I have come to bring fire. Does Jesus divide families?

August 16, 2025

Pentecost 10 – 2025

Luke 12:49-59

Marian Free

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

On Thursday, (August 14) the church marked the Feast of the Twentieth Century martyrs. One of these was Manche Masemola from South Africa who at the beginning of  the century converted to Christianity against the wishes of her parents. When the medicine of a Sangoma (a traditional African faith healer) failed to undo the ‘spell” which her parents felt had her in its grasp, her parents murdered Manche. She was only 14 or 15 when she was killed.  Apparently, before she died, she had said that she “would be baptised in her own blood.” Manche was recognised as a martyr by the church in. South Africa within ten years of her death and she is one of the martyrs commemorated above the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey.

There were more martyrs in the 20th century than in any century prior and Manche’s story is far from unique. Pakistan for example, has strict blasphemy laws the punishment for which is death[1]. Christians can be accused of blasphemy by those who have a grudge against. Them and while the death sentence is rarely carried out by. the judiciary people often take the matter into their own hands, beating and sometimes killing those whom they believe have offended Allah. 

“I have a baptism with which to baptised!” Jesus declares this morning before he goes on to say: “Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”

Many people today find these words of Jesus deeply disturbing and out of sync with their understanding of a Jesus who heals and forgives faith which provides comfort and assurance.  The problem is that we read this passage from the perspective of a faith which, in the West at least, has been the predominant faith for close to seventeen centuries and which, since its adoption by Constantine as the religion of the state has come to be almost indistinguishable from many of the communities in which it finds itself. (Sometimes it is difficult to determine which societal values have been influenced by the Christian faith and which Christian values have taken on attributes of the society in which it finds itself.)

In the ancient world it was very different. No one was born a Christian – they had to convert.  Conversion often came at a great cost – loss of family and friends, loss of income and the attendant loss of social status. Members of the Christian community were frequently ostracised by friends and family and harassed by neighbours and fellow citizens.[2] To those in the Greco-Roman Empire, worshipping the local gods built community – everyone participated in the local festivals, ate at the local temples and so on. A Christian could no longer join in the festivities or eat food sacrificed to idols and thus could be seen as a source of social division. Further, local gods were understood to protect the community, so refusal (by the newly converted) to worship the gods put the whole community at risk. Likewise, a refusal to worship the Emperor would place the whole community in jeopardy. A Christian who refused to worship the local gods, and who was opposed to Emperor worship was seen as endangering the whole community. Christians were not a seen as a benign presence but as a very real threat to the safety and stability of the community in which they found themselves. They would have found themselves resented at best and reviled and “persecuted” at worst. 

A further cause of isolation and deprivation for a convert was the inability to work. Tradespeople had to belong to a guild, and guilds were associated with a particular god and temple. Christians, being unable to participate in temple worship, were excluded from the guild and often found themselves unable to work. On top of the social isolation and harassment, converts experienced unemployment and therefore no income.

For the same reasons, families were divided when a family member converted to Christianity. Believers were no longer able to participate in family events (usually associated with religious festivals) and they were deemed to be troublemakers because of their refusal to conform to local norms and to behave in ways that protected the city.

The situation was only slightly better for those who converted from Judaism, but they too found themselves cut off from family and friends who did not agree that Jesus was the Christ. 

“From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided:

                  father against son

                                    and son against father,

                  mother against daughter

                                    and daughter against mother,

                  mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law

                                    and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”  (Luke 12:53)

Words that are shocking and confrontational to us, were simply expressing the reality of the time, and for many in the world today, expressing the reality of our our own time. According to a study carried out by the House of Commons last year, one in seven Christians in the world is persecuted. [3] In many places, making an active decision to follow Jesus still comes at a great cost. Conversion divides families (even communities), leads to social isolation and in the worst case scenarios can result in death.

When Jesus says that he has come to bring fire to the earth, he is simply stating what he knows to be true – that the message he brings is dangerous and will be divisive and that those who accept the gospel will be considered as dangerous troublemakers by many and will suffer the consequences.

In our cosy “Christian” world it can be difficult to understand that faith in Jesus is dangerous and costly, hard to grasp that something that (to us) as socially acceptable as holding the Christian faith could cause our friends and neighbours to see us as a threat. It is impossible for us to associate baptism with Jesus’ wish to bring fire to the. earth [4], but this is a reality for many and should challenge us to not only think of those who suffer for their faith, but to ask ourselves whether or not we have in fact become too comfortable.

[1] To discover which countries have made conversion illegal, and in which countries Christians are persecuted check this link https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-christianity-is-illegal..

[2] Paul speaks about being persecuted, but. there was no state censured persecution till much he is probably referring to isolation and harassment.

[3] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0017/#:~:text=1%20in%207%20Christians%20are,fragile%20states%20to%20support%20FoRB

[4] Jesus here, is probably looking forward (not in a positive sense) to his crucifixion and wishing that ti could be over and done with. It would not be unrealistic for those undergoing persecution to apply these. Words to thm

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on I have come to bring fire. Does Jesus divide families?

Treasure in heaven

August 10, 2025

Pentecost 9 – 2025

Luke 12:32-40

Marian Free

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

Once again, the lectionary has made a great leap and omitted the passage that would connect today’s gospel with what we heard last week. In so doing, it has also thrown together two apparently unrelated ideas. The first, which continues the theme of reliance on God and a second which introduces a new theme – that of being ready for God’s coming. Jesus, having urged the disciples not to worry, not to be afraid, now seems intent on creating a sense of urgency which could very easily lead to the anxiety which he counsels against. Focussing on the future coming of the Son of Man would seem to be the exact opposite of relaxing into the present.

