Swallowsrest

Seventh Sunday after Epiphany
Mark 2:1-2 Healing of the paralytic
Marian Free

In the name of God who longs for us to allow ourselves to be forgiven and healed. Amen.

The Old Testament provides a litany of the failures of the people of God. From creation onwards, they have gone their own way, sometimes with terrible consequences. Underlying the account of Israel’s waywardness is the deep grief of God that the relationship he desires with his people is fractured and broken. This grief can be heard in today’s reading from Isaiah as can the extraordinary generosity of God who is determined to blot out the transgressions of the people without their having to anything to deserve such an action.

The author of Mark understands that it is Jesus’ role to heal the breach between humankind and God, to restore the balance and harmony destroyed by humankind’s willfulness. In today’s gospel Mark develops this theme, but introduces a new idea – Jesus’ action bring him into conflict with the authorized teachers and leaders of the faith.

In typical Markan fashion, the relating of the healing of the paralytic is economical. There is frustratingly little information and it is very tempting to invent detail to fill in the gaps. However, we must be careful of elaboration and try to understand that the detail is much less important than the point which Mark is trying to make. Mark is demonstrating how it is that Jesus comes into conflict with the scribes, a conflict which escalates into conflict with the scribes and Pharisees and Herodians and which will lead to Jesus’ death.

As we have already seen Mark creates a pattern in his story-telling to reinforce the point he is making and to enable the listeners more easily remember what it is he is saying. The same is true in this section of Mark’s gospel. Chapter 2 and the first six verses of Chapter 3 include five conflict stories.

Joanna Dewey has argued that the section of Mark has a concentric structure . Stories of healing appear at the beginning and end – the healing of the paralytic and the healing of the man with the withered hand. The first two units share the theme of sin and sinners (forgiveness of the paralytic and the call of Levi the tax collector) and the last two relate to what is permitted on the Sabbath (plucking grain and healing). Units two, three and four share the theme of eating (or not eating, that is, fasting) (Jesus eats with the tax collector, is asked about fasting and the disciples pluck grain).

Mark brings in allusions to what has gone before to further develop and reinforce his point, albeit with a difference. In the first section, Jesus’ teaching and healing, the calling of the disciples and the crowds that are drawn to him are used as evidence that there is a positive response to Jesus. In this section however, similar stories are used to show that the reaction to Jesus is mixed – the crowds are still amazed, but the scribes see Jesus’ as a blasphemer.
The emphasis in today’s gospel is less on the healing, though it is dramatic and amazing, and more on Jesus’ right to forgive sins which is the source of conflict.

Even though Jesus implies it is God who forgives, “Your sins are forgiven”. The scribes are surprised. Jesus has subverted the established process. It is the priest makes atonement for the sins of the whole people of Israel (Lev 4:20). Even worse, by presuming to speak for God (announcing God’s forgiveness), Jesus is claiming the same authority as God.

Of course, the point Mark is trying to make is just that. Jesus does have the same authority as God. This is not clear to the scribes, who though, apparently attracted to Jesus’ teaching, are not able to grasp this new complexity and who are unable to see in Jesus the promised Christ – God’s representative on earth. All that they can see is someone who is making pronouncements which are as absurd as they are presumptuous.

Jesus, confident in his role, refuses to be cowed. He could simply tell the man to get up and walk as would any other miracle worker. However his role is to restore order and harmony to God’s creation – to heal the breach caused by human sin. He understands the connection between disease and sin in the Jewish tradition. Healing implies that a person is forgiven, restoration to health indicates a restoration in a person’s relationship with God. So the question Jesus asks is very real: “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”, or to say, “Stand up and take your mat and walk”? For Jesus the end result is the same – the person’s relationship with God is restored AND they are healed, a person is healed AND their relationship with God is restored. Jesus doesn’t just perform miracles, he gets to the root of the problem. He heals the breach between humankind and God.

The healing is evidence that Jesus does in fact have authority to forgive sins. It is not Jesus’ intention to draw attention to himself. The people get the message. They are not offended by Jesus’ presumption. They understand that while Jesus is behaving as God’s agent, Jesus is not placing himself in competition with God. Their praise is not directed at him but towards God: “They were all amazed and glorified God.”

The gospel speaks on many levels, but we do ourselves and our faith a disservice if we fail to look beyond the surface to what is really going on. The scribes have a reason to believe Jesus is blasphemous, but they have failed to grasp the larger picture. They are so used to the world as it is, that they have no vision of the world as it could be. They are so sure that they know right from wrong, that they cannot see that their rules are hurting rather than liberating people. They are so bound by the way they have always practiced their religion that they have lost sight of the forgiving God who lies behind it.

In a time of change, we need to remember that what was true for the church thirty years ago is not true for the church today. Over time we have responded to the urging of the Holy Spirit to become more compassionate and less rigid, more understanding of human frailty and less demanding of ourselves and others. An openness to God enables us to respond to changing times.
Every generation sees only a portion of all that God is. Our task is to remain open and receptive so that we do not fail to see how God is acting in our own time and place.

Marian Free

Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany
Mark 1:40-45
Marian Free

In the name of God who longs that all people should be free and whole. Amen.

What do Che Guevara – Argentinian Marxist revolutionary, politician, author, physician, military theorist, and guerrilla leader and Mother Teresa – Albanian Roman Catholic nun with Indian citizenship who founded the Missionaries of Charity in Kolkata and ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying, and Jesus Christ – Saviour of the world – have in common?

Do you give up? I imagine that most of you found it easier to find connections between Mother Teresa and Jesus, but the answer is, that all of them were driven by their compassion for the poor and the dispossessed and that all dedicated their lives, albeit in very different ways, to alleviate the suffering of those who found themselves outcasts in their society. All of them were determined to make a difference in the world. Jesus, Che Guevera and Mother Teresa refused to allow fear to dominate compassion, social stigma to determine action or the opinion of others to dictate how they behaved.

Further, and this was the link which led me to the comparison – all of them took the very real risk of working closely with those who had leprosy – that most dreaded of diseases which led to separation and isolation from a world afraid of contagion.  In so doing, they gave dignity, hope and healing to people who were outcast, rejected and misunderstood by the societies in which they lived.

Che Guevara’s experience with the poverty in South America led him to believe that the solution to the problem was political, and if necessary military. So convinced was he that he was right that he believed that if people could not be changed by persuasion, they should be changes by force. Mother Teresa was so affected by the poverty in India and the abandonment of the poor to a lonely, ugly death that she set a goal of making the dying moments of the unloved more comfortable, more bearable. Che determined to change the shape of the society which led to the inequities he witness, Mother Teresa accepted the world as it was and tried to make a difference in the lives of those who suffered as a result of injustice and indifference.

Jesus’ programme was different from either and yet has elements of both. His mission is to restore and to transform the world – not through force, but through love. So he challenges the political and religious structures which impose burdens on the people, yet instead of taking up arms against them, he lays down his life. At the same time, he begins the process restoring order and wholeness to God’s creation by healing the damaged and  broken, welcoming the despised and the dispossessed and confronting the forces of evil which limit and constrain. Jesus understand that his task is to re-create the harmony which God intended before it all went wrong.

Jesus is as radical as Che Guevara and yet as compassionate as Mother Teresa. In a broken and unjust world he challenges the structures which limit and confine and he begins the process of healing and rebuilding those whose lives are restricted by illness, disability or possession. Unlike Che Guevara, Jesus does not intend to overthrow the unjust structures of his time. His goal is more ambitious still – his mission is to overcome the forces of evil which have humankind in their throw and to establish God’s kingdom on earth. Unlike Mother Teresa, Jesus’ compassion for those who suffer belongs to this wider programme of transforming the world.

As followers of Jesus, we are invited to join in the revolution – to work for justice and equity and to be agents of his healing and restoring presence in the world.

The leper says to Jesus: “If you choose, you can make me clean.” Jesus replies: “I do choose.”

In the burnt out ruins of homes destroyed by fire, in the homes of the jobless and on the streets of our cities our neighbours are saying: “If you choose, you can make a difference.” How will we choose?

Fifth Sunday after Epiphany 2009

Mark 1:29-39

Marian Free

In the name of God who longs for us to draw near to him. Amen.

“Little boy kneels at the foot of his bed,

droops on the little hands little gold head.

Hush! hush! whisper who dares!

Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.

God bless Mummy. I know that’s right,

wasn’t it fun in the bath tonight?

With the cold so cold and the hot’s so hot.

Oh, God bless daddy, I quite forgot.

If I open my fingers a little bit more,

I can see Nanny’s dressing gown on the door.

It’s a beautiful blue, but it hasn’t a hood.

Oh, God bless Nanny and make her good.

Mine has a hood and I lie in bed

and pull the hood right over my head,

and I shut my eyes and curl up small,

and nobody knows that I’m there at all.

Oh! Thank you God for a lovely day.

And what was the other I had to say?

I said “Bless Daddy”, so what can it be.

Oh! Now I remember it. God bless me.

Little boy kneels at the foot of his bed,

droops on the little hands little gold head.

Hush! hush! whisper who dares!

Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.”

In my childhood, I was taught to say my prayers before I went to sleep each night. From memory, those prayers were as simple and limited as those of Christopher Robin – prayers for family and prayers for oneself. Like Christopher Robin I was not always entirely serious. M sister and I competed to think of different things for which to give thanks, striving to outdo each other with the most outrageous. Later, at school, my year 6 religious education teacher taught me how to pray using my hands as a reminder. The only thing that I can remember now is that my little finger represented me because it was the smallest and I was the least important person to pray for. In my late teens and early twenties I was privileged to hear the stories of older members of my congregation whom I respected. Two in particular inspired and challenged me by sharing that they would get up at four or five o’clock in the morning in order to pray. This meant that they would have no distractions and so that their prayers would not be forgotten.

“In the morning, while it was still very dark, Jesus got up and went to a deserted place, and there he prayed.”

Prayer is an important part of Jesus’ ministry. In fact Jesus’ ministry both begins and ends with prayer – from the 40 days in the desert to the cry from the cross, Jesus indicates a desire to develop a relationship with God, to seek God’s will and to ask for God’s help to live in accord with that will. On more than one occasion Jesus withdraws by himself to pray, after his first day of “work” and after the death of John the Baptist. Not that these attempts to pray alone are always successful. Despite the fact that Jesus gets up while it is “still very dark”, his friends are able to hunt him down and disturb him. On other occasion when he takes a boat to the other side of the lake, he arrives to discover that the crowds he was trying to escape had reached there before him. Only after he feeds the 5000 is Jesus able to send the disciples off in the boat and have some time to himself.

Prayer makes the difference in one instance of healing and Jesus teaches his disciples to pray. On the night before he dies he takes his friends with him to the Garden where he prays that he won’t have to endure the suffering ahead before he once again submits to God’s will.

Prayer seems to have a number of functions in Jesus’ life and ministry. It enables him to test his vocation and his strength of character. It restores his energy and his spirit. It frees him to share with God his deepest fears and supports his ministry of healing. Apart from the Lord’s prayer and Jesus’ anguish in the garden we don’t know the nature of Jesus’ prayer or its content. What we do know is that Jesus’ ministry was enhanced and supported by his relationship with God, a relationship which was sustained by prayer.

Unfortunately for me, the form of prayer which my RE teacher taught was particularly unhelpful and restrictive and while I aspire to early rising to pray, I have yet to achieve it. However, over the years, I have learned that not only are there a variety of ways in which to pray, but that each of us needs to find a way to pray that suits us. That does not mean that we will pray in one way throughout our life, or even at one time in our lives. Like Jesus, we may find that there are times when we simply want to stop and be with God, other times when we will want to pour out our hearts in anguish at our own situation or that of others. There will be times when we want to pay particular attention to how God wants to direct our lives, and other times when we will want to ask for God’s intervention in someone’s life or in a particular situation in the world. There will be times when we use words and times when we do not, times when we seek quiet and times when being engaged in the bustle around us becomes a form of prayer.

Prayer covers a variety of ways of communing with God and it is essential to find the ways which work for us, that we develop our own relationship with God rather than relying on tools that work for someone else. Some of us are very good at intercessory prayers – prayers for others. They will regularly pray for those whom they love and those who they know need God’s intervention in their lives. Some of us are better at meditative or reflective prayer – the kind of prayer that waits on God. Some of us make up our own prayers and some use the words which others have written. Some use the discipline of morning or evening prayer and a great many of us retain our childhood habit of saying our prayers last thing at night. For some art and music transport them to the presence of God and for others it is relationships with those whom they love that draws them closest to God.

There is simply no limit to the ways in which we communicate with and deepen our relationship with God and there is no one way that is right for all of us all the time. If however, we are to develop and grow in our faith, if we are going to share in God’s compassion for the world and be party with God to the healing of those in need, if we are going to come to a deeper understanding of ourselves and of the presence of God in our lives, then we need to nurture that relationship through prayer.

Our prayers are not a talisman against harm, nor a magical spell to get what we want. Prayer is not a means to manipulate God or bend God’s will to ours. Rather prayer is a way to share our lives with the one who loves us best, to align our lives with God’s will and to share with God in restoring and redeeming the world. Through prayer we are able to develop an authentic relationship with God, to unite ourselves to the source of our being and find strength for our journey. As we pray, we allow the fruits of the spirit to grow in us and so become signs of the presence of God in the world.

It is not an optional extra. Prayer is the source of the divine in us, the means to communicate with God and the tool which will help us to grown into the people we are called to be. It doesn’t matter how we pray, when we pray or where we pray. What matters is that we do pray.

Fourth Sunday after Epiphany 2009

Mark 1:21-28

Marian Free

In the name of God who spoke and all things came into being. Amen.

We are only 21 verses into Mark’s gospel and already the writer has covered the Baptist’s role and announcement, Jesus’ baptism and temptation, the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and the call of the first disciples. By contrast, Matthew at the same point has just concluded Jesus’ genealogy and beginning the story of his birth. At this point in Luke’s gospel, we are still caught up in the story of the conception of John the Baptist.

Mark’s style is spare and his gospel has a sense of purpose and of urgency. He proceeds almost at once to Jesus’ identity and purpose. So John identifies Jesus as the stronger one, at his baptism Jesus is identified as the Son of God, in the desert he withstands Satan and Jesus begins his ministry by proclaiming the reign of God. His role becomes evident in the next few chapters. His proclamation of the reign of God confronts the forces which are in opposition to God and illustrates his intention to restore order and wholeness to God’s creation. He will challenge the forces of disorder, chaos, sin and disobedience which have made serious inroads into God’s rule. (There is no suggestion that these forces are in way a threat to God’s power, just that they have disrupted the harmony of creation.) Jesus’ role is to restore order and harmony and this is illustrated initially through the accounts of healing and the casting out of unclean spirits which show Jesus’ concern with wholeness and restoration and the authority which he has been given to bring this about.

The gospel of Mark was intended to be read (or rather heard) as a whole as were other documents of his time. Listeners would have been alert to patterns and repetitions which the writer used as an aid to their memory. They would have heard the themes were developed and seen where the author lay his emphasis. In Mark’s gospel, they would have followed the story as it built to a climax in the middle and grasped the tension as the second half moved towards the crucifixion.

Because we do not read or hear the gospel in one sitting, we miss out on the patterns which are developed and we are often unaware of the repetitions that help to make and reinforce the point which the author is trying to make. We are not used to listening for of looking for the same and we are so used to having the story told piecemeal that we find it very difficult to put it all together. Reading the stories in isolation means that we don’t see how they build on each other. For example, today’s gospel falls into a larger pattern which includes the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law which is sandwiched between two accounts of the casting out of demons. This pattern of sandwiching accounts between one or more similar stories is extended as far as the third chapter.

The pattern which extends from 1:16 to 3:21 includes two similar stories which are reversed and repeated sandwiching a third story in between. This section of the gospel is bracketed by 2 different accounts of the calling of disciples – the calling of 4 and the calling of the twelve. Inside these brackets we have two accounts of cures involving conflict the first includes a series of cures, the last of which involves conflict and the second a series of conflicts ending with a cure – a repetition but with a reversal of emphasis. Sandwiched in the middle is the calling of Levi (3:13-17). The effect of these patterns is to reinforce the point the author is trying to make – Jesus has authority to restore order to the world to bring wholeness to the sick and to cast out what has the power to destroy. This same authority draws people to leave everything and follow him, but it also leads to conflict with those who believe themselves to be in authority.

Though told in Mark’s typical style and without elaboration, the description of the casting out of an unclean spirit is full of detail – we learn that Jesus’ teaches with authority and is recognised by unclean spirits. The spirit is silenced by Jesus and Jesus’ reputation spreads. A number of themes introduced here are repeated in the remainder of this section – the Sabbath, healing (cleansing), recognition by demons, secrecy, astonishment or amazement on the part of the observers and the spreading of Jesus’ reputation.

The presence of the unclean spirit is evidence of the brokenness of the world. The disorder in God’s creation is represented by disease, possession or disability. To the Hebrew mind anything that was imperfect, out of order or incomplete was unfit for communion with God. The technical term for this was uncleanness. A person who was “unclean” was not able to enter the Temple, was out of relationship with God.

It is characteristic of demons that they recognise their opposition. The evil spirits know instinctively that Jesus role is to challenge their dominion and to show that God is stronger. Jesus’ rebuke is authoritative and will brook no denial. By a simple command he is able to exorcise the demon and free the man from possession and restoring his relationship with God and demonstrating Jesus’ authority. Strangely, Jesus demands silence of the unclean spirit. He will not allow the unclean spirit to identify and define him. Jesus wants to avoid any misunderstanding of his role. He wants to preserve his own sense of vocation, to be authenticated by what he says and does, not by what another says of him. He wants too to avoid a misunderstanding of his role – that he is mission is militaristic or political. It is God’s role to define who and what he is.

Mark is intent on establishing Jesus as the one who will restore God’s creative activity and challenge the power of forces which disrupt it. That the events occur on the Sabbath reinforces Mark’s point that Jesus’ role is that of returning order and unity to creation. At the same time, the narrative provides an opportunity to establish Jesus’ authority and the power of Jesus’ word.

At the very beginning of his gospel then, Mark has established that Jesus is the Son of God – his identity announced from heaven is now shouted by a spirit. He is also identified as the stronger one who not only withstands Satan’s attacks, but who by a word exhibits power over the unclean spirit. Jesus’ word, his teaching with authority, is clearly displayed – the power of Jesus’ word leads people to leave their occupation and follow him. Jesus’ word is shown to have more authority than that of the scribes. The spirits depart at his word and his word is spread throughout Galilee.

So we see, the story of the expulsion of the unclean spirit is not primarily the account of a miracle, but a demonstration of Jesus’ authority and of the power of his word. The restoration of the man with the evil spirit is a sign of the restoration of the whole of creation which has been marred by human weakness and disobedience, a restoration that will be brought about by this man Jesus who has been identified as the Son of God

Conversion of Paul 2009
Luke 24:24-28 Marian Free

In the name of God, who calls us into a new relationship with him and with the world God loves. Amen.

“For freedom, Christ has set us free”. Today we celebrate that giant of the early church, the apostle and writer Paul. Paul’s passion for the gospel, his conviction that it was open to the Gentiles, his ability to interpret the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and his boundless energy for mission have shaped the church as we now know it. More than that, it is in Paul’s letters to the communities which he founded that we find are the earliest written accounts of the emerging faith. Through Paul’s letters we discover the earliest statements of faith, hymns and prayers used by the early community and the first written account of the Lord’s Supper. We learn too of the difficulties faced by the early church and the tensions which threatened to destroy the inclusive nature of Paul’s gospel and to lead to not one, but two expressions of the faith.

Paul wrote to chide, to correct and to encourage those who came to faith through his preaching. Though his letters reveal very little of his personal life they are provide the most direct information of any one person in the New Testament. So we know that Paul was and remained a good Jew (in fact a Pharisee). He was proud of his heritage and of his faithfulness to its traditions (Phil 3:4, cf 2 Cor 11:22). So strong was his sense of identity that, according to his own account, he persecuted those who believed Jesus to be the Christ (Gal 1:3, Phil 3:4). Paul did not come to believe in Jesus from intellectual conviction or through having met him during his earthly ministry. Paul had some sort of direct experience to which he refers obliquely in Galatians and 2nd Corinthians. He describes this elsewhere as a resurrection experience. His belief that his gospel came directly from God, gave him an imperative to preach it, even in the face of opposition from the apostle Peter, and the constant risk of beatings and imprisonment.

It is clear Paul was utterly confident of his message. He wrote not to inform, but to transform his addressees, so he pulled no punches, but used every technique at his disposal to convince his communities of the message as he saw it. His letters abound with examples of the type of rhetoric at use in that time.

Paul believed himself to be appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 1:1, 16, Rom 1:5) that through him non-Jews would become followers of Jesus and fully integrated into the community of followers without the necessity of circumcision or of being bound by the Jewish law. It was this latter that caused the greatest amount of tension in the early communities and it is in relation to this that a great deal of Paul’s theology is worked out – in particular his notion of grace and justification by faith..

His passion for his message is reflected in his concern for the members of the communities he founds. Even when the tone of the letter is one of anger and frustration his care is obvious. He speaks both as a mother and a father, as a guardian and a nurse. He can say for example: “We were gentle among you like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children” (1 Thess 2:7). At the same time he believed that his own salvation was tied up to that of his communities (2 Cor 1:6; 1:14, Phil 2:17, 1 Thess 2:19) which made it all the more important that they hold to the faith.

His parental care for his communities did not prevent him from, at times, being bull headed and uncompromising. He was capable of biting sarcasm (1 Cor 4:8), deep disappointment (Gal 1:6), frustration and even anger (Gal 1:9). He was not afraid to pull his congregations into line or to take on those who preached a differing point of view – even when those preachers were Peter or other so-called “pillars of the church”.

Paul’s reputation as a misogynist is unfounded. In fact his style of leadership was surprisingly egalitarian and non-sexist. Those who worked with him included both men and women and the language he uses to refer to them is that of equals fellow-workers. In his communities women were co-workers for the gospel, they prayed and prophesied and exercised leadership in the churches. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is a response to a report by Chloe and the letter to the Romans is delivered by Phoebe who Paul designates as a deacon. (It is only much later that those who claimed to be writing in his name began to put restrictions on the contributions of women in the churches.)

In terms of his person, Paul’s letters indicate that he has some sort of problem with his health which affects his work both positively and negatively –negatively in that he refers to a thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7) and positively in that it forced an unexpected stay in Galatia (Gal 4:13). He himself says that he does not speak well (2 Cor 11:6) and his opponents accuse him of being weak (Cor 10:10; 1 Cor 2:4). We have only one description of his physical appearance and that not flattering. The Apocryphal Paul describes him as “small in stature, bald headed, bowlegged, of vigorous physique, with a slightly crooked nose and full of grace” (Buckel, 22). Whether or not he was a tent-maker as Luke records, Paul himself declares that he worked for his living rather than depending on the good will of the communities who he served (1 Cor 9:3; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Thess 1:9).

Paul’s influence on the church is immeasurable. Not only did he forge a new way of belonging to the people of God, but his letters have been determinate for such influential figures as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Luther and Wesley all of whom came to a deeper understanding of faith on the basis of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Without Paul, the Christian faith would have been not only remarkably different, but also remarkably poorer. Paul is not only a passionate evangelist, but also a proficient theologian and intellectual. Though he did not meet Jesus, he manages to distil the key aspects of Jesus’ teaching and leaves the church with a theological foundation on which to build the faith. Without Paul we would not have his understanding of the contradiction of the cross, his arguments about justification and the place of the law, his discussions on the nature of humanity and his belief that in weakness there is strength. Without Paul the resurrection might have been simply a proof text rather than a lived experience. Without Paul we would have no idea about the nature of the church and the relationships between Christians which are expressed as the Body of Christ and we may have misunderstood the freedom of the gospel or the role of the Holy Spirit.

Paul’s personal experience of Jesus drives him to explore and share that relationship, to defend the gospel which he believes came directly from God, to preach to those outside the Jewish faith and to include non-Jews in the people of God. His passion for the gospel is unmistakable and infectious. From him we have much to learn – not simply through his theology, but also his enthusiasm and commitment.

The church today is built on the faith and drive of those who came before us. The responsibility for the church of tomorrow rests with us. How will we respond to the call?

Confession of Peter 2009

Matthew 16:13-19

Marian Free

In the name of God, who calls us to know him and to share what it is that we know. Amen.

The keynote speaker at the recent Clergy Summer School, Clive Pearson, told us that he had the lyrics to between 70 and 80 rock songs that use the name Christ. This did not include, he said, songs that implied Christ, or songs that referred to a Biblical theme or story. This does not mean that the name is used in a way that we would appreciate or that we would even recognise in the words the Christ who is presented. The relationship between Christ and the lyrics may not be at all clear to us, but the fact that it is used at all tells us something of the way in which Christ is known to and part of today’s culture. The reason Pearson has listened to more rock music than “is good for someone of his age” is that he believes that in order to relate to the world in which we find ourselves, Christians need we need to hear the biblical language as it is used by different groups within our culture” and “having heard it we need to create space to listen to what is going on.” It is clear from this that Christ is not absent from today’s society, just present in a different way. Pearson argues that we should be attentive to the all the ways in Christ is present – even if we find the use of the name offensive or unpalatable. So, for example, he explores the use of expression: “for Christ’s sake” seeing its use as evidence of the presence of Christ in our culture. Paying attention to the presence of Christ means taking seriously art that challenges or affronts, listening for the name of Christ in the language of the people around us and looking for Christ in the experience and practice of those of other cultures and even those of other faiths. We need immerse ourselves in the world around us so that we hear what people are saying about the one in whom we place our faith. We may discover that Christ does not look or sound as we have been led to expect, but we may find him anyway. Pearson argues that a problem facing the church today is an increasing privatization of belief. This is reflected in the way that many of us have come to feel that our faith is a personal matter, that we don’t have a right to impose our faith on others, that our voice has no place in public affairs. As more and more people have chosen not to come to church we have drawn in on ourselves and lost our voice and our confidence in our place in the world. A loss of confidence can mean that instead of taking the opportunity to ask people why they have stopped coming to church, we simply let them go. As a consequence we don’t hear the pain of their stories and we miss out on learning of their criticism of the church. We haven’t asked where do they find Christ now. By listening for the ways in which Christ is present in the world, we can begin to have a conversation with those who are hurt, those who are lost and those whose views are different from our own. If we take the time to listen, we may be shocked, we may be disparaged, but we will hear their stories of Christ and we will learn where their ideas originate – whether from misconception or inspiration. Listening and hearing, we will find the places where we can connect and we will create a space for conversation. This model of mission is far from new. Today’s gospel balances the need to listen to the world with the need to be clear about what it is we believe. After warning the disciples to beware of the Pharisees, Jesus asks his disciples: “Who do people say that I am?” At this point in his ministry, Jesus is seeking to learn what people think of him, how they are relating to his presence, how they are responding to his message. The disciples respond – in the religious milieu of first century Palestine a teacher or holy person could be any one of a number of people – Jeremiah, Elijah, John the Baptist or one of the prophets. In other words, according to the disciples the people don’t quite know what to make of Jesus. He is not like their teachers, but neither is he like the miracle workers with whom they are familiar. He is something of an enigma. Then Jesus asks: “Who do you say that I am?” and elicits Peter’s confident response: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Jesus questions represent two requisites of mission – understanding the world and how it sees Christ and at the same time being clear about what it is that Christ means to us. It is only when both are present that we are properly able to engage with others – to willingly and confidently listen to their stories and at the same time be competent to tell our own. Pearson’s research reminds that in a variety of ways Christ is present in the secular world today – in its language, in its songs, in its media, in its movies and its art. It is our responsibility to pay attention, to hear how and where Christ is present and how faith is perceived. Together we can discover Christ as if for the first time. The letters and the gospels demonstrate that the first disciples engaged with the society around them, that they tried to tell the story of Jesus in ways that it would be heard by those who had no lived experience of Judaism as well as to those who did. The differences between the four gospels remind us that the authors re-told the story for the world in which they found themselves – working out how they could connect in different culture milieus. During this year, as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Brisbane Diocese, we have a wonderful opportunity to share with others what Jesus means to us and to other Christians. We can begin by listening to the stories of those outside our community and hearing what Christ means to them and sharing our own story in response. The dialogue which will result has the potential to enrich us all.

Baptism of Jesus – 2009
Mark 1:4-11
Marian Free
 
In the name of God who desires that we acknowledge our fallen nature and turn our lives around. Amen.

Mark’s short account of Jesus’ baptism raises a number of questions. Why does Jesus come to be baptized by John? What is the meaning of John’s baptism? Why does John baptize and Jesus does not)? What does it mean that John’s was a baptism for the “forgiveness of sins” and that people were baptized “confessing their sins”? What (especially in the light of the reading from Acts) is baptism with the Holy Spirit?

I don’t yet have the answers to all those questions, but it is obvious that at least two things are happening in this account. The first is that the writer is intent on establishing the distinction between John and Jesus (a theme he will continue to develop). The second is that Mark is establishing who Jesus is and what his role is to be.

As is usual for Mark, the story of Jesus and John is told without any elaboration. A quote form scripture is followed by John’s appearance in the wilderness suggesting that he is the subject of the quote – God’s messenger. He  preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Apparently people flock to him and are baptized – confessing their sins. John declares that the one who is to come is stronger than himself and that he is unworthy even to undo that one’s sandals. He tells us that while he, John, baptizes with water, Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

From this short description of John’s activity we can deduce a number of things. Even though John appears to have great success (all Jerusalem and people from the whole of Judea come out to him), he is only the herald announcing another. He preaches a baptism of repentance because his role is to prepare the people for God’s coming among them. John’s identification of Jesus as the stronger of the two evokes an image of Jesus as a divine warrior, or a royal messiah. Thus the scene is set for Jesus’ first appearance in the gospel of Mark.

Jesus’ arrival in the narrative is just as abrupt – “In those days, Jesus came”. However, the language Mark uses: “in those days”, would be familiar to his listeners and would  indicate that Jesus is the one who is expected – that is, he is the one referred to in the quote of v 2 and the one named as Lord in v 3. We are told that Jesus is from Nazareth in Galilee – the only biographical detail we are going to get for the moment.

The voice from heaven combines two Old Testament quotes – Psalm 2:7 “You are my son” and Isaiah 42:1 “behold my servant in whom my soul delights” The first affirms Jesus’ position as the descendant of David and attests to his messianic status, while the second identifies him with the suffering servant of Isaiah. In this subtle way Mark prepares his readers for what is ahead – the one who comes is not the triumphant warrior king, but the servant who will suffer for the people. Mark’s succinct story-telling style is evident here. In just three verses, we are told Jesus’ origin, his identity and his role.

In just eight verses, Mark has demonstrated that John and Jesus are vastly different. One is a prophet who announces the “coming one” and the other both human and divine figure who – we will learn – proclaims the “good news”. One baptizes with water in the OT tradition of ritual cleansing. The other, with allusions to the Old Testament promises of a new creation, will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Here too, Mark has also alerted us to the significance of Jesus. He is the promised messiah but he comes not as a king but as the suffering servant.

But why should Jesus be baptized by John? Surely Jesus would not need to repent? Mark does not provide us with an answer to this question. However, an understanding of the Greek word “metanoi;a ” can help us unravel the conundrum. “metanoi;a” means a change of direction, conversion, repentance. It is not a common word in the NT and is found mostly on the lips of John the Baptist. When John uses the word it means “repentance of sins” in view of the nearness of the anointed one. It is also refers to a change of direction – that is, a radical acknowledgement of God and of the fallenness of humanity – a recognition that involves surrendering the certainty of salvation and in so doing opening the possibility obtaining it.

At the same time, it is not unusual in the Old Testament for repentance to refer to an act of God. So a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, may also refer to a decision by God to withhold judgement either on the basis of an act of contrition by the people or simply as a result of God’s inability to withhold God’s love. Either way, repentance here represents an appreciation of the necessity of throwing oneself on God’s mercy rather than depending on one’s own efforts.

In contrast to John, there is very little evidence that Jesus preaches repentance. When Jesus uses the word “metanoi;a” he does so in the context of his preaching of the Kingdom of God. He begins his ministry proclaiming: “Repent and believe in the good news.” For John repentance is associated with a change of heart in relation to the fallenness of humanity, for Jesus it is associated with a change of heart in relation to what one believes and how one responds to the teaching and actions of Jesus. In other words, Jesus eliminates the connection of repentance with judgement.

Why then does Jesus come to be baptized? He surely does not need a change of heart? Here in Mark’s gospel, by submitting to John’s baptism, Jesus is demonstrating his solidarity with fallen humanity. He is one of us, one with us.

In this three verse description of Jesus’ baptism, Mark has introduced Jesus, shown him to be both human and divine and implied that he is both the one sent to redeem us and the one who will suffer for and with us.

Mark is a person of few words. That does not mean that they are not well-chosen or that their content is lacking, only that we need to heed what he is saying and to grapple with the layers of meaning contained within.

Mark’s intention is to share with us the good news of Jesus Christ. Our goal should be to allow that good news to change our hearts and transform our lives so that we can in our turn share the gospel with others. Mark’s succinct story-telling style is evident here. In just three verses, we are told Jesus’ origin, his identity and his role.

Holy Innocents 2008                                                                                                                                         Matthew 2:13-23
Marian Free
In the name of God who, in the vulnerability of Jesus, confronts us with the destructive nature of our greed and our desire for power. Amen.
The killing of children to secure a succession or to annihilate the opposition is sadly not unusual. The OT is full of such stories – from the killing of all the male children in Egypt to the wholesale massacre of Ahab’s 70 sons. Nor is such behaviour limited to the distant past. Over the centuries the various Royal families of Britain have been established and destroyed by murder and intrigue as a ruling monarch shored up their position or the usurper ensured that there was no one remaining to threaten his or her authority.
So Herod’s action is not without precedence. In the unstable political climate of his corner of the Empire, everything depended on his maintaining a grip on his power. The report of the birth of a legitimate claimant to his throne created not only a threat to his position, but also brought with it the possibility of civil war. The latter had to be avoided at all costs if Herod’s rule was to retain the support of Rome.  So, according to Matthew, when the wise men did not provide the whereabouts of the new king, Herod’s only choice was to order the killing of all children who fitted the description – that is all boys who had been born in and around Bethlehem in the previous two years. That this involves the slaughter of innocent children is of no concern to him. In Herod’s mind they are expendable, their deaths a necessary expedience to ensure his continued power.
It is easy and comfortable to think that such barbarity belongs to the distant past, but we only have to review the last few years to be reminded that greed and a lust for power continue to wreak havoc on the lives of the innocent. In recent times we only have to think of Dafur, Sierra Leonne and  the Congo  where women are raped and children killed as one group tries to assert its dominance by destroying another. We are regularly reminded of the nations in which children lose their childhood or their lives when turned into soldiers or sacrificed as suicide bombers or simply forced to languish in refugee camps.
Our media constantly reminds us that the darker side of human nature commits horrendous atrocities on others to protect or extend territory, to safeguard or increase wealth, to defend or expand power.
From a distance it is easy to believe ourselves separate and uninvolved. But it is important to remember that the world is made up of complex relationship and that what happens in one place can have ramifications in many. Western nations create so much waste from their more extravagant life-styles that they are continually looking for places to dispose of it. For example, there are children in West Africa who are exposed to poisonous gases on a daily basis, as they search through the carcasses of burning computers in order to find small amounts of copper which they might sell. Our preference for lower priced goods, means in some cases that women and children work for very low wages in sweat shops in third world countries. A desire to protect our exports leads to trade restrictions which limit the ability of other nations to compete and so build their own economies. And so it goes on.
Globalisations means, that now, more than ever before, what we do in this country has the potential to affect others whom we barely know exist. It is a salutary though to realise that we live well, in part because others do not.
Of course the issues are complex and I am not claiming to understand, nor would I dare propose an answer. However, on this day when we remember the slaying of innocent children in order to protect the power and position of a corrupt official, we would do well to remember that we are not without our own flaws and weaknesses, our own needs for power, security and wealth. To understand that our needs impact on our behaviour towards others. To recognise that such needs can blind us to the plight of others. To accept that we may indirectly contribute to the oppression of others. through our thoughtlessness or greed.  As Christians, we are challenged to replace complacency with responsibility and ignorance with knowledge. To try to understand the ways in which our lives make a difference to the lives of others and to try to build on those things which help and to reduce those things which damage.
It is human nature to want to protect what is ours, to seek to secure our well-being and to build a buffer against an uncertain future. In a community – whether it is a family, a neighbourhood, a  nation or the whole world, compromises have to be made so that the needs of one group do not overshadow the needs of another, or worse still, destroy the other.
We are all part of the global village. As followers of Christ, let us do what we can to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Let us do what we can to make a difference in our neighbourhoods, our nation and in the world.

Epiphany 2009
Matthew 2:1-12
Marian Free

In the name of God who reveals himself to all who look for him. Amen.

I can’t speak for you, but I know that there have been times when I am a lazy bible reader. I don’t mean that I don’t read the bible, but that when I do, I pass over interesting points, inconsistencies, additions or omissions. For example, it took me quite some time to realize that the parable of the prodigal son – one of our most quoted and best loved parables –  occurs only in the gospel of Luke. Even now, after a Phd and lecturing on the letters to the Romans and Galatians, I am still surprised by expressions and ideas that I have failed to notice before.

Most of us are uncomfortable with dissonance – we tend to smooth over differences, or conflate stories so that instead of contradiction we have agreement. This is particularly obvious with the narratives about Jesus’ birth. Most of us would probably say that the angel appeared to Mary, that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem, that Jesus was born in a stable and was visited by shepherds and then by the magi. That’s well and good, but what do the gospels say? Mark and John do not report Jesus’ birth. The former begins with Jesus’ ministry and the latter with Jesus’ pre-existence. So it is to Luke and Matthew that we owe our knowledge about Jesus’ birth and they tell two quite different stories.

In Luke, Gabriel appears to Mary who responds to God’s call. We don’t know Joseph’s reaction to the pregnancy, only that he takes Mary to Bethlehem from Nazareth for the census and there the child is born and placed in a manger. Angels appear to shepherds who come to visit the new family. In Matthew Mary simply becomes pregnant by the Holy Spirit. It is Joseph who is visited by an angel. In a dream he is told not to divorce Mary. We understand that Jesus is born in Bethlehem, because when the magi (number unknown) come seeking a child who was born “king of the Jews” they are informed  that they will discover him in Bethlehem as the prophets foretold. Because King Herod later kills all the children under two, we surmise that the magi appeared on the scene some time after Jesus’ birth.

It is quite obvious that part of Matthew’s purpose is to demonstrate that scripture has been fulfilled – a young woman’s pregnancy, the birth in Bethlehem, the killing of the children, the flight to Egypt and the return to Nazareth are all qualified by the statement: “This was to fulfill the scripture”. Another motive is obvious. In introducing the magi, Matthew is making the point that Jesus is to be seen as the Saviour of all nations, that Jesus’ birth has significance for all the world and not just for the Jewish people. So we notice that the magi come from the east. They believe that the strange star has a meaning, and have deduced from their reading that it indicates the birth of a king – the king of the Jews. Apparently they do not have access to the Jewish texts, which is why they need to ask Herod where the child has been born. They have studied the sky and believe that they are able to interpret it, they are presumably educated people, and while not kings, are possibly members of a royal court, advisors to the rulers of their own country.

The point is, that even though they are not Jews, they find something in Jesus that is worthy of homage, and on finding him are overwhelmed with joy.

For most of my life, I have heard the lament that no one comes to church anymore. I have been bombarded by programmes to encourage people to come back to church, I have been in more study groups than I can remember that have looked at how the world has changed and how the church can respond (in order to attract people to attend). In all this time, I have never once been party to a discussion about what it is that we believe that the we have to offer or what is the mystery that we have to share with the world.

The proliferation of “spiritual books”, “healing techniques”, meditation groups and so on, indicates that while people may not be in church, there remains a hunger to find a deeper truth, a desire to connect with a force greater than oneself. The reason that truth is not always sought in the Christian church is that we have been poor at identifying who and what we are, bad at naming what we are really about and diffident about what it is we have to offer  We have spent so much time worrying about why people are not coming to church and have been down so many side-tracks to attract people to our number that we have not paid enough attention to our core business – sharing with the world the life-giving power of the gospel, the saving event of Jesus.

In a world in which many are searching for answers, we need to be clear about who and what we are and who are what we are not. We are not the moral guardians of society. We are not a social club. We are not about placating a God who demands unquestioning obedience and deals out punishment to those who fail.

We are those who believe in a God who was and is fully engaged with us through the person of Jesus. We know that God, having experienced what it is to be human, understands the full gamut of human existence – what it is to laugh and cry, to have friends and to be betrayed by those friends, to suffer and to die and to find life on the other side. Because of Jesus, we know that we have been set free from sin to live life to the full and through his life, death and resurrection, we know ourselves loved unconditionally, understand that God’s forgiveness knows no bounds and believe that even the worst situation can be redeemed.

We believe in a God who constantly surprises, who refuses to be limited and contained, is comforting and challenging, liberating and encouraging and who sent Jesus into the world to set us straight and to set us free – in short we believe in  a God who has so much to offer a world that is looking for answers.

Instead of asking ourselves why people no longer come to church, perhaps we should ask ourselves – Why are we here? What does our faith mean to us and what difference does it make to our lives? What is the saving message of the gospel? What has God achieved in Jesus Christ? When we can answer these questions we can share those answers with others, and when the incarnate presence of Jesus is visible in our lives, others will seek what we have and, having found it, will be overwhelmed with joy.

Christmas Eve 2008
John 1:1-14
Marian Free

In the name of God, as close as a breath and as vast as eternity. Amen.

“The word became flesh and lived among us.” Over the centuries the nature and meaning of the Incarnation has been a matter of considerable debate. People have argued about the the true nature of Jesus and God’s purpose in coming into the world. Yet the ancient hymn at the beginning of John’s gospel sums up the mystery beautifully and succinctly: ”In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. The word became flesh and lived among us.” Through prayer and meditation, John had come to realize that Jesus (the word) pre-existed from the beginning with God. At a point in history, the word (Jesus) took on human form and lived the full human experience – birth, death, joy, pain, friendship, isolation.

Why would God the creator, enter the creation? Why would God subject himself to all the messiness of humanity?

Of course, one of the reason for God to enter our existence was to demonstrate God’s deep and unconditional love for us, but another, and often overlooked intention was to make a profound and confronting statement about us – about our capacity to realize our true identity as children of God, created in God’s image . By becoming one of us, Jesus demonstrated that we are not limited by our human form but that we are capable of great and godly things and that, weak as it is, human flesh can withstand temptation, can allow God to work through it and can express the divine to its fullest extent.

The Orthodox Christians say: “God became human so that humans might become gods.” .In his life and teaching, demonstrated that the ideal relationship of God – one of trust and obedience allowed God’s presence to be most fully known. Through his openness to the presence of God within, Jesus was able to share the goodness and healing power of God with all with whom he came into contact and, understanding the depth of God’s love, he shared that love by word and example to the deserving and undeserving. Jesus did not allow his humanity to overwhelm or diminish his divinity, nor did he allow his human needs and wants to limit the presence of God within. Rather, his whole being was suffused with the presence of God.

What does it mean for Christians in the twenty first century? It means that the challenge of the Incarnation is for us to allow what is god-like within us to develop and grow until the best of human nature takes precedence over the worst and until in our attitudes and way of life we begin to let what it godly show forth in our lives. It means recognizing and accepting the presence of God within, noticing the holy in the midst of the unholy, nurturing and encouraging God’s Holy Spirit and slowly and steadily allowing God’s presence to transform our lives.

We who celebrate the coming of God into the world, need to celebrate the continuing presence of God in our own lives. We who understand that Jesus is God Incarnate, need to allow God to be incarnate in our own lives. We who celebrate the holiness of this night, need to live lives that demonstrate that holiness everyday.

The best Christmas present of all is God’s presence in and with us. We have already received the gift – all we have to do it open it and set it free to work miracles in our lives.