What is temptation?

February 25, 2023

Lent 1 – 2023 (Notes)
Matthew 4:1-11
Marian Free

In the name of God, Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Amen.

I wonder what comes to your mind when you think of sin? I know a number of people who associate sin with breaking one of the Ten Commandments. A phrase that I have often heard is: ‘I don’t need to come to church, I am a good person, I don’t break the Ten Commandments.” When they say this, they are usually referring to the last six of the Ten Commandments – those that refer to murder, lying, adultery, murder, envy, honouring one’s parents and stealing. The problem with this attitude is twofold. Firstly, the these six commandments are relatively easy for most of us to keep. Secondly, they are the ground rules for living together in relative harmony. They are not unique to the Judea-Christian tradition, but are common to most cultures.
It is the first four commandments that are challenging and which people who consider themselves to be ‘good, Christian people’ seem to overlook. ‘I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.’ The first four commandments have to do with our relationship with God, the last six, with our relationships with each other. The first four demand an exclusive relationship with the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, loyalty to the one true God. The others have to do with our relationships with each other. One could go so far as to argue that it is only the former that have to do with faith. The latter are common sense, practical rules to guide our lives together. (Going to church is not a prerequisite for keeping them.)
Unfortunately, the institution of the church has contributed to this oversimplified view of sin. Many of us grew up in a church culture that emphasised goodness over faithfulness. We were led to believe that God wanted us to behave and not taught that what God really wants is to be in relationship with us. This has led to a trivialisation of ‘sin’; a belief that ‘sin’ is misbehaviour and that earning God’s approval is a matter of being good, keeping the rules. As long as we don’t commit the big ticket crimes, we can assure ourselves that God is happy with us and that all is well with the world.
‘Sin’ properly understood is separation from, or competition with, God. This is clear from the very beginning. The first sin, that of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was just that – wanting to be like God, wanting to be God. There is only one tree forbidden to Adam and Eve. It is not the tree of life, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As the serpent points out if they eat of the fruit of that tree: “You will not die; or God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:4,5). The first sin, was was not so much simple disobedience, it was the desire to be God, a desire that is played out again when the Hebrew people build the Tower of Babel.
Murder is a crime, lying, stealing and adultery hurt those whom we deceive or rob, envy eats away at us and failure to honour those who gave us life is a particular sort of selfishness, but believing that we can be God, failing to trust God (creating another kind of security net), or looking for quick fixes are the real sins that separate us from God and ultimately from each other.
These are the temptations that Jesus faces in the wilderness. Jesus is not tempted to steal or lie or to commit adultery. There is no little devil on his shoulder suggesting that he have a second helping of chocolate pudding (or some other trivial test of his character or will power). Jesus is being tempted to give in to those parts of his human nature that would destroy his relationship with God – pride, self-sufficiency and a desire for personal power. If he were to change stones into bread – which of course he could do – he would be demonstrating a reliance on himself rather than trust in God. If he were to throw himself off the steeple, he would be revealing that he saw God as a ‘rescuer’, a deliverer of ‘quick fixes’. If he were to bow down and worship the devil, he would be implying that God was not sufficient.
The temptations in the wilderness had nothing to do with our normal understanding of temptation, but with sin in the true sense of the word – separation from, distrust of and competition with God.
The three temptations can be summed up as: Stones into bread – ‘I can do it! (I don’t need God)’, throwing oneself off the cliff – God is only any good, when God performs miracles and, bowing before Satan – real power doesn’t belong to God.
This Lent, when you think again about what you might give up, what temptations your might resist think of the temptations faced by Jesus and ask yourself not whether or not you will be tempted to eat chocolate, but whether, put to the test, you would hold firm in your faith and resist the lure of self-sufficiency, quick fixes and ‘easy’ power.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Lent, Matthew | Comments Off on What is temptation?

What is temptation?

February 25, 2023

Lent 1 – 2023 (Notes)
Matthew 4:1-11
Marian Free

In the name of God, Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Amen.

I wonder what comes to your mind when you think of sin? I know a number of people who associate sin with breaking one of the Ten Commandments. A phrase that I have often heard is: ‘I don’t need to come to church, I am a good person, I don’t break the Ten Commandments.” When they say this, they are usually referring to the last six of the Ten Commandments – those that refer to murder, lying, adultery, murder, envy, honouring one’s parents and stealing. The problem with this attitude is twofold. Firstly, the these six commandments are relatively easy for most of us to keep. Secondly, they are the ground rules for living together in relative harmony. They are not unique to the Judea-Christian tradition, but are common to most cultures.
It is the first four commandments that are challenging and which people who consider themselves to be ‘good, Christian people’ seem to overlook. ‘I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.’ The first four commandments have to do with our relationship with God, the last six, with our relationships with each other. The first four demand an exclusive relationship with the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, loyalty to the one true God. The others have to do with our relationships with each other. One could go so far as to argue that it is only the former that have to do with faith. The latter are common sense, practical rules to guide our lives together. (Going to church is not a prerequisite for keeping them.)
Unfortunately, the institution of the church has contributed to this oversimplified view of sin. Many of us grew up in a church culture that emphasised goodness over faithfulness. We were led to believe that God wanted us to behave and not taught that what God really wants is to be in relationship with us. This has led to a trivialisation of ‘sin’; a belief that ‘sin’ is misbehaviour and that earning God’s approval is a matter of being good, keeping the rules. As long as we don’t commit the big ticket crimes, we can assure ourselves that God is happy with us and that all is well with the world.
‘Sin’ properly understood is separation from, or competition with, God. This is clear from the very beginning. The first sin, that of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was just that – wanting to be like God, wanting to be God. There is only one tree forbidden to Adam and Eve. It is not the tree of life, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As the serpent points out if they eat of the fruit of that tree: “You will not die; or God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:4,5). The first sin, was was not so much simple disobedience, it was the desire to be God, a desire that is played out again when the Hebrew people build the Tower of Babel.
Murder is a crime, lying, stealing and adultery hurt those whom we deceive or rob, envy eats away at us and failure to honour those who gave us life is a particular sort of selfishness, but believing that we can be God, failing to trust God (creating another kind of security net), or looking for quick fixes are the real sins that separate us from God and ultimately from each other.
These are the temptations that Jesus faces in the wilderness. Jesus is not tempted to steal or lie or to commit adultery. There is no little devil on his shoulder suggesting that he have a second helping of chocolate pudding (or some other trivial test of his character or will power). Jesus is being tempted to give in to those parts of his human nature that would destroy his relationship with God – pride, self-sufficiency and a desire for personal power. If he were to change stones into bread – which of course he could do – he would be demonstrating a reliance on himself rather than trust in God. If he were to throw himself off the steeple, he would be revealing that he saw God as a ‘rescuer’, a deliverer of ‘quick fixes’. If he were to bow down and worship the devil, he would be implying that God was not sufficient.
The temptations in the wilderness had nothing to do with our normal understanding of temptation, but with sin in the true sense of the word – separation from, distrust of and competition with God.
The three temptations can be summed up as: Stones into bread – ‘I can do it! (I don’t need God)’, throwing oneself off the cliff – God is only any good, when God performs miracles and, bowing before Satan – real power doesn’t belong to God.
This Lent, when you think again about what you might give up, what temptations your might resist think of the temptations faced by Jesus and ask yourself not whether or not you will be tempted to eat chocolate, but whether, put to the test, you would hold firm in your faith and resist the lure of self-sufficiency, quick fixes and ‘easy’ power.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Lent, Matthew | Comments Off on What is temptation?