In coming to an understanding of what is happening here, we have to remember two things. One is that Jesus almost certainly shared his wisdom conversationally. In other words, he probably dropped sayings into his discussions with his disciples or when he spoke to those who questioned him. It is unlikely that he sat down and reeled off a list of sayings in the way that we receive them in the gospels. Jesus’ sayings were remembered and repeated by Jesus’ followers after his death, and it is possible that before the gospels were written sayings on similar topics began to be grouped together. When the gospel writers started to compile their accounts of Jesus and Jesus’ teaching they had at their disposal collections of sayings as they were remembered and repeated by the different communities which had formed to remember and worship Jesus. The evangelists then used these sayings in ways which supported the picture of Jesus and the Jesus movement as they and their communities saw him/it.

This is most evident in Matthew and Luke both of whom appear to have made use of material that Mark either did not have access to or did not want to use. Mattthew has gathered most of these collected sayings into what we call the Sermon on the Mount whereas Luke has used almost identical material but divided the sayings into a sermon which is delivered on a plain and in Jesus’ teaching on the way to Jerusalem. 

To recap – Jesus almost certainly didn’t stand up and reel off a list of sayings, rather his sayings were gathered together by his followers and were then used in different ways by the gospel writers.

A second point follows from the first, the gospel writers (maybe following their sources) grouped the sayings more or less according to common themes which served their particular emphasis.

It is for this reason that it is always useful to read the gospels set for a Sunday in their context in the gospel as a whole and in its particular setting. This enables us to understand the whole picture that the writer is trying to get across.

In the case of this morning’s readings, the broader context is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem which began at the end of chapter 9. Beginning with the Lord’s Prayer which we considered a fortnight ago, a common thread seems to be dependence on God, rather than on material, earthly things and living in the present. “Give us today our daily bread,” Jesus says. In the parable of the barn builder that theme is picked up again – dependence on God not on material, earthly things and living in the present (rather than preparing for a future that was not to eventuate. Verses 12:22-31(those which were omitted) amplify this theme – “do not worry about your life”, “do not strive for what you are to eat,” Jesus says. Again, in these verses we see a theme of dependence on God not on material, earthly things and living in the present.

Our first saying this morning fits this theme perfectly – “make purses that do not wear out,” “where your treasure is there your heart will be also” – dependence on God, not on material, earthly things and living in the present.

It is much harder to fit the second and third sayings into this pattern especially when they are followed by another longer, but similar saying about the (implied) coming of God/the Son of Man. How do we make a connection between dependence on God and the surprise of God suddenly and unexpectedly – as a master who serves his slaves or, more surprising still, as a thief in the night?

Of course, we can never know in what context Jesus spoke these sayings or why Luke placed them one after the other. Most commentaries would suggest a break between verses 34 and 35 thus separating the apparently different ideas. However, whether or not the author intended it, we can detect a connection between the apparently different sayings. Dependence on God, having one’s heart in the right place, valuing what lasts (rather than what does not last), being content in the present and not striving for an uncertain future are all attitudes and ways of being that ensure that a believer will be ready for God’s coming no matter how delayed or how unexpected. 

If, while we have time, we focus on God and what God has done and is doing us and if we place our futures in God’s hands, and if we trust in God and not in our possessions, we will not be caught off guard when the Son of Man or God break into the present. If we learn not to be anxious about the future, but learn to live in the present, we won’t be so distracted by our worry that we are not paying attention to what is happening now. And if we have found our treasure is in heaven we will have nothing to lose or protect. 

Readiness need not lead to a state of anxiety and indecision  but rather the opposite – a quiet peace knowing that our lives already belong to God and that our hearts already belong to the kingdom.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | 1 Comment »

Building barns for the future or living in the now

August 4, 2025

Pentecost 8 – 2025

Luke 12:13-21

Marian Free

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

In many rural communities today, and certainly in first century Palestine, farming land is/was divided evenly among the sons. The intention being that the land would remain in the family and that each son would be able to raise his own children on the produce of the land. As you can imagine, a major flaw with this system is that as the land is divided into increasingly smaller lots it becomes unviable to farm. 

An alternative practice is that illustrated in the novels of Jane Austen. Families who owned large estates “entailed” the estate on the eldest living male relative – usually a son, but sometimes a nephew or an even more remote family member. This meant two things one was that any other son, despite having been raised in privilege, had to find a way to make a living – in the armed forces, in the law or as a clergy person. Women, as Austen’s novels illustrate, were particularly vulnerable. They had to submit to a planned marriage to someone whose income was in a similar range to their father’s – love rarely came into it or, as a single (or widowed) woman she would be entirely dependent on the good will of relatives for her food and board.

We are no longer governed by such laws, but inheritance can be an ugly business as battles through the courts demonstrate. Rich relatives, even parents, can use wealth as a weapon to manipulate their potential heirs. Children who feel unfairly done by take their stepparents – even their remaining parent – to court. Those whose parent has remarried may have to witness a totally unrelated person (and maybe that person’s family) receiving the entirety of that parent’s estate. So often the division of an estate does not seem fair and more often than not, it leads to a focus on money and possessions to the detriment of relationships.

Inheritance is a messy business, so when Jesus is asked to tell someone’s brother to divide the family inheritance with him, Jesus judiciously refuses to be drawn in. Instead, Jesus chooses to reflect on the dangers of greed – of wanting more than we need, of being jealous of what others have, of always striving for the next thing rather than enjoying what we have in the present, or of focussing so much on our possessions (gaining them or protecting them) that we neglect our families and our friends and fail to enjoy the moment.

To this end, in response to the man’s question, Jesus tells the parable of the man with the unexpectedly large crop.

As is the case with all the parables Jesus doesn’t worry about details – the size of the man’s property, his marital or family status. The man is a generic “rich” man – the implication being that he already has more than enough. He is not, like the majority of his fellow Palestinians eking out a miserable existence on a minute piece of land. The rich man already has barns (plural) in which to store his excess crops, the problem is that now they are not large enough. So, he has a dialogue with himself[1] -the solution he comes up with is to pull down his existing barns and to build bigger ones.  (This, of course, is impractical – what happens to the stored and recently harvested grain in the meantime? Jesus’ parables are not meant to make sense, but to make a point.)

We, who live longer and who are encouraged to plan for our financial future, might see some wisdom in the rich man’s behaviour, but the point of Jesus’ story is that the man is so focussed on his future, so determined to build (not share) his wealth that he fails to enjoy his present. Planning for a future that cannot be manipulated or controlled, the rich man has not noticed the riches he already has.  All his preparation will be for nothing, for in this case he has no future, and he will die not having achieved his goal.

As we will see again next week, Jesus has much to say about being content in the present, enjoying what we do have rather than striving for what we do not have, being content rather than living in a state of discontent. Think of “give us today our daily bread”, “do not worry about your life, what you will eat, what you will drink” (12:22), “can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?” (12:25).

Our situation and culture is very different from that into which Jesus speaks. There are expectations that those of us who can, will set aside funds so that we don’t become a burden on others and that is good and wise, but if building wealth for the future becomes our sole preoccupation we may miss opportunities (family time, travel, experiences) in the present. 

None of us know how long our futures will be. Like the rich man we may lose our life or our health at any moment and never have the opportunity to enjoy those things that we have put off. 

Interestingly, the evangelist has used this parable as a condemnation of greed, but taken without the commentary, and in conjunction with the sayings that follow, Jesus appears to be urging his listeners to live in the present moment , to take time to smell the roses, to appreciate the blessings and opportunities they have now and to trust God with both the present and the future. 

In a few verses Jesus will say: “For where your treasure, there your heart will be also” (12:34). What do you treasure and how do you make that known?

[1] Luke often provides an inner dialogue so that we know what the person in the parable is thinking.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Building barns for the future or living in the now

Our Father

July 26, 2025

Pentecost 7 – 2025

Luke 11:1-13

Marian Free

In the name of God, Source of all Being, Eternal Word, Spirit of Life. Amen.

“Our Father in heaven”. I wonder how many times in a lifetime will we have said that prayer. If a church-going person who lives till eighty has been saying the prayer every Sunday from the time they were five, that would add up to 3,900 times. Of course, most church-going people would say the prayer on other occasions as well – maybe every day – which would bring the number of times it was said to 27375! Those who say the daily office would say the prayer twice a day and so the number of times continues to rise. In other words, most of us are so familiar and so comfortable with The Lord’s Prayer that the prayer rolls off our tongues without our giving them much thought. The prayer can become a bit like a mantra, something we say to connect us to God, but not something we say as a call to action. 

Who knows what the disciples were expecting when they asked Jesus to teach them to pray, but the prayer he gave them is profoundly challenging and confrontational. As THE prayer, the prayer given to us by Jesus, it contains within it all that is necessary to live in accordance with the life and teaching of Jesus and demands that we change our lives in response. 

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name:

  • The prayer acknowledges that God is relational, not remote, yet at the same time the prayer reminds that even the name of God is holy and that in God’s presence we are standing on holy ground. 

Your kingdom come, your will be done:

  • We utter a desire that God’s kingdom become a reality on earth – that peace, justice and equity should reign here – not only in heaven. Implicit in this petition is a recognition that for God’s kingdom to be the overarching rule on earth, those of us who make this prayer need to be willing to submit ourselves, our lives, our all, to the will of God. In other words, God’s kingdom will not be imposed on earth but will become a reality when enough of us are willing to make it so. 

Give us today our daily bread:

  • Jesus teaches us to ask for what we need each day, to trust in God to give us enough, not too much or too little. There is much wisdom behind this prayer and it maybe an echo of Prov 30:8b,9: “give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that I need, or I shall be full, and deny you, and say, “Who is the LORD? or I shall be poor, and steal, and profane the name of my God.” 

Learning to live with only what we need helps us to be satisfied with what we have, means that we stop competing with others for more and ideally leads to a situation in which everyone has enough. Give us today our daily bread teaches us to rely on God, not ourselves, to meet both our spiritual and physical needs. Being content with what we have, trusting that God has our best interests at heart, enables us to be at peace with ourselves and with the world and ensures that there is enough to go around.

Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who are indebted to us.

  • In this, the most debated sentence of the prayer, we are apparently asking God to follow our example of forgiveness, but like so much of the New Testament, the forgiveness of debt has to be seen in context. Deuteronomy, especially Deut 15, imposes the forgiveness of debt as both a religious and social obligation. Every seven years, debts owed by Israelites by Israelites were to be forgiven (not paid). This practice ensured that no one among the Israelites was permanently impoverished or enslaved. Forgive us our sins as we forgive debts might read: do not hold our wrongdoings against us forever. Set us free from our sin so that we are no longer burdened by it. The subtext here, is that being set free, we might feel so liberated that our propensity to sin might be diminished!

Save us from the time of trial.

  • Jesus may have added this line as an aspirational statement, not a possibility to be realised.  More than anyone else, Jesus knew that no matter how obedient, how trusting, how holy a person is, God cannot protect them from the cruelty of other human beings, or from the erratic operation of mother nature.

The Lord’s Prayer is not intended to provide reassurance or to lull us into a false sense of security. Certainly, it is a prayer that relieves us of worry and that asks that we  be freed from sin, but it is also a call to action. It is a prayer that must not only be said but lived – not only every day, but every minute of every day. Every time we prayer these words we are recognising the awesomeness of the one in whose presence we stand at the same time as acknowledging that the one who is beyond imagination is one with whom we can be in relationship. We are committing ourselves to daily submission to the rule of God to ensure that God’s kingdom will come. We are recognising that what we have, over and above what we need, we have at the expense of someone else and trusting God to give us what is necessary – not what we want. We are hoping that God will set us free from all that binds us and that God will be with us in our darkest moments.

The Lord’s Prayer is a dangerous prayer. It envisages a time when the earth will mirror heaven. It demands our complete and total trust in God, and a willingness to temper our desires for more than we need. It is not to be said lightly, but only with a willingness to be conformed more and more into the image of Christ and a belief that giving ourselves totally to God will satisfy us more than anything on earth can ever do.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel, Prayer | Comments Off on Our Father

Whose ministry – Mary’s or Martha’s

July 19, 2025

Pentecost 6 – 2024

Luke 10:36-42

Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us to different roles and responsibilities and who encourages us to use our different gifts and abilities in the sharing of the gospel. Amen.

I am sure that I don’t need to tell you that Peter, James and John were part of Jesus’ inner circle. They were witnesses to his transfiguration and were close to him in the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter identifies Jesus as the Christ.  It may surprise you to know that these three are largely absent from the Gospel of John. In that Gospel, the significant players – those with a speaking part – are Andrew, Phillip and Thomas. This leads to the conclusion that peter, James and John played a significant role in the communities behind the Synoptic Gospels but not in the community from which the Gospel of John emerged.

The different characters suggest that in the emerging communities behind the Synoptic gospels Peter, James and John were people of some significance but that in the Johannine community others – specifically Andrew, Phillip and Thomas – were leaders for it is these three who have speaking roles in the fourth gospel.  

In a similar way, if women are given a significant role in a gospel it suggests that they also had an important role in the emerging church.  In a society in which women were relegated to the margins, the fact that they are mentioned at all is significant. This is most clearly demonstrated in John’s gospel, in which nearly half a chapter is devoted to the role played by Mary Magdalene as a witness to the resurrection. What is more Mary is given the responsibility of telling the disciples that Jesus is risen which making her the Apostle to the Apostles. 

It seems that at the time the gospels were written the memory of those who played foundational roles in the early communities is still fresh. Even though the church is settling down and conforming more to the world around it, women who played important roles in the early communities cannot easily be written out of the story.

This is particularly evident when it comes to the sisters Martha and Mary who are mentioned twice in the gospels – here in the gospel of Luke, and in connection with the raising of Lazarus in John’s gospel. In both accounts the women are depicted as women who make up their own minds and in John it is Martha not Peter, who identifies Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. 

Unfortunately, thanks in part to our translators, in Luke, the roles of Martha and Mary are domesticated and circumscribed. It is easy to read the account of Jesus’ visit as a silencing of both women – Mary who passively sits and listens and Martha who is described as distracted. The translation and the subsequent stereotyping of the two women creates a binary between action and contemplation that continues to this day and suggests that the role of women is either passive listening or busy organising.

The account of Jesus’ visit to the home of the sisters takes up only seven verses, so there is much that we do not know. We do not know for example how old the women were, what their financial status was or why there is no male in their household. Nor do we know if Jesus turned up alone or (more than likely) in the company of the twelve, whether he dropped in for a meal or planned to stay for a day or two. What we do know is that the culture of the time placed a high value on hospitality – think for example of the man who wakes his neighbour in the middle of the night so that he can have some bread for an unexpected guest.

Clearly, in the absence of a brother or husband, Martha is the householder. It is her responsibility to ensure that Jesus and those with him are made welcome and fed. As the householder, she naturally expects Mary to help.

Our translation leads us to believe that Jesus chides Martha for her preoccupation with getting ready when in fact Jesus may be offering her sympathy in recognition of the demands of her ministry. Margaret Wesley translates verses 40 and 41as: “But Martha was overwhelmed by many ministry responsibilities, so she came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do all the ministry by myself? Tell her to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are going to so much trouble and you have so many responsibilities to worry about!” 

But does Jesus chastise Martha for wanting to determine Marry’s choice – yes perhaps. Note that the Greek tells us that Mary is commended for choosing the good (not the better) portion, that of a student. Martha’s fault, if she has one, is that of not recognising that it is not her role to determine Mary’s path. God’s call on Mary is not for Martha to determine. Both women are called to and assume ministry roles – one of deacon, one of student – neither is better than the other, both are necessary. 

Before we consign Martha to the role of easily distracted, shallow woman and elevate a silenced Mary to the ideal model of womanhood, we need to unpack Luke’s purpose in telling the story, the blinkers worn by translators, and the preconceptions we bring to the tale from the ways in which we have heard the story in the past.

Before we apply stereotypes to anyone in our society, before we assume that know their interests and their capabilities, before we limit and define their roles and their contribution, we need to be sure that we know the full story, we need to understand the lens through which we see and the assumptions that we bring to bear.

We are all called to serve in a multitude of different ways. The one who calls and equips is never one of us, but always God.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel, Mary Magdalene | Comments Off on Whose ministry – Mary’s or Martha’s

Shaking off the dust -sending out of seventy

July 16, 2025

Pentecost 4 – 2025 (out of order due to holiday)

Luke 10:1-12, 17-24

Marian Free

In the name of God who desire is that we love God of our own volition and not through force. Amen.

Love that is forced is not love, obedience that is coerced is not obedience, faith that is demanded and enforced through fear is not faith.

In many countries today, the rules and tenets of a particular faith are imposed on the entire population. (More accurately, one particular interpretation of the rules and tenets are imposed on peoples who have a different understanding of the faith, or no faith at all.) Such regulations, rather than being ideals and values to which all might aspire, become burdens under which many are oppressed – forced to live according to “religious” norms which prevent them from living life to the full. The weight of such restrictions falls primarily on women, but their oppression affects the lives of those around them.

Of course, external signs of adherence to a particular faith – conservative or distinctive forms of dress, the eating or not of particular foods, time spent in prayer – are no indication of an inner state of being. (The recent exposure of child sex abuse within institutions including the church, is evidence that the most vile behaviour and thought can be disguised by an outwardly pious and conformist deportment.)  

Faith that is imposed is not faith. Codes of behaviour that are conformed to but not embraced have no meaning at all but rather lead to resentment, fear and deceit.

The history of the Christian church provides many instances when this premise has been forgotten. When Constantine made Christianity the faith of the Empire, those seeking public positions had to declare an allegiance to the Christian faith. In the time of Empire building, missionaries of all denominations spread out through the world imposing the faith (and with it Western values) on the nations which had been subdued. There are success stories, but there are many who mourn the loss or degradation of their own cultures and traditions to. Christianity that was difficult to distinguish from Empire.

Jesus’ approach was quite different. He was confident in his message of good news, certain of God’s love and the inclusion of all, and sure that following him would give life to those who followed in the present and in the future. But he did not insist on faith as a prerequisite for healing or exorcism and his condemnation was not for those who did not believe but rather for those whose outward behaviour belied unthinking, callous hearts.

Above all Jesus did not impose faith on anyone. He did not insist that those who needed healing become card-carrying believers first, he responded to the needs of those who did not conform to the society around them and paid attention to rank outsiders – the Samaritans and even the representatives of the Roman Empire. 

Last week we observed the enthusiasm of James and John who, when a Samaritan village refused Jesus a welcome, wanted to call down fire and destroy them. Far from supporting their passionate response to the lack of faith, Jesus chides them for thinking that the alternative to accepting Jesus’s message is destruction of all those who refuse it.

Today’s reading is a little more subtle and often misinterpreted but has the same issue. Jesus is sending out 70 of his disciples. They have strict instructions about what to take (or more specifically what not to take). And Jesus gives this instruction: “But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’”

It is easy to read (and often is read) this as Jesus’ condemnation of those who refuse his message, but in the context of first century Palestine the phrase has the meaning: “Don’t stress, let them be, leave them behind you.” The message is preached, the good news shared and a choice is given. If the choice is ‘no’ don’t worry, move on to the next village. Share the message as widely as possible and allow people to make up their minds as to whether or not to accept. (In much the same way as the sower tossed the seeds randomly and let it grow as it would, so the disciples are to spread the good news without being concerned about how it was received.)

Sometimes I think we take evangelism too seriously. We measure our ‘success’ in terms of number of converts, as if God is taking an inventory. In the light of the gospel perhaps we should turn this idea on its head. Maybe it is more important that as many people as possible know about the good news, and are left to make up their own minds, today, tomorrow, in a distant future or never at all. It is not about us, it is not about numbers, it is simply about sharing what gives our lives meaning and direction and accepting that the rest is up to God.

How often and to how many times have you shared what you know to be the good news of having Jesus in your life? 

Don’t worry about how articulate you are, don’t worry if they don’t want to hear. If Jesus’ good news has been good news for you, just share – leave the rest to God.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in discipleship, Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Shaking off the dust -sending out of seventy

Who is my neighbour?

July 12, 2025

Pentecost 5 – 2025

Luke 10:25-37

Marian Free

In the name of God whose love knows no constraints. Amen.

I don’t know about you, but at the moment I am overwhelmed by the state of the world, and I feel utterly powerless to intervene or to make any difference at all. Gaza, of course, is the most demanding of our attention, but not us let forget Ukraine, South Sudan and all the other nations involved in on-going conflict or civil war. Then there is the changing geopolitical situation and the potential economic consequence of the US tariffs and aid cuts. All over the world innocent people are suffering the effects of climate change and the increasing unpredictability of the weather. Here in Australia the people of Northern Rivers have experienced once in a lifetime flood twice in two years. They barely have time to recover before they have to begin again. (And that in a wealthy first world country. Imagine trying to re-build one’s life and livelihood in a nation without the resources to which we have access.) I find myself paralysed with indecision. What difference can I make? Will my small contributions help at all? 

I’m not even sure how to pray. In the first instance, I do not have the words to use. Secondly, I am not at all sure that my prayers, however fervent, have made a difference.

It is tempting to throw up my hands and leave it all to God. It is equally tempting to narrow my focus, to decide who and what is most deserving of my help or to justify inaction because not being able to do it all I find myself not doing enough.

In order to rationalise my inaction, I find myself thinking about how different the world today is from Jesus’ world and wonder if some of Jesus’ instructions simply don’t translate into the  21st century. In the first century, there was no social service, there were (at least for those of Jesus’ faith) clear guidelines about responsibility for family, for widows and orphans. Smaller communities meant that people were more aware of other people’s business, and they would probably have known the background of the person who begged them for a small coin or two. Without modern forms of communication very few would have known the state of the world beyond their village or region.

In contrast, today in Australia we have social welfare (even if it is inadequate), six-foot fences separate us from our neighbours and in cities that number millions there is a limit to how much we can know about the circumstances of others. The internet and social media mean that we know about disasters all over the world almost as soon as they happen. 

The question: ‘Who is my neighbour?’ is even more pressing than it was two thousand years ago. I see my physical neighbours only when I make an effort or pass them on the street. It is generally impossible to know how I can be a neighbour to them.

Jesus’ answer to the lawyer’s question is important, but so too is the question, and the intent of the one asking. We are told that the lawyer is seeking to justify himself. He knows the answer to his first question “What must I do?” – he is a lawyer after all. He asks the second question because he wants to limit and confine the extent to which he has to follow the law. He wants to narrow down what it means ‘to love his neighbour as himself.’ 

No doubt the lawyer, and no doubt those who have gathered around fully expect Jesus to limit neighbourliness to fellow Jews. After all, they are the chosen.

Jesus however does at least two unexpected things in his story of the man who was a neighbour. Instead of giving a definition of neighbour, Jesus tells a story of neighbourliness. He subverts the expectation that it will be the good, pious Jews on their way to Jerusalem who will offer assistance to the wounded man, and he gives the starring role to a rank outsider, an enemy, a person considered unclean according to Jewish law! The example of neighbourliness is the person least expected.

The Samaritan did not consider political or social implications of helping a Jew, he did not withhold his help because of the deep enmity between his people and theirs, and he did not stop to consider his capacity to help. (What would he do if the inn keeper charged him more than he could afford?)

Jesus doesn’t directly answer the lawyer’s question. He doesn’t say that the Samaritan is the neighbour who should be loved. What Jesus does is to confront the lawyer with what it means to be a neighbour. Using the despised Samaritan as the example, Jesus makes it clear that there are no boundaries to “neighbour”. Shocking as it might be to Jesus’ audience, it is the outsider who demonstrates that being a neighbour doesn’t consider the race, religion, or economic status of the other. 

Love of neighbour cannot be limited or reduced to a simple formula because the definition of ‘neighbour’ has no bounds. God’s love, and therefore our love does not discriminate between worthy and unworthy, insider or outsider, but is extended to all humanity. 

The problems in the world are overwhelming, but we are not to be discouraged. We will do well if remain open-minded and open-hearted, sympathetic towards the suffering of the good, the bad and the deserving and the undeserving, the familiar and the unfamiliar and if we do all we can to alleviate that suffering through direct support, through volunteering, through political and social action and through prayer.

In this increasingly divided and fractious world. Who is my neighbour? might be the question most demanding of an answer.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in "Good Samaritan", Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Who is my neighbour?

Discipleship – foxes have holes

July 1, 2025

Pentecost 3 – 2025

Luke 9:51-62

Marian Free

In the name of God who asks that follow whole-heartedly, that we know what we are and what we are not. Amen.

“Jesus set his face towards Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:51) This verse marks a significant change of direction for Jesus. By and large his ministry in Galilee is over and he and his disciples embark on what will be Jesus’ final journey, his journey towards Jerusalem.  That Jesus knows what lies ahead – his arrest, trial and crucifixion – is clear in the terminology – he set his face. This is a journey that will take all of Jesus’ courage and determination. It is not simply a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover, but an essential part of his mission and purpose. “He set his face” suggests an action of will not desire. From now on, with some exceptions, Jesus’ teaching will be directed primarily towards his disciples. 

It is perhaps not surprising that this section of the gospel begins with two – albeit very different – reflections on discipleship. 

For reasons unknown to us, Jesus chooses to travel through the territory of the Samaritans on his way to Jerusalem. Given the antagonism between Jew and Samaritan, most Jews would avoid this, the most direct route from Galilee. It is no surprise that the Samaritans refuse hospitality. However, the disciples, perhaps still flushed with the success of their first mission, their ability to heal the sick and to cast out demons, presume to know what it is that Jesus wants. James and John ask if Jesus wants them to call down fire from heaven to consume those who have refused to offer them a welcome. 

These two – the Sons of Thunder – have completely misunderstood Jesus’ mission and their part in it. Jesus has not come to impose his will on those who are not ready for or not receptive to his message.  Nor has Jesus come to destroy all opposition to the good news he has brought. Despite Jesus’ example, James and John have mistakenly let power go to their heads. They have come to know what they can do, but have yet to understand what they cannot and must not do. They are behaving as though they know and can execute God’s will. They have failed to understand that any power that they have has been given to them by God and is to be used in service of God’s will.  James and John have yet to comprehend that following means submitting, that loving includes love of enemies and that it is God, not they, who is the final arbiter and judge.

The next reflection on discipleship deals with those who are not yet followers of Jesus. Jesus’ apparently stern responses to them suggests that he discerns that they may be wanting to follow for the wrong reasons. Like James and John, they do not seem to fully comprehend what it means to be a disciple. James and John may have left homes and incomes to follow Jesus, but as we have seen, despite the fact that Jesus has empowered them as disciples they have a long way to go in their understanding of the role. 

When others ask if they can be followers Jesus needs to be sure that they understand the costs and consequences of following him. Following Jesus does not offer security or power. Being a disciple means recognising that life does not have to be lived according to cultural norms but can be lived according to the standards of the kingdom. Those who want to follow Jesus need to understand that he cannot offer security (foxes have holes, the Son of Man has nowhere), that he expects them to realign their values to those of the kingdom and not to be held back by societal expectations (let the dead bury the dead) and to be clear about their decision not half-hearted (don’t look back).

Each of these sound like stark impossible demands if taken literally – living rough, abandoning familial duties, never looking behind – but the meaning is plain. Being a disciple of Jesus has to be a decision, a decision to put one’s trust completely in Jesus, to refuse to be distracted from the primary goal and to have no regrets. In the first century, this would have been a much harder decision than it is for us. Followers of Jesus would have to make definitive breaks with their families and society; a consequence of their decision might have meant loss of income and home. It would have been tempting to look back with longing for the relationships lost. 

The reasons Jesus demands look so harsh to us is that modern day discipleship does not look so different from citizenship in a notionally Christian nation and the costs of faith are minimal. That is not a reason to take a decision of faith lightly. There will be times when we are called to be counter-cultural, times when others do not understand what we do and why we do it and we will be tempted to fit in – with the values of our families and our culture. There will be times when we have to remember that Jesus didn’t promise us comfort and ease and times when we will have to stand up and be counted. There will be times when we are called to step out in faith without having the security of a fixed direction or safety on the journey.  If such times and trials come, is our faith strong enough to keep us looking forward (rather than looking back with longing at the past).

Put together the readings remind us that discipleship is a decision to follow one whose life of obedience led to death on a cross (not power over nations), discipleship empowers us to bring healing to others, but it does not make us God.

When we give lives to Jesus, we give everything we have and we trust God to give us all that we need.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in discipleship, Luke's gospel | 1 Comment »

Finding God in the still, small things

June 21, 2025

Pentecost 2 – 2025

Luke 8:26-39 (1 Kings 19:1-4, 18-15a)

Marian Free

In the name of God whose surprises and little miracles are a part of every day. Amen.

Sometimes I wonder if we are so interested in the dramatic and extraordinary that we miss the important details that are contained in the quiet and seemingly mundane. This can be as true of our everyday lives as it can of world events. The small and not so small miracles occur unremarked because we are so absorbed in the bigger,  more exciting picture. This is equally true when it comes to reading and teaching the Bible. We all know about Moses and the burning bush because of the miracle of a bush burning without being consumed and because God spoke the bush, but it takes someone who is really paying attention to notice that ‘Moses turned aside’. A burning bush has no impact if it is not noticed. If Moses had not paid attention, there would have been no story – no plagues, no Exodus, no promised land. The small details are important.

Of necessity our lectionary has to be selective. In order to read through the gospels in three years, we omit passages that are repeated in the gospels, for example, this year we will not hear the parable of the sower during a Sunday service. The lectionary writers have also judiciously omitted some of the more controversial or offensive passages. A consequence of such decision-making is that small details (connecting sentences, off-hand comments) can be overlooked.

Whether it is our focus on the more dramatic aspects of Scripture, or omissions in the lectionary, our view of scripture can be skewed. 

Such is the case with our journey through Luke’s gospel. At the end of Epiphany, we had read up until the end of chapter 6. Today we have leapt straight to the end of chapter 8. Of course, some of chapters 7 and 8 will be covered in other years, but the omission of these verses mean that we never hear the first few verses of chapter 8 which are unique to Luke and which give us quite a different picture of Jesus’ travelling companions. Luke tells us that: “The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.”

Jesus is accompanied, it seems, not only by the 12, but also by a substantial number of women – many others. Notably, these were women of some significance – the wife of Herod’s steward for one. They were also women of some means. Luke tells us that they provided for them out of their own resources. “Them” in this instance appears to refer to Jesus and the 12 – not an insubstantial number to feed and to accommodate. Luke drops this snippet of information into his story as a matter of fact so even were we to hear these lines in church we might be tempted to pass them by and not pay attention to the fact that Jesus’ followers (counted alongside the twelve) were women. We take Luk’es statement for granted, forgetting that in the first century Mediterranean world it was socially unacceptable for women who were not accompanied by male relatives to interact with men.

The story of the Gerasene demoniac is another example of our tendency to focus on the dramatic and to miss the small details. The account of Jesus’ casting the demons from the Gerasene into the pigs is vivid and detailed and includes so much that is amazing and unbelievable that it is these that catch our attention. We are fascinated by the state of the man who had demons – he is naked, lives among the tombs and at times becomes so wild that he is guarded and bound with chains and shackles. Indeed, he becomes so violent at times that he is able to break the chains and disappear into the “wilds”. We are struck by the fact that the poor man has been possessed not by one but by a legion of demons. It is little wonder that we focus on the man’s miraculous recovery and Jesus’ divine power.

Then there are the pigs. What did they do to deserve being possessed by demons that thrust them headlong into the lake? And what of the pig herders whose responsibility it was to tend the pigs?  What punishment will be inflicted on the herders as a consequence of the loss? And so on.

Demon possession and the sorry pigs become front and centre. There is nothing wrong with that, but if we only look at the big picture, we risk missing an important but significant detail. When the people came out to see what had happened, “they found the man from whom the demons had gone sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind.” Jesus has not only set the man free, but he has also restored his dignity, his personhood and his freedom. The man is clothed, unbound and has adopted the position of a disciple. Yes, Jesus performed a miracle, but the miracle was only a means to an end – recognising and affirming the humanity of the afflicted man.

When it comes to evangelism, it is easy to try to get people’s attention by focussing on the miraculous, on Jesus’ godly powers. In fact, this is how some people sell the gospel. Believe in Jesus and this can happen to you. (Even believe in Jesus and you will be able to perform miracles.) The reality is often much more down to earth – being seen, being heard, being accepted for who you are. God sees us and, no matter our faults and failings, no matter the things that bind us, God loves us and sets us free to be who we are.

The dramatic and miraculous are only one part of the story. If we pay attention, if we look for the detail, if pay heed to the omissions, we will discover – as did Elijah – that God is not in the wind, not in the earthquake, not in the fire, but in the “sheer silence”.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Finding God in the still, small things

Three in One God – Trinity Sunday

June 14, 2025

Trinity Sunday – 2025

John 16:12-15

Marian Free

In the name of God, Source of Life, God with us, Empowering Spirit. Amen.

A week or so ago when I was on retreat I read the book The Amen Effect: Ancient Wisdom to Mend our Broken Hearts and World by Sharon Brous. The book is a reflection on ministry and in particular the need to hold the tension between celebration and grief while honouring both. The author is a Jewish Rabbi who was the co-founder of IKAR an innovative Jewish community whose mission statement is “IKAR is a Jewish community rooted in ancient wisdom and inspired by the moral mandate to build a more just and loving world. We are dedicated to reimagining Jewish life through deep relationships and shared values, intellectual and spiritual curiosity, piety and irreverence, joy and defiant hope.” Based in Los Angeles the community numbers around 1000 members. 

As I read, I felt that everyone entering ministry or pastoral care should have a copy of the book to help them navigate the times of great joy and the times of deep sorrow that are part and parcel of community life. During her ministry, Brous has faced many challenging situations and reflects for example, on how she navigated the celebration of her son’s Bar Mitzva on a day following a particularly traumatic event in the life of another family in the community. Somehow she found a balance between acknowledging the family’s trauma while still allowing her son to celebrate an event for which, as a Rabbi’s son, he had been preparing all his life. Elsewhere she reflects on how one sits with the grief of a couple whose teenage children are killed in a car accident caused by a driver under the influence, and how over time that family were able to use their experience to reach out to others facing a similar loss. 

Throughout her ministry Brous has engaged her community – sharing her insights and learning from them. She has also learned the important lesson of caring for herself so that she is not drawing from an empty well. There is so much all of us can learn about the practice of faith from Brous and from her. community.

As the title suggests, Brous draws on a variety of ancient traditions, not only on her Jewish roots but of course her own tradition is what has fed and enlightened her through years of training and ministry. 

I am someone who is deeply moved by the wisdom of Jewish rabbis and in particular their approach to trauma and grief, and I have great respect for other religious traditions, but on reading the book I felt for the first time a sense of absence, the absence of the Holy Spirit in particular and of the Trinity in general.

The Trinity, while difficult for many of us to grasp, and even more difficult for us to put into words, expresses to me a fuller, rounder understanding of God, a God, who as Mike Morrell says is not alone but is community[1], and who, as community, draws us into relationship. For me, an understanding God who is integrally present through the Spirit and who is integrally part of human experience through Jesus is, to me, relatable, enlivening and welcoming and better still, gathers me into the Divine Dance of the three-person God. 

It is fascinating to think that our forebears, steeped in the Jewish faith, experienced the one God in such a new and a radical way. Long before our theologians had begun to come up with definitions and explanations of the Trinity, Paul, followed by the gospel writers, had begun to use language for God that incorporated what we now call the three persons of the Trinity. Take for instance this morning’s reading from Romans. Within just five verses Paul refers to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Paul, who was born, lived and died a Jew, quite unselfconsciously uses God, Jesus and Holy Spirit interchangeably while at the same time not denying or negating a belief that there is only one God. Nor is this a one off, in Romans 8 God, Jesus (Lord/Son) and Spirit are again used as if they are one and the same. 2 Corinthians concludes: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.” Paul would have had no sense that he was abandoning the monotheism of his youth only that he had to find language to express his experience of God since Christ burst into his life.

Matthew’s gospel likewise references the Trinity when it concludes with what has become known as the great commission. Jesus tells the disciples to: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The association with what we now call Trinitarian language with baptism obviously existed in the church before the end of the first century and long before we began to put a name to and an explanation for the three-fold nature of the one God. 

And John who has consistently told the disciples that he and the Father are one, now. prepares his disciples for his departure by assuring them that the Spirit, who abides with the Father and the Son will be his continuing presence on earth. He makes no attempt to explain how God can be Father, Son and Spirit, he simply assumes that this language will speak to his reader’s experience of God. 

Of course, I do not know how I would relate to God had I not been brought up in a Christian family in a Christian environment. But, that being my experience, I rejoice in the three-fold God who is at the same time one, whose tri-fold nature embraces and holds me and whose different persons speak to different times and situations of my life.

[1] I’ve quoted this before but it is worth repeating.

ONE alone

      Is not by nature Love,

                  or Laugh,

                  or Sing

ONE alone

      may be prime mover,

                  Unknowable,

                  Indivisible,

                  All

And if Everything is All and All is One

       One is alone

       Self-Centred

                  Not Love

                  Not Laugh

                  Not Sing

TWO

      Ying/Yang 

       Dark/Light

        Male/Female

                  Contending  Dualism

                       Affirming Evil/Good

                       And striving toward Balance

      At best Face-to-Face

                  But never Community

THREE

    Face-to-Face-to-Face

                  Community

                  Ambiguity

                  Mystery

    Love for the Other

                  And for the Other’s Love

Within

      Other-Centred

       Self-giving

                  Loving

                  Singing

                  Laughter

                      A fourth is created

                           Ever-loved and loving.

(Forword to The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your Transformation. Richard Rohr with Mike Morrell, USA: Whitaker House, 2016.)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Trinity | Comments Off on Three in One God – Trinity Sunday

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »