to realize that when we are being long-suffering, we are in fact being intolerant, that when we think we are being righteous we are being self-righteous, that when we think we are being selfless we are really being self absorbed. We don’t always recognise while we are worrying about the impact of others on us, that we fail to see the impact that we have on them. We can think that we are carrying our cross when in fact we are simply nursing our hurts and misfortunes and wearing them as a badge of honour.

To know Jesus is to know a life given completely to God. To follow Jesus is to lose those things which are temporal and take hold of the love, joy and peace which will last for all eternity.

Pentecost 14

James 2

Marian Free

In the name of God who asks only that we accept God’s love and to share that love with others. Amen.

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”

There are many things I value about this Parish. One is the welcoming, friendly community, another is the faith and commitment of its members, another is the way in which everyone seems to enjoy our worship, yet another is the way in which people provide feedback about my sermons. Last week someone said that the sermon was good, but that I should complete the story this week. By that he meant that I should deal with the passage which we read this morning from James. That is, having claimed that God’s love is not dependent on anything we do or don’t do, I should perhaps speak about James’ statement that faith without works is dead. The statement seems self-evident, but it is in fact quite contentious, so I gladly take up the challenge.

To be quite honest, I don’t know much about James, except that this particular passage is often quoted in the argument about faith and works – are we saved by faith as Paul argues, or does our faith need to be demonstrated by our works as claimed by James? This was one of the major issues of the Reformation and until recently remained a sticking point in Lutheran/Roman Catholic relations. (Luther argued that humankind was justified by faith alone whereas the Roman church claimed that justification had to be animated by charity. Luther’s argument depended in large part on his reading of Romans. The Vatican tempered Paul’s theology with reference to James). Luther was particularly scathing about the letter of James saying that it was “really an epistle of straw”.

Interestingly, Luther wasn’t the first person to question the value of the letter. From the earliest days of the development of the Bible James was not an obvious choice for inclusion. One of the earliest collections of books accepted as canonical – the Muratorian Canon, does not include James. In the fourth century Eusebius mentions that James is one of the “disputed” books and Jerome writes that James had been accepted into the church “little by little”. The letter (if it is really a letter) contains a lot of practical advice, such as can be found in the book of Proverbs, but it tells us very little about the gospel.

It has been argued that the writer of James was the same James whose representatives caused trouble for Paul in Antioch. There was a question as to whether or not non-Jewish converts were required to observe the Jewish law in order to be fully included in the new faith and Paul argues quite fiercely that they do not and he does so on the basis that from the time of Abraham, God has justified believers according to their faith and not according to their works. On this basis Paul contends that Jews and Gentiles can be included in the people of God. IIf it is the same James, it may be that he is putting into writing an argument between himself and Paul that is on-going.

Certainly, these verses in James appear to be directly challenging a key platform in Paul’s theology – that is that justification is through faith and not through works. In Romans and Galatians in particular, Paul argues that a person is justified (that is, made right, before God) by faith and not on the basis of anything that they have done to earn justification. Abraham believed and it was reckoned to him as righteousness he writes. James, also using Abraham, argues that faith without anything to show for it is dead.

James sounds convincing but the difference between the two points of view is quite subtle. Paul would have been horrified to think that a believer could ignore the plight of another member of the community or of anyone in need. In fact, all his letters address the issues of how believers should live together and in Galatians he says: “whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith” and Paul, like James, takes the community to task for giving the rich precedence over the poor.

Where the two differ is in regard to their belief as to “what saves?” James asks “Can faith save you?” to which Paul would answer a resounding “yes”. Paul is convinced that we are saved not on the basis on what we have done, but on the basis of what God has done for us in Jesus. This being the case, it is clear to Paul that what is required from a believer is not a certain standard of behaviour, not a quota of good works, but faith – trust in God, an acceptance of God’s saving power. Paul would argue that our being saved or not saved does not depend on good works, but rather on our complete surrender to the goodness and mercy of God.

This is both liberating and terrifying. If all we need to do is trust, how can we possibly know that we are doing is right? There is no standard against which to measure ourselves. If we are saved simply on the basis of our trust in God, what is to stop us being completely laid back and never doing anything or worse, abandoning all restraint and doing whatever we like? How will outsiders see that we have faith?

Paul’s answer to this is that we are to walk in the Spirit, to allow our lives to be completely determined by God, to surrender ourselves to God’s direction in our lives. If we are able to let go in this way, then good will certainly result, but it will be good of God’s making and not of our own. It will be good for which we cannot and would not claim credit for we would understand that the good that we do is the Spirit of God working through us.

Paul would claim that the external signs of faith are not works but the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. It is these characteristics that demonstrate the presence of God within. They will almost certainly lead to action, but action which does not issue from the presence of the Holy Spirit, while good, does not necessarily spring from faith. Paul would claim that being led by the Spirit means that we do not neglect to do good things, but that the good that we do is motivated by and directed by God.

It is easy to be seduced by action. It is tempting to believe that we can earn our way into God’s hearts. But the heart of the gospel is God’s saving love and the greatest demand that God makes is that we accept that love. The miracle is that is we allow God’s love to completely determine our lives, good will result, not only for ourselves but for all those around.

Pentecost 13
Mark 7:1-8,14-23
Marian Free

In the name of God who despite everything, loves us as we are. Amen.

The book of Leviticus (the book of law) includes pages and pages of rules for the people of Israel to obey. These included ritual requirements as well as instructions about day to day behaviours. It is here that we find the regulations in relation to leprosy and other skin diseases, instructions about the festivals and about sacrifices, details about the purification of women after child birth, directions as to who one might or might not have sexual relations with and so on. Here too we find the injunctions about clean and unclean foods. “Any animal that has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed and chews the cud – such you may eat. But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. The rock badger, for even thought it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you, the hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.” (11:3-7) Even contact with the carcass of such an animal was deemed to make someone unclean until the evening.

This meant, among other things that they could not participate in Temple worship, and may even have to have kept themselves separate from other people.

We would be devastated today to discover that Leviticus declares oysters, prawns, scallops and all sea creatures which did not have scales and fins to be forbidden foods and that even having contact with any part of  them would, according to Leviticus leave us in a state of uncleaniness for the remainder of the day.  A state of ritual impurity could be attained in a variety of ways and Leviticus provides information as to how this state might be avoided.

In this book too, we find the origin of the ritual of washing before eating. The priests were not allowed to eat the sacred donations unless they had first immersed their bodies in water.

This then, is the background of today’s gospel. In Jesus’ time, the Pharisees had adopted  many of the rituals  directed to of the priests in order to achieve the holiness associated with priesthood or to express in their own lives the priesthood of the laity. It was a practice that many of the ordinary Jewish people had adopted and expanded. So, as we see in today’s gospel, the practice of washing before eating had become standard practice for many and food laws continued to be faithfully observed.

This account of conflict with the Pharisees and scribes is the second time that Mark records Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees on the basis of his disciple’s behaviour. The first occurs in chapters two and three in which the Pharisees accuse Jesus’ disciples of not fasting and of plucking grain (that is of working) on the Sabbath. In a third story, Jesus finds himself in direct conflict with the disciples for healing on the Sabbath..

In this account, the Pharisees and some of the scribes accuse Jesus’ disciples of eating with defiled hands – that is of contravening the tradition which insists on ritual washing, not only of hands, but of the food that was being eaten and the vessels that were used. In the earlier collection of stories, Jesus defended his actions with reference to scripture. Here, however, he moves to the attack. It is not his disciples who are breaking the law, he says, but the Pharisees, his accusers who are failing to obey God. They claim to serve God, but their hearts are far from him. Their outward observance does not match their inward disposition. Despite what the Pharisees think, it is not the commandment of God which they observe Jesus says, but only a human tradition.

Having directly confronted his accusers, Jesus turns aside and speaks directly to the crowds. In so doing, he takes the argument in a slightly different direction. He has changed tack from ritual cleanliness, to the food laws – the foods that make one clean or unclean. It is not what one eats that makes a difference, rather it is what comes out of a person that is important. Contrary to what we read in the book of Leviticus, Jesus is telling the people that what they eat does not determine whether or not they are impure. It is their behaviour, their attitudes and their relationship with God which reveal their state of ritual purity or impurity.

The crowds are left to ponder this statement as Jesus enters the house where his confused disciples ask him what he meant. Jesus elaborates using the colourful language that reminds them that the food that they eat turns into sewerage. It doesn’t matter what they eat, because it all ends up being expelled. Pure or impure food doesn’t actually change who and what they are. Food in and of itself does not have the power to make them pure. What they eat or do not eat will not disguise or hide or excuse any ugliness which resides within.

Greed, evil intentions, immoral behaviour, envy, slander and pride are not consequences of the observance or failure to observe dietary laws. Eating patterns in and of themselves do not lead to adultery, deceit or licentiousness. In fact, no outward observance can change the person inside.

Like the Pharisees we might perfectly observe all outward forms – praying regularly, only associating with the right sort of people, ensuring that we are seen to be doing what is proper and right – but all that would not change our inward disposition.

What the gospels demonstrate is that Jesus had more time for the tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners – those who knew their unworthiness – than he did for the smug, self-assured Pharisees who very self-centredness precluded a dependence on God. Jesus claims it is not possible to make God love us by behaving in particular ways or by observing certain rituals. Jesus’ death on the cross provides clear evidence that God loves us regardless. In the face of such overwhelming, unmerited affection, it remains for us to humbly acknowledge our weaknesses, our frailty and our desires and gratefully understand that there is nothing that we can do to make God love us more and nothing that we can do that can make God love us less.

Pentecost 11
John 6:51-58
Marian Free

In the name of God, who through Jesus, calls us to give ourselves completely to him. Amen.

We are all familiar with the accounts of the Last Supper. Jesus meets with his friends to celebrate the Passover Meal. During the meal, he takes a loaf of bread and after blessing it, breaks it and says: “Take eat, this is my body.” Then he takes a cup of wine and says: “Drink from this all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many.” These or similar words are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and first Corinthians with Luke and Paul adding the words: “Do this in remembrance of me”. However, despite the fact that John’s gospel records Jesus’ final meal with the disciples, he has no record of the breaking of bread or sharing of wine.

I have said in previous weeks, that many scholars believe that this sixth chapter of John’s gospel is the one in which John explores the theology of the Eucharist against the background of the Jewish festival of Passover. Using the feeding of the five thousand as his starting point, the evangelist argues that Jesus is the “living bread”. In the context of the Passover with its emphasis on the escape from Egypt and the provision of the manna in the wilderness, the author contends that Jesus has supplanted the manna both in terms of its ability to satisfy but also in terms of its ability to give life. Given that by the first century the manna had come to represent the sustaining, life-giving nature of the law, John is making the startling point that Jesus has replaced the law.

In today’s reading, the author of John’s gospel takes discourse even further. Jesus begins by stating in effect that those who eat the living bread will live forever and that the bread he will give is his flesh! No wonder the Jews begin to dispute among themselves. How can anyone give their flesh to be eaten? Not only is the idea difficult to understand, but it is quite abhorrent. Besides, they know who he is, they know his mother and father. How can he give his flesh? Jesus doesn’t back down, but instead intensifies the point – first negatively, then positively. If they don’t eat his flesh and drink his blood they will have no life in them. On the other hand, if they do, not only will they live, they will live forever.

The living bread – Jesus – is the source of life, not only now but for all eternity. There is no life apart from him. Not only does this life surpass that provided by the manna in the wilderness, but rather than being limited to the people of Israel, it extends to the whole world.

The language of eating flesh and drinking blood is confronting and much more direct than that used in the Synoptic gospels where bread and wine can be taken to be representational. However, such language cannot be avoided or softened, not only because we find it here in John’s gospel, but because we ourselves say it here week after week in the Prayer of Humble Access: “grant us so to eat the flesh and drink the blood of your dear Son Jesus Christ that we may evermore live in him and he in us”. This  language was not only offensive and difficult for Jesus’ first century listeners but it is also difficult for many who come to our churches today.

We ought perhaps to be grateful that we do not have to read the original Greek, for the word translated “to eat” changes – probably to provide more emphasis. In verse 53, it is the word “phagein” which simply means “to eat”. However, in verse 54 another word, “trogein” is used. This latter word is much more expressive meaning “to eat, to chew to crunch”. The author makes the change to emphasise the violence to the situation that is being expressed. Jesus has already said that he will give his flesh for the life of the world. The physicality of the language opens the listener to the brutality of the crucifixion – the means by which Jesus will give his life. His flesh will literally be torn and battered.

The very physicality of the language makes it clear that it is in the very human Jesus that salvation is worked out. It is in the human Jesus that the word of God enters the world and shares our existence and it is the human Jesus whose very real death on the cross leads to salvation and life for all.

Finally, in Verse 56 we can see where John is headed. Jesus say: “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”. We discover that eating and drinking is the language John uses for relationship between the believer and Jesus. This theme of mutual indwelling is particularly Johannine. He stresses the fact that Jesus and the Father are one, and he then extends this to include believers.  Jesus says: “On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you” (14:20).  The relationship between Jesus and the believer is intended to be so close that it should be impossible to distinguish between them, just as it is impossible to distinguish between the Father and the Son.

As God the Creator is the source of life, the mutual in-dwelling of the Father and the Son means that Jesus too is the source of life. As such he can say: “I am the bread of life”, “I am the resurrection and the life”, “I am the way, the truth and the life”. Those who believe in Jesus, who are one with him, share this life with him and, as they share Jesus’ life in the present, so they will participate in Jesus’ eternal life in the future.

The language of eating and drinking is used to help us to see that it is not just belief in Jesus that is required for salvation. We are required to ingest the revelation of Jesus in its entirety, to absorb it completely so that it becomes a part of ourself. Salvation, according to John, requires total identification with Jesus, such that there is no longer any distinction between ourselves and him, just as there is no distinction between Jesus and God.

The nature of the relationship which we are to develop with Jesus is to be so close that it is as if we are one, so close that it becomes difficult to know where we end and  where Jesus begins. Week by week as receive the bread and drink the wine, we allow Jesus to become more and more a part of who we are, in the hope that we will become more and more who he is.