Sustaining faith in the mundane

February 17, 2023

Transfiguration – 2023 (some thoughts)
Matthew 17:1-19
Marian Free

In the name of God who sustains us in good times and bad. Amen.

There are a number of expressions that are used to describe the spiritual journey – ‘mountain top experiences’, ‘the desert’ and ‘the dark night of the soul’. Our experience of God is constantly changing. There are times in our spiritual journeys that come close to ecstasy and other times that seem mundane (and even tedious). The great spiritual writers speak both of times of great closeness to God and times of absence or dryness. Somehow, they found ways to sustain their faith even when the presence (or sense) of God was elusive.

Such was not the case for the ancient Israelites, at least as we read the accounts of the escape from Egypt. As Moses led the people through the desert, they constantly complained about God’s failure to provide for them. They looked back on their time of slavery with rose coloured glasses and, when Moses was on the mountain top conversing with God they made a golden calf and worshipped it. It seemed, that, without the constant, physical evidence of the presence of God, they could not maintain their faith in God. Or perhaps it was that their faith in God had not been built on a foundation that could sustain them in times when God’s presence was not blatantly present in signs and wonders.

it is not our place to stand in judgment but we can perhaps think of people among our own acquaintances whose faith seems to be shaken by (to us) the smallest of things, or whose faith is destroyed when tragedy strikes. We might also be able to think of people or faith communities that are always looking for the next high whether in worship or in their daily prayer lives.

‘Mountain top’ experiences or spiritual highs can be addictive. They make the illusive presence of God real and tangible. It is no wonder that we don’t want to let go of such experiences, that we want to make them last as long as possible. We can all relate to Peter and his desire to capture that moment on the mountain-top – “I will make three dwellings here,” he says. For this fisherman, this was almost certainly the most extraordinary experience of his life. It was also proof positive that Jesus was indeed someone special, someone close to, in a deep relationship with God, someone worth following. But even while Peter is still speaking, he is overcome with fear, and when he looks up he sees Jesus alone. The moment has passed.

God’s presence is as terrifying as it is exhilarating and no one can sustain the intensity of that experience. Jesus’ companions, Peter, James and John must return to their everyday lives and find ways to sustain their faith in the midst of the ordinariness, and in their case, the stresses and anxieties of discipleship. (A lesson they must learn again when Jesus leaves them to return to the Father.)

Not all of us are blessed with intense spiritual experiences, but all of us, like Peter must discover tools that support our faith journey in the mundane as well as in the sublime. We must find a bedrock on which to build a strong and solid faith that will not waver in the most testing or the driest of times.

One way to do this is through the discipline of the Daily Office. The Office (from the Latin for ‘work’) – is a unique way to pray. The text (which is based almost entirely on Scripture) is predetermined. This means that no matter what our state of mind, we can say the words on the page (or the ePray app) and, because the form and the words are in front of us, saying the Office helps to keep our thoughts in check. The Office is not the emotional, spur of the moment prayer of pleading or of giving thanks, but a dispassionate form of prayer that takes our own needs and desires out of the equation. We can say the office anywhere and at any time, by ourselves or in company. In a sense however, we never say it alone, because at any one time, there is sure to be someone, somewhere joining with us. The Office, said by lay and ordained members of the Anglican Communion, is a continual prayer – as one person finishes, someone, somewhere begins.

Praying the Daily Office, sustains us in those times when we don’t feel particularly connected to God, when we are anxious or afraid, when we are grief stricken or filled with despair. At such times the structure and discipline provides a sense of stability, order and groundedness.

Mountain top experiences are inspiring and exhilarating but they rarely last. The majority of our spiritual journey will occur during the daily grind of everyday living. We cannot capture and contain the highs which by nature are few and fleeting, but we can be continually sustained and fed through regular and dispassionate prayer.

If this has not been your practice, perhaps you could try the Office as your Lenten discipline. Who knows, you might find that you want to make it a part of your daily routine.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Matthew, Transfiguration | 1 Comment »

You have heard it said, but I say

February 11, 2023

Epiphany 6 – 2023
Matthew 5:21-37
Marian Free

In the name of God, who sees not only our outward behaviours, but who also knows the state of our hearts. Amen.

“But let’s not fool ourselves; there is a place called hell. It’s the place we create for each other every time we choose an easy and austere legalism over an arduous and radical love.”

As I prepared for this week’s sermon, I was particularly taken by this quote from Debie Thomas’s reflection on today’s passage. Jesus’ teaching and, in particular the way in which Matthew records Jesus’ teaching, has all too often led to a narrow, legalistic and therefore harsh, judgemental and condemnatory understanding of Jesus’ teaching and therefore of God.

A first look at the so-called anti-theses of the Sermon on the Mount would certainly seem to suggest that Jesus is presenting a stricter, tighter view of the law than the contemporary interpretation of it. Six times he says: “I have heard it said, but I say to you.” “You have heard it said: ‘Do not murder,’ but I say to you whoever calls their brother ‘fool’ is liable to the hell of fire.” “You have heard it said: ‘you shall not commit adultery’, but I say to you: ‘whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in with her in his heart.’” When one considers that Jesus has introduced these verses by saying that he had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, it is possible to mistakenly believe that Jesus’ purpose was to ensure strict adherence to the letter of the law, and to refine the definition of certain laws so that there might be no mistaking what it meant to break the law.

A closer reading of the text (and the gospel as a whole) reveals that Jesus’ intention is just the opposite – that instead of imposing “an easy and austere legalism” he is preaching “an arduous and radical love”. Jesus is not, as it might first appear, insisting that his followers be more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees. Instead, he is using exaggeration to expose the absurdity of a strict legalistic point of view. Jesus makes it clear that while it is relatively easy to obey the letter of the law, it is almost impossible to truly honour the intention of the law – which is a relationship with God and with each other that is free from pettiness, competition, hatred, selfishness, and all other emotions that come between us. Indirectly then, Jesus is making it clear to the self-righteous, law-abiding citizens of Israel, that it is not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law that is important. In other words, a superficial observance of the law will not change the heart, nor will it restore broken relationships, demonstrate compassion, show forgiveness or indicate understanding instead, it will lead to judgmentalism and self-righteousness or to self-loathing, fear, and anxiety.

That Jesus is using hyperbole is evident in the phrase with which this section of the Sermon on the Mount concludes: “Be perfect therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Jesus’ listeners would have understood that no one could achieve perfection, let alone compare themselves with God. This would have put all that preceded these words into perspective. They would have realised that if no one can be perfect and in true humility have lowered their expectations of themselves and others – making them less judgemental and more tolerant and forgiving.

That Jesus is critiquing the outward observance of law is evidenced in the next section of the Sermon (which will be read on Ash Wednesday) in which Jesus warns against “practicing piety before others in order to be seen by them” (6:1). That Jesus’ interpretation is expansive rather than restrictive and that he is speaking of “radical love not narrow legalism” is demonstrated through a thorough investigation of this whole argument – not simply of the three anti-theses that we are asked to read today.

There are six anti-theses in all. In each Jesus expands the contemporary interpretation of the law – emphasising generosity of spirit over hardness of heart. If the first four can be misread as Jesus’ tightening legal restrictions, the last two certainly cannot and it is in the light of these (and in what follows), that we must interpret them all. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you Do not resist an evil doer. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile” (5:38-42). “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’” (5:43-47).

Jesus begins with the 6th commandment: “You shall not murder.” Then, as now, there would have been people who congratulated themselves for keeping the 10 commandments and thought that thereby they had fulfilled the requirements of the law. They would have congratulated themselves because they were not murderers or adulterers, not thinking to ask if at the same time they despised or demeaned other people, or whether they objectified or depersonalised women – faults that are not so blatant to be sure, but which are equally damaging.

It is people such as these whom Jesus is calling to task. He is exposing the fact that keeping the letter of the law is relatively easy, but that we can’t congratulate ourselves for not being murderers when our hearts are filled with hatred or contempt for our fellow human beings. Jesus’ anti-theses are not intended to create a new legalism or to weigh his listeners down with impossible demands. Rather by using hyperbole to make his point, Jesus’ anti-theses shine a light on a narrow interpretation of the law which is limited and limiting, controlling, and damaging –to the perpetrator as well as to the target.

Jesus exposes the limitations of an interpretation of the law which allows people (who have adopted and “easy and austere legalism”) to believe that they have fulfilled the law’s requirements, and which gives them permission to overlook their shortcomings.

Through six ante-theses, Jesus enlarges the understanding of the law, reminding us that perfection is almost certainly beyond our reach. In so doing Jesus saves us from self-reliance, self-satisfaction and pride – which are the real sins that separate each other from God.

“But let’s not fool ourselves; there is a place called hell. It’s the place we create for each other every time we choose an easy and austere legalism over an arduous and radical love.”

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on You have heard it said, but I say

The law stands, but its interpretation may not

February 4, 2023

Epiphany 5 – 2023
Matthew 5:13-20
Marian Free

In the name of God, source of all being, word of life and abiding spirit. Amen.

If Jesus had been one of the theological students in the Parish, and you had to write a sermon review on the Sermon on the Mount, what might you have said? If it were me I might have commented that while some of the material was helpful, the sermon was too long, that it consisted of a series of apparently unconnected sayings and that it would have been useful if the sermon had a theme which the preacher introduced, explained and concluded.

The current Pope has had a lot to say about preaching, including his recent off-the cuff comment that homilies at Catholic churches were a “disaster”. He suggested that every sermon be no longer than 8-10 minutes and that they include “a thought, a feeling and an image.” According to these criteria, the Sermon on the Mount does not come up to standard. (It is too long for starters.)

Indeed, if one was to believe that the gospels were real-time accounts of Jesus’ teaching, one would have to imagine Jesus – as one movie of his life depicts him – wandering through Palestine, spouting apparently unconnected lists of sayings. Take chapter 6 for example, “Do not store up treasures on earth, the eye is the lamp of the body, no one can serve two masters, do not worry about tomorrow” and so on. It is difficult to see in what way these sayings are related and to understand why Jesus would simply utter them one after the other without providing any explanation.

In reality, Jesus almost certainly did not speak like this and what we now call the “Sermon on the Mount” was probably no such thing. It is unlikely that Jesus, who appears to have been an excellent teacher, would have thought that making a list of apparently unconnected pronouncements – to a large crowd, from a sitting position – was good pedagogical practice. A more likely scenario (as I have suggested in the Parish Notes) is, that after his death, Jesus’ followers repeated his sayings to each other and to new believers and that over time these sayings were gathered together. Then, when Matthew and Luke wrote their accounts of Jesus, they accessed this material and used it according to their particular narrative purpose.

In the case Matthew, the author has organised Jesus’ sayings into five distinct groups – broadly speaking, the law, mission, parables of the kingdom, instructions for community living and judgement. These so-called discourses are separated by narratives about Jesus’ life, his journeys and healings. Of the discourses, the first and longest collection of sayings – three chapters in all – is centred around a discussion of the law and Jesus’ declaration – found only in Matthew’s gospel that he is the fulfilment of the law.

A closer inspection of Matthew’s “Sermon” reveals that, though the sayings don’t seem to fit one particular theme, there are connections that link groups of sayings together. For example, the Beatitudes lead easily into the sayings about salt and light, the saying about the fulfillment of the law introduces the following section in which Jesus evaluates or refocuses the law. In turn the section on the law concludes with a statement about being perfect which leads into a number of statements about how to interpret the idea of perfection.

The beatitudes, with which the sermon begins are statements of fact, a description of the present situation. “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” A consequence of knowing oneself blessed, is that one becomes a blessing for others – for example, the poor become the merciful and so on. In this way, those who are already blessed become a blessing to those around them. The next few verses – about salt and light reinforce this idea.

Both salt and light exist to be useful – to enhance taste and to enable sight in the darkness. For salt to be flavourless or for light to be hidden would be a nonsense – even an impossibility. Jesus is using exaggeration to make his point here, both ideas are utter foolishness. Salt does not lose its flavour and light that is hidden under something goes out (is no longer light). Jesus is commenting (as he does in the beatitudes) on the current state of affairs telling the listeners – “you are salt of the earth”, “you are light of the world.” In other words, as followers of me (Jesus), you cannot help but be light and salt in the world – unless that is, you do something foolish and unthinkable.

Our final verses do not really belong with the blessings and the responsibilities of those who are blessed but rather introduce the next section of sayings in which Jesus corrects some misinterpretations of the law. In case anyone thinks otherwise, Jesus is adamant that while he might critique the law or rather the interpretation of the law, he is not in the business of overthrowing the law – just the opposite. Jesus needs to re-frame the current understanding of the law so that it becomes clear to the world, that he is the fulfillment, the end point, the goal of the law. Jesus’ life and action demonstrates the way in which the law is to be understood as the covenant relationship between God and God’s people.

Through the sayings collected in the Sermon on the Mount, the author of Matthew, makes it clear that the contemporary understanding of the law is flawed at best and misguided at worst. In order to put things right, Jesus has to turn everything upside down – the poor (not the rich) are blessed, those who grieve (not those who are happy) are blessed, storing up treasures on earth does not lead to happiness and so on. Jesus does not abolish the law but restores it to its true meaning and purpose.

The Sermon on the Mount is not a sermon, but its individual parts come together to make a coherent whole that the law stands forever, but that human interpretation of the law, was and probably always will be flawed and inadequate.

Epiphany 5 – 2023

Matthew 5:13-20

Marian Free

In the name of God, source of all being, word of life and abiding spirit. Amen.

If Jesus had been one of the theological students in the Parish, and you had to write a sermon review on the Sermon on the Mount, what might you have said? If it were me I might have commented that while some of the material was helpful, the sermon was too long, that it consisted of a series of apparently unconnected sayings and that it would have been useful if the sermon had a theme which the preacher introduced, explained and concluded.

The current Pope has had a lot to say about preaching, including his recent off-the cuff comment that homilies at Catholic churches were a “disaster”. He suggested that every sermon be no longer than 8-10 minutes and that they include “a thought, a feeling and an image.”  According to these criteria, the Sermon on the Mount does not come up to standard. (It is too long for starters.)

Indeed, if one was to believe that the gospels were real-time accounts of Jesus’ teaching, one would have to imagine Jesus – as one movie of his life depicts him – wandering through Palestine, spouting apparently unconnected lists of sayings. Take chapter 6 for example, “Do not store up treasures on earth, the eye is the lamp of the body, no one can serve two masters, do not worry about tomorrow” and so on. It is difficult to see in what way these sayings are related and to understand why Jesus would simply utter them one after the other without providing any explanation.

In reality, Jesus almost certainly did not speak like this and what we now call the “Sermon on the Mount” was probably no such thing. It is unlikely that Jesus, who appears to have been an excellent teacher, would have thought that making a list of apparently unconnected pronouncements – to a large crowd, from a sitting position – was good pedagogical practice. A more likely scenario (as I have suggested in the Parish Notes) is, that after his death, Jesus’ followers repeated his sayings to each other and to new believers and that over time these sayings were gathered together.[1] Then, when Matthew and Luke wrote their accounts of Jesus, they accessed this material and used it according to their particular narrative purpose.

In the case Matthew, the author has organised Jesus’ sayings into five distinct groups – broadly speaking, the law, mission, parables of the kingdom, instructions for community living and judgement.  These so-called discourses are separated by narratives about Jesus’ life, his journeys and healings.  Of the discourses, the first and longest collection of sayings – three chapters in all – is centred around a discussion of the law and Jesus’ declaration – found only in Matthew’s gospel that he is the fulfilment of the law.

A closer inspection of Matthew’s “Sermon” reveals that, though the sayings don’t seem to fit one particular theme, there are connections that link groups of sayings together. For example, the Beatitudes lead easily into the sayings about salt and light, the saying about the fulfillment of the law introduces the following section in which Jesus evaluates or refocuses the law. In turn the section on the law concludes with a statement about being perfect which leads into a number of statements about how to interpret the idea of perfection.

The beatitudes, with which the sermon begins are statements of fact, a description of the present situation. “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” A consequence of knowing oneself blessed, is that one becomes a blessing for others – for example, the poor become the merciful and so on. In this way, those who are already blessed become a blessing to those around them. The next few verses – about salt and light reinforce this idea.

Both salt and light exist to be useful – to enhance taste and to enable sight in the darkness. For salt to be flavourless or for light to be hidden would be a nonsense – even an impossibility. Jesus is using exaggeration to make his point here, both ideas are utter foolishness. Salt does not lose its flavour and light that is hidden under something goes out (is no longer light). Jesus is commenting (as he does in the beatitudes) on the current state of affairs telling the listeners – “you are salt of the earth”, “you are light of the world.” In other words, as followers of me (Jesus), you cannot help but be light and salt in the world – unless that is, you do something foolish and unthinkable.

Our final verses do not really belong with the blessings and the responsibilities of those who are blessed but rather introduce the next section of sayings in which Jesus corrects some misinterpretations of the law. In case anyone thinks otherwise, Jesus is adamant that while he might critique the law or rather the interpretation of the law, he is not in the business of overthrowing the law – just the opposite. Jesus needs to re-frame the current understanding of the law so that it becomes clear to the world, that he is the fulfillment, the end point, the goal of the law. Jesus’ life and action demonstrates the way in which the law is to be understood as the covenant relationship between God and God’s people.

Through the sayings collected in the Sermon on the Mount, the author of Matthew, makes it clear that the contemporary understanding of the law is flawed at best and misguided at worst. In order to put things right, Jesus has to turn everything upside down – the poor (not the rich) are blessed, those who grieve (not those who are happy) are blessed, storing up treasures on earth does not lead to happiness and so on. Jesus does not abolish the law but restores it to its true meaning and purpose.

The Sermon on the Mount is not a sermon, but its individual parts come together to make a coherent whole that the law stands forever, but that human interpretation of the law, was and probably always will be flawed and inadequate.

Epiphany 5 – 2023

Matthew 5:13-20

Marian Free

In the name of God, source of all being, word of life and abiding spirit. Amen.

If Jesus had been one of the theological students in the Parish, and you had to write a sermon review on the Sermon on the Mount, what might you have said? If it were me I might have commented that while some of the material was helpful, the sermon was too long, that it consisted of a series of apparently unconnected sayings and that it would have been useful if the sermon had a theme which the preacher introduced, explained and concluded.

The current Pope has had a lot to say about preaching, including his recent off-the cuff comment that homilies at Catholic churches were a “disaster”. He suggested that every sermon be no longer than 8-10 minutes and that they include “a thought, a feeling and an image.”  According to these criteria, the Sermon on the Mount does not come up to standard. (It is too long for starters.)

Indeed, if one was to believe that the gospels were real-time accounts of Jesus’ teaching, one would have to imagine Jesus – as one movie of his life depicts him – wandering through Palestine, spouting apparently unconnected lists of sayings. Take chapter 6 for example, “Do not store up treasures on earth, the eye is the lamp of the body, no one can serve two masters, do not worry about tomorrow” and so on. It is difficult to see in what way these sayings are related and to understand why Jesus would simply utter them one after the other without providing any explanation.

In reality, Jesus almost certainly did not speak like this and what we now call the “Sermon on the Mount” was probably no such thing. It is unlikely that Jesus, who appears to have been an excellent teacher, would have thought that making a list of apparently unconnected pronouncements – to a large crowd, from a sitting position – was good pedagogical practice. A more likely scenario (as I have suggested in the Parish Notes) is, that after his death, Jesus’ followers repeated his sayings to each other and to new believers and that over time these sayings were gathered together.[1] Then, when Matthew and Luke wrote their accounts of Jesus, they accessed this material and used it according to their particular narrative purpose.

In the case Matthew, the author has organised Jesus’ sayings into five distinct groups – broadly speaking, the law, mission, parables of the kingdom, instructions for community living and judgement.  These so-called discourses are separated by narratives about Jesus’ life, his journeys and healings.  Of the discourses, the first and longest collection of sayings – three chapters in all – is centred around a discussion of the law and Jesus’ declaration – found only in Matthew’s gospel that he is the fulfilment of the law.

A closer inspection of Matthew’s “Sermon” reveals that, though the sayings don’t seem to fit one particular theme, there are connections that link groups of sayings together. For example, the Beatitudes lead easily into the sayings about salt and light, the saying about the fulfillment of the law introduces the following section in which Jesus evaluates or refocuses the law. In turn the section on the law concludes with a statement about being perfect which leads into a number of statements about how to interpret the idea of perfection.

The beatitudes, with which the sermon begins are statements of fact, a description of the present situation. “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” A consequence of knowing oneself blessed, is that one becomes a blessing for others – for example, the poor become the merciful and so on. In this way, those who are already blessed become a blessing to those around them. The next few verses – about salt and light reinforce this idea.

Both salt and light exist to be useful – to enhance taste and to enable sight in the darkness. For salt to be flavourless or for light to be hidden would be a nonsense – even an impossibility. Jesus is using exaggeration to make his point here, both ideas are utter foolishness. Salt does not lose its flavour and light that is hidden under something goes out (is no longer light). Jesus is commenting (as he does in the beatitudes) on the current state of affairs telling the listeners – “you are salt of the earth”, “you are light of the world.” In other words, as followers of me (Jesus), you cannot help but be light and salt in the world – unless that is, you do something foolish and unthinkable.

Our final verses do not really belong with the blessings and the responsibilities of those who are blessed but rather introduce the next section of sayings in which Jesus corrects some misinterpretations of the law. In case anyone thinks otherwise, Jesus is adamant that while he might critique the law or rather the interpretation of the law, he is not in the business of overthrowing the law – just the opposite. Jesus needs to re-frame the current understanding of the law so that it becomes clear to the world, that he is the fulfillment, the end point, the goal of the law. Jesus’ life and action demonstrates the way in which the law is to be understood as the covenant relationship between God and God’s people.

Through the sayings collected in the Sermon on the Mount, the author of Matthew, makes it clear that the contemporary understanding of the law is flawed at best and misguided at worst. In order to put things right, Jesus has to turn everything upside down – the poor (not the rich) are blessed, those who grieve (not those who are happy) are blessed, storing up treasures on earth does not lead to happiness and so on. Jesus does not abolish the law but restores it to its true meaning and purpose.

The Sermon on the Mount is not a sermon, but its individual parts come together to make a coherent whole that the law stands forever, but that human interpretation of the law, was and probably always will be flawed and inadequate.

=[1] Scholars have called this material Q (from Quelle meaning Source) however there is no evidence that this was ever a written document.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on The law stands, but its interpretation may not

Blessed are those who know themselves blessed

January 28, 2023

Epiphany 4 – 2023
Matthew 5:1-12
Marian Free

In the name of God our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Amen.

“Bless you,” we say when someone sneezes – whether we are a person of faith or not. This habit derives from the 6th century when a sneeze was the first sign that someone had contracted the plague. Pope Gregory introduced the practice in 590 CE and by around 750CE it had become a common practice. At one time in our past, it was even thought that a person’s soul left their body when they sneezed, and that God’s blessing was required to avert such a disaster from occurring. We no longer believe such things, but the habit remains. “Bless you.”

“Bless you,” we say when someone unexpectedly helps us out. In extending a blessing, we are hoping that they will be blessed for their generosity. “Bless you,” we say, as shorthand for ‘God bless you’ when someone sets off on a journey. When we bless a traveler, we do so in the hope that throughout their travels they will be kept safe from harm.

A blessing, offered by one person to another is a short prayer, a wish for the well-being/health of another, a form of thanks, or a request that the one blessed be under God’s protection .

These forms of blessing are very different from the “beatitudes” that we encounter in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount or Luke’s Sermon on the Plain. “Blessed are the poor in spirit” is not a prayer that the poor might have God’s blessing bestowed on them. It is a statement of fact, a description of a current situation – not a desire for something to happen in the future. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, Blessed are those who grieve” and so on. They don’t read: “God bless the poor”, but inform us that the poor, the grieving are already blessed. They are blessed in the present and at the same time (at least in three of the first four beatitudes) are offered hope for the future.

At first sight this doesn’t make sense. For those who know/have known what it is to count every dollar, who have sent their children off to school without breakfast, who cannot afford basic health care, being poor does not feel like being blessed – just the opposite . On the other hand, being poor does mean that there is nothing left to lose. Jesus is addressing his disciples – not the rich, the establishment or the rulers. Because they have little or nothing, the disciples can afford to give themselves entirely to the Jesus’ project. The kingdom of heaven is already theirs because they have already thrown their lot in with Jesus.

The apparently contradictory statements of the first four beatitudes are intended to help those who can, identify their present state of blessedness, to see what they do have rather than what they do not have. In other words, “Jesus gives to those in need by taking what is negative and planting in them something steadfast: deep inner joy, trusting the promises” (Chelsea Harmon). Hearing these words spoken by Jesus might enable someone to see what they already do have, and more importantly to understand that what God is promising for the future will make the present (however bad) bearable. The grieving are promised comfort, the meek will receive the world, and the hungry for righteousness will receive satisfaction! Jesus’ promises have the effect of changing the present, even if circumstances do not seem to undergo obvious change. To paraphrase Harmon, “there is more than one thing true about any situation. Disciples of Jesus can cling to and build their lives upon the deep hope implanted in them in order to live in the midst of the struggles and difficulties they face in this world.” The present circumstances of Jesus’ disciples might change for the better, but even if they do not, the future that Jesus offers is filled with promise.

Interestingly, after the first four beatitudes, there seems to be a change in direction. The first four beatitudes identify a person’s external situation (poverty, grief, meekness, hunger) as blessed and, without changing the situation, offer hope. The next three appear however to identify blessedness in a person’s internal qualities or in their actions and the “promises” the consequences of being those things: merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers – they will receive mercy, see God or be called children of God.

These apparently different sets of beatitudes are not opposites – one set spoken to the downtrodden (who need hope) and the other to the privileged (who have a responsibility to use their privilege for others). Instead, the latter set of beatitudes elaborates and spells out the consequences of the former. Those who have recognised that they are blessed, with the kingdom of heaven, the promise of comfort, the promise of the earth or the promise of fullness are liberated to stop focusing on themselves and to stop being concerned about their own future. Being freed from self-absorption, they are doubly blessed, because now they can look outwards and share their blessedness with others through showing mercy, being pure in heart and working for peace. Blessedness appears to extend outwards from the one who is blessed to all those who encounter that person.

A final beatitude sums up what it is to follow Jesus – to hold fast to the gospel, to speak truth to power, to maintain one’s integrity in the most difficult circumstances. This last, like the first, is evidence that those who are persecuted on account of Jesus, are, like the poor, already citizens of the kingdom of heaven. The former by their poverty, and the latter through their suffering, are able to fully identity with Jesus and therefore to belong to him and to his kingdom.

The beatitudes are not prayers or blessings, they are statements of fact. Jesus’ disciples, are, by virtue of being Jesus’ followers, already blessed and those blessing have consequences in the present or in the future. Such blessedness cannot be contained but will in turn be a source of blessing for others – salt for the earth, light for the world – as Jesus goes on to say.

We who are blessed, cannot help but be a blessing for others.

Blessed are those who know themselves blessed.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in beatitudes, Matthew, Sermon on the Mount | Comments Off on Blessed are those who know themselves blessed

Care for some fishing?

January 21, 2023

Epiphany 3 – 2023
Matthew 4:12-23
Marian Free

In the name of God who sees us as we are, draws us out and uses our gifts for service. Amen.

I wonder what your idea of discipleship is. Is it about bringing others to faith or about living a faithful life? Is it about saving your neighbour from the fires of hell or about creating a life-giving environment in which all might live in peace and joy? Is it about repentance for sin, or about enabling others to change their lives around?

For many, the idea of discipleship has been formed by Jesus’ call of Peter and Andrew, James and John. This morning’s gospel passage appears to be quite clear. When Jesus calls his first disciples (or insists that they come after him), it is so that they will fish for people. Jesus is asking them to join him in his mission in turning the hearts and minds of the Israelites towards God.

We would be mistaken however if we understood that this was the model for all disciples. In the first instance Jesus’ words are contextual. He is speaking to fishermen and therefore uses language with which they would be familiar. It is not language that resonates for those, who like myself, find the imagery of fishing (gathering the unwilling on to a hook or into a net) more than a little distasteful. Nor is it language that really makes sense outside of a first century rural setting.

Only Peter, Andrew, James, and John are called to “fish for people”. Jesus is speaking into their situation, using imagery that they will understand, the language of their own lived experience. In asking these four to come after him, Jesus is making it clear that in calling them to follow him, he will not take them out of their comfort zone or make them do the impossible. They will not have to retrain in order to become disciples. By calling fishermen to fish, Jesus is indicating that he wants them as they are right now. He will not expect them to be what they are not, but will take them as they are and use and build on their existing strengths and skills. He will enable them to use what they already know and to apply those skills to a new situation. The disciples will not be leaving their profession simply changing direction, using their gifts of patience and endurance in a new way.

For those of us brought up on the image of fishing for disciples, it is important to notice that it is only these four who are fishermen who are called by Jesus to fish. Jesus doesn’t say to Matthew the tax collector (Mt 9:2) “I will make you fish for people” and what we know of the other disciples does not lead us to think that he is asking others – non fishermen – to fish. The ways in which other disciples are named, does not tell us anything about their call. to follow. There is a second James who is identified as the son of Alphaeus, a Judas who we are told is the son of James, Simon is alternately known as a Zealot or Cananaean, and Philip we are told, was from Bethsaida.

The call to follow Jesus, to become a disciple is not a generic call. It is not a matter of one size fits all. No one is called to be what they are not. In general, anglers are not called to be great musicians, agriculturalist are not called to be herders and bookworms are not called to be athletes. When Jesus calls us to follow, he calls us to follow as our most authentic selves. Discipleship does not entail becoming what we are not but being whom we truly are. When Jesus calls us to follow, Jesus expects us to use our existing skill sets and strengths – including those we not yet identified or developed.

This means that those who answer the call to follow do not leave behind the gifts and training that they bring with them but build on them but often find themselves doing things, having the skill to do something they never expected to be doing. For example, someone who has had little opportunity for further education, may unlock a talent and a passion for engineering, farming, biblical languages, which they can use to further the kingdom. Another person who has had little experience of working with children or the elderly may discover hitherto unrealized abilities. Whether on the mission field, in Parish ministry, or in one’s day-to-day work, I am sure that there are many others, who, having been called to follow Jesus, have been surprised where it has taken them, and astonished, to see what gifts that call has drawn out. Others yet will continue doing what they have always done, but as disciples will be doing whatever it is more intentionally for the furthering of the kingdom. No matter what, almost certainly Jesus will not be surprised, because Jesus will have seen what we are doing and what we can do, before Jesus issued the call.

Jesus’ call on our lives may not be a universal call to fish for people, to make disciples. Jesus’ call to discipleship will recognise who and what we are now and who and what we can be. If we allow him, Jesus will use our gifts, develop our potential, and give us the courage to trust wherever he may lead.

Tags: , ,
Posted in discipleship, Matthew | Comments Off on Care for some fishing?

What’s in a name

January 14, 2023

Epiphany 2 – 2023
John 1:29-42
Marian Free

In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-Bearer, Life-Giver. Amen.

At the beginning of my ministry, I was based in a small country town. Even though it was close to a major city and not far from the capital, there were many in the town who had lived there all their lives. They had been to school together and had worked together in the nearby railway workshops. They were so familiar with each other that they knew each other by names that they had been given based on physical or personal characteristics. When I met with families to plan the funeral of their father, I would begin by asking them to tell me about him – his childhood, his family life, his work life and so on. Then, in order to put together an order of service, I would ask for more specific details such as full name and date of birth. At this point I was often interrupted as someone would say: “No one will know who you are talking about if you call him “Robert, John, Peter” or whatever his name was. I quickly learnt to ask how they would like their father referred to, and after the first formal reference to the deceased. I would make sure that for the rest of the service I would use the name by which he was known, not the name given him at birth. It was an important lesson as many people are known, not by their given name but by a term of affection, by their nickname or by their middle name.

Names are important, they are how others identify us and very often, they are how we come to identify ourselves.

In today’s gospel (which bridges last week’s reference to Jesus’ baptism and next week’s account of Jesus’ calling the four fishermen) includes four names for Jesus – Lamb of God, Son of God, Rabbi and Messiah (which means anointed). In the same reading Simon is given a new name Cephas (in Aramaic), Petros (in Greek) which means ‘rock’. Simon’s change of name tells us something about the way in which Jesus sees him. Apparently, despite all his wavering and his final denial of Jesus, Jesus can see in Peter something firm and solid – reliable even.

That is clear enough, but how are we to account for the number of (unrelated) names that are applied to Jesus? The four mentioned here are only a few of those that we encounter in the first chapter of John’s gospel. Others are Word, light, life, the one about whom Moses in the law and the prophets spoke, the one who is coming after me, the one who ranks ahead of me, Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth and Son of Man. It seems that not one word or phrase is sufficient to capture all that Jesus is and all that he signifies. There were so many expectations of one who would save Israel, so many hopes that God would send someone to redeem the people that it was difficult for Jesus’ contemporaries to decide which of these categories best suited the man whom they were sure was the one. Which of the ancient prophecies did Jesus fulfill? Which of the recent hopes did Jesus live up to?

The problem for us all these centuries later is to try to come to grips with terminology which in the first century may not even have had the same meaning that it had in the times of the prophets. So many influences had entered Jewish thought in the intervening years, so much life experience had impacted on the ways in which the Pentateuch and the prophets were written.

It is left for modern scholars to discern what might be meant when expressions such as “Lamb of God” are used for Jesus, or when Jesus takes upon himself the title “Son of Man”.

Names are both descriptive and determinative, both flattering and derogatory. They try to capture the essence of a person, but they can also define a person such that they unable to be seen in any other way. Jesus as “Lamb of God” can be seen as the sacrificial lamb, the Servant of Isaiah. Jesus “Son of David” creates a more militaristic image. Jesus Son of Joseph of Nazareth (carpenter’s son) is familial – and is not a term that earns Jesus respect.

For this reason, names/labels can be divisive.

How we see/name Jesus matters. How we name Jesus will determine how we live out our faith. The name/s that we give Jesus will provide the lens through which others will see him.

What are the expressions that you use when thinking about/addressing Jesus (biblical and other)? What do those words mean to you? Do they make you feel comfortable or do they challenge you? Are you so used to naming Jesus in one particular way, that you have forgotten that words cannot contain him? This week, as we stand on the threshold of exploring Jesus’ ministry through the eyes of Matthew, try to think of all the names you use for Jesus (and the names that you do not use). Try to use some new and unfamiliar names – Lover, Pain-bearer, Friend – how do they change/expand the way you think of Jesus? How do they change your relationship with him?

Lamb of God, Son of God, Rabbi, Messiah, Word, light, life, the one about whom Moses in the law and the prophets spoke, the one who is coming after me, the one who ranks ahead of me, Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth, Son of Man – all of these and yet none of these truly captures who Jesus is. Let us not mistake the power of naming and limit Jesus to the confines of human understanding.

Tags: ,
Posted in baptism, Identity of Jesus, John the Baptist, John's Gospel, Uncategorized | Comments Off on What’s in a name

Embracing humanity

January 7, 2023

Jesus’ Baptism
Matthew 3:13-17
Marian Free

In the name of God who embraces our full humanity and in so doing allows us to embrace our own. Amen.

In a public lecture in 2010 Aidan Kavanagh gave an imaginative description of a fourth century baptism. Full admission to the Christian faith was taken very seriously at that time. Catechumens would have spent four years in preparation, during which time they would have had to leave the church before the Eucharistic prayer as receiving communion was a privilege of initiates. Easter, the time of resurrection was considered to be the most appropriate time for candidates to die to their old, lives and to rise to the new. During the season of Lent the whole church would have joined the baptism candidates in fasting and prayer and the baptisms (full immersion) would have taken place at dawn after the all-night Easter Vigil .

Over the centuries baptism has been understood in a number of ways, has taken various forms and has been regarded with various degrees of rigor. In the New Testament, John’s baptism of repentance was that of full immersion because Jesus ‘comes up from the water’, however there is little evidence that this continued to be the practice of the early community. Apart from the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26f) no one seems to be asked to meet at a body of water in order to be baptised. Nor, at that time, was there a lengthy period of preparation – those who asked to be baptised were simply baptised. (In fact, some people were not even asked. Think of the guard who takes Peter to his home and who is baptised with all his family – Acts 16:34).

As the church became institutionalised, baptism became the prerogative of the bishop. When the church became sufficiently large that the bishop could not be present in a timely way, baptism was delegated to the deacons. These baptisms were confirmed whenever the bishop came to the town. Apparently by the fourth century baptism was taken very seriously as Kavanagh’s story indicates. Over the centuries however, baptism seems to have taken on a kind of colonising function. The church wanted everyone to be a Christian and in a Christian Empire baptism became the norm. At some stage the theology of original sin ensured that new parents were terrified that children who were not baptised went straight to hell. (This was one way to ensure that the population was ‘Christian’, but it did not require those who, through baptism, joined the faith, had any preparation or any commitment to the faith.)

During the 1970’s there was a movement away from this more cavalier approach to baptism and church membership. Church attendance had slipped and some of the more serious- minded people were concerned that the children whose parents had no connection should not be baptised unless the parents underwent a period of training and began to attend church. Unfortunately, this led to a time of great hurt and confusion as parents who believed that baptism was an important gift that they could give their child felt judged and excluded.

Jesus’ baptism was very different from any of our modern norms, and it raises more questions than it answers. There is no prior evidence of baptism in the traditions and rituals of Israel. So what was John the Baptist doing and how was it understood by those who came to him to be baptised?.) What drove John and why did he feel that the people needed to repent? How did John recognise Jesus as ‘the one more powerful’?

We don’t have conclusive answers to any of these questions and we certainly cannot answer the one that lies at the heart of the account: “Why did Jesus come to be baptised? Surely he did not need to repent.” This is a question that exercises the mind of the author of Matthew. Of all the gospel writers, he and he alone has John question Jesus’ need to be baptised. Matthew’s Jesus responds that he needs to be baptised “to fulfill all righteousness.” However, that raises questions of its own.

Our problem with Jesus’ baptism seems to lie in our need to believe that, as it says in Hebrews, Jesus was ‘without sin.’ A Jesus who was ‘without sin’ would have had no need to repent so the argument goes. This makes Jesus’ baptism some kind of random requirement that God has imposed.

A more useful view is to remind ourselves of Jesus’ full humanity. That is to say, if Jesus was fully human then he must have shared at least some human imperfections. Indeed, the gospels do not gloss over the fact that Jesus gets angry, is afraid and allows the crowds and even the disciples to frustrate him.

Taking this into account, Jesus’ baptism by John is a reminder of Jesus’ full humanity. Jesus didn’t stand outside the human experience as some sort of perfect entity, rather he embraced our condition in its entirety. When Jesus came to John to be baptised he had not yet begun his mission. He was not at that point, Jesus the teacher and miracle worker, but Jesus a peasant from Galilee. Up until this moment, Jesus had done nothing remarkable, nothing that would suggest to those around him that he was anyone special. There was nothing about him that had made him stand out from his peers, nothing that suggested that he was anything out of the ordinary, nothing that had led others to declare him a perfectly, godly human being. (When he preached at Nazareth, he was remembered simply as one of the lads of the village – one who now was putting on airs.) He was thirty years old and had done nothing remarkable.

Seen in this light, it is possible to argue that Jesus came to be baptised because he had reached a point in his life when he was ready to fully submit to God’s will and ready to completely align his life with that of God, to take up the mantle of his call. Jesus “repented” in the true sense of the word – he turned his life around. Jesus’ mission was inaugurated by his voluntary submission to God in baptism and his willingness to allow his life – from that point on to be determined by God – whatever that might mean and wherever it might lead.

Jesus’ fully human baptism reminds us that Jesus is not some superhuman being who cannot identify with our human frailty. Jesus’ ownership of his humanity in baptism gives us permission to embrace our own imperfect humanity. Most importantly Jesus’ complete identification with us in baptism, challenges us to accept and to grow into the divinity that resides within each of us.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in baptism, Matthew | Comments Off on Embracing humanity

One story or many?

December 31, 2022

The Naming and Circumcision of Jesus/The Epiphany of our Lord
Luke 2:15-21/Matthew 2:1-12
Marian Free

In the name of God who is always revealing Godself in new and unexpected ways. Amen.

The lectionary offers us two possibilities for this Sunday – the Epiphany of our Lord (the coming of the magi) or the Naming and Circumcision of Jesus. In some ways it is a shame that we cannot celebrate both today as together they give us an insight into the different ways in which Matthew (magi) and Luke (circumcision) approach their accounts of Jesus and provide a model as to how we might share the gospel today.

We believe that Matthew is writing for a largely Jewish audience. For this reason, he emphasises the ways in which Jesus fulfills scripture, has Jesus insist that the disciples go nowhere among the Gentiles and does not include encounters with, or parables about, Samaritans. Yet, it is very clear that Matthew writes with an understanding that Gentiles will come to believe in Jesus. At the Gospel’s beginning, John the Baptist reminds the Pharisees that God can raise up children of Abraham from the very stones and at its close the disciples are sent into all the world insinuating that God’s vision is broader than the people of Israel. Matthew’s inclusion of the account of the coming of magi – non-Jewish astrologers – is a further indication that he is softening up his readers for the idea that Gentiles will come to worship God’s anointed one and will therefore be included among the chosen people.

In comparison, Luke is writing for an audience that is primarily Gentile. He adapts his telling of the story to ensure a reception among those who do not come from a Jewish background. Luke does include stories about Samaritans – the parable of the Good Samaritan and the account of the Samaritan leper who returns to give thanks. It is important that Luke gives credibility to what appears to be a new religion. The Romans were reasonably tolerant of the national religions of the nations that they conquered, but they were less inclined to accept a new and novel religion. Indeed, any new belief was viewed as a superstition. A religion that had apparently appeared out of thin air would struggle to be taken seriously. This explains why Luke, though writing for Gentiles, goes to some length to present Jesus (and his family) as faithful Jews – observing the Jewish rituals of circumcision and Temple observance.

The ways in which the gospel writers configure their telling of the story of Jesus to ensure that it will be received by their audience is informative. Intuitively they knew that faith in Jesus did not depend on rigid adherence to a collection of dry historical “facts”, but that faith in Jesus was a living and vibrant relationship with the risen Christ. Indeed, a reading of the letters of Paul reminds us that from the very beginnings of the Christian mission different emphases were placed on, for example circumcision, depending upon the needs and backgrounds of those being addressed. In Corinthians, Paul goes so far as to say that he became all things to all people, that he might by all means save some (1 Cor 9:19 -23).

In many ways, Paul was passionate and uncompromising and yet he understood that accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour was more important than the observation of ancient Jewish customs. In his letters he worked out a theology that addressed the tensions between those who came to faith from Judaism and those who came from Gentile backgrounds. In so doing, he did not believe that he was compromising the faith, but that he was making it accessible to all people.

Vincent Donovan, a Jesuit missionary, came to the same conclusion when he was working among Masai in Kenya . The Jesuits had been in Kenya for 100 years when an enthusiastic young Donovan descended on them. In that time, not one single person had embraced the Christian faith. Having received the blessing of his superiors and the permission of the local chiefs, Donovan began sharing the gospel according to Mark with the Masai. As he did so it became patently obvious to him that stories of sowing and harvesting would fall on deaf – if not hostile – ears. The Masai were pastoralists who at times found themselves contesting the use of land with others who were agriculturalists. As Jesus used imagery that was familiar to his audience so Paul, the gospel writers, and Donovan used imagery and ideas that enabled them to connect to their listeners and to draw them into a relationship with the resurrected Jesus.

In the 21st century, we have much to learn from our forebears in faith and in mission.

Sharing the faith does not mean rigid adherence to fixed statements of “fact”, but an openness to the Holy Spirit, an understanding of the central tenets of the faith and a willingness to listen to those with whom we would share the gospel. As Jesus listened to and reacted to the Canaanite woman – changing his mind about who does and who does not belong – so we should listen to those around us and allow ourselves to understand and to respond to those who are hungering to hear the gospel today.

(Donovan, Vincent. Christianity Rediscovered. Maryknoll, N. Y. :  Orbis Press, 1982.

A summary may be found here https://www.newcreationlibrary.org.au/books/pdf/284_ChristianityRediscovered.pdf)

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Epiphany, Mission, Presentation | Comments Off on One story or many?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »