Building a house for God

August 25, 2012

 

Pentecost 13

1 Kings 8

Marian Free

 

In the name of God whose majesty, might and power we cannot comprehend and cannot begin to contain. Amen.

‘Yahweh had been tamed and domesticated. He had been put in his house and told to expect visitors, he was to be available as required. but could you do that to Abraham’s God who always travelled ahead of his people? Could you do that to the terrifying God of Exodus and Sinai, the God who was no one’s puppet? In the years to come there were to be many questions about the Temple. For all its exquisite beauty, for all then hopes and longings of the pilgrims who wound their way up to Jerusalem, there were many who saw the Temple as a danger to the true worship of the Lord. Could a God who had always been on the move be made to stand still?’

One only has to see the footage of the crowds at the ‘wailing wall’ in Jerusalem or to reflect on the tensions that surround the Temple Mount or the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem to understand the place of the Temple in the Jewish imagination. The history of the Temple is filled with drama. It was dreamt of by David, built by Solomon, destroyed by the Babylonians, re-built by the Jews, extended by Herod and finally and to this date, irrevocably, destroyed by the Romans. Until its destruction by Rome, the Temple was the centre and the unifying element for the Jewish people. Up until the time of Jesus thousands flocked to Jerusalem for the major religious festivals. Week by week the priests made burnt offerings of behalf of the people.

The Temple was not like our Parish churches, or even our modern Cathedrals. Weekly services of worship were not held in its precincts. Synagogues were the places for meeting and teaching. The Temple was for worship and sacrifice. The worship of our Cathedrals is replicated in our Parish churches which are modeled on their design. In the time of Solomon there were no synagogues and when, after the return from exile, synagogues were established in towns and villages, their purpose was far removed from that of the temple. Nothing and nowhere could achieve the purpose and significance of the Temple.

The original Temple was quite small by our standards. It was not so much a place of worship, but a place in which offerings could be made.  As we can see from the description of the dedication of the Temple, worshippers may have gathered around its walls during the great festivals, but they were not expected to enter in large numbers. The holiest of holies – the place in which the burnt offerings were made – could only be entered by an allotted priest.

Visits to the Vatican and other European cathedrals reveal the sort of generosity that believers pour out to express their devotion to God. By all accounts Solomon’s Temple, despite its size, would surpass them all in extravagance. From the time of the Exodus to the time of David, Yahweh had been worshipped in the tent of meeting which could be packed up and re-erected as the Israelites travelled to the promised land. When David succeeded Saul as King, he built himself a splendid palace. It was only when his home was complete that he was struck by the fact that while he lived in a palace, God was only provided with a tent. This was not a problem for God of course, who forbade David from building a Temple. The fact that this task was then given to Solomon indicates that this was not a permanent ban.

Planning for the Temple began while David was still alive, but building only started in earnest when Solomon acceded to the throne and peace with neighboring countries had been established. According to the first book of Kings the building of the Temple was quite an undertaking. The timber alone took 30,000 men to cut it in shifts of 10,000 at a time. At the quarry there 70,000 labourers, 80,000 stonecutters and 3,300 supervisors. The interior of the building was completely covered with the timber much of which was elaborately carved. All of the interior and its decoration was completely covered in pure gold. On top of this were all the various furnishings and vessels which were likewise made of gold or other precious metals. It must have been completely overwhelming – a house fit for God who was no longer housed in conditions below that of the king.

After all that expenditure and all that effort why Solomon’s moment of doubt? At the very moment at which the Temple is to be dedicated Solomon is struck by one thing – God cannot be contained. There is no human structure that is able to hold and house God, not even something of such splendour and beauty. In the midst of his prayer he exclaims: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built!” The nature of his prayer changes as a result of his insight. As he acknowledges that God cannot be forced to stay still he prays that God will respond to those who pray in the Temple, that God will hear the prayers of those who turn towards the Temple and respond to those who so for forgiveness. Solomon asks not only for the people of Israel, but for anyone who would turn to Israel’s God in prayer.

The quote with which I began captures Solomon’s dilemma. God who had spoken to Moses in the burning bush, God who had led the people out of Egypt in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, God who had thundered from Mt Sinai when the law was given was not to be bound but to be acknowledged, worshipped and adored. The Temple was and only ever could be a sign of the people’s loyalty, recognition of and obedience to that God.

It is wonderful to have beautiful places in which to offer prayer and praise to God. It is natural to want to offer to God our very best – in buildings, in furnishings and in sacred vessels. However it is important to recognize – as did Solomon – that these are simply expressions of our love. However lavish and beautiful they are, they cannot trap God into remaining still, they cannot be used to insist that God has an obligation to us. God is greater and more magnificent than anything that we can build and cannot be limited by time or space.

We will continue to build places of beauty and awe, but nothing will ever be as awesome as the real thing. We should not be blinded by human edifices – whether our buildings, our institutions or anything else we have created to help us express our faith – but should constantly and fearfully open ourselves to the presence of God wherever we are and wherever we may be.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Building a house for God

When it gets too hard do you wish to go away?

August 19, 2012

Pentecost 12

John 6:51-58

Marian Free

 In the name of God – source of life, wisdom and joy. Amen.

 “Do you also wish to go away?” Jesus’ question to his disciples in verse 67 catches us by surprise. These are the people with whom he has chosen to share his mission, his most private moments. In their turn, they have chosen to follow him despite what others might think. Why would they now want to go away? Today’s gospel helps us to understand the lead up to Jesus’ question. In fact, we have to go back to the beginning of chapter 6 to see how the tension builds to the point where some disciples leave Jesus and Jesus is forced to ask the remainder if they too wish to leave. The author of John’s gospel records the account of the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus’ walking on the water as do the other three gospels. According to the author of John, the crowds which have been following Jesus, discover that he is on the other side of the lake and pursue him. This provides Jesus with an opportunity to challenge their self-centredness and to elaborate on his role and his mission.

Jesus perceives that the crowds are primarily interested in what he can do for them – provide food, heal the sick and so on. These signs, while important, are not the real reason that Jesus is here. He challenges those who have followed to seek the deeper meaning of Jesus’ presence among them. Bread sustains the body for a limited time. Jesus asks his listeners to consider the sort of food that will sustain them in the present and more importantly for eternity. He asks them to look beyond their physical needs for sustenance and to seek the food that endures – the spiritual food that sustains the soul. This is the food that he provides to those who seek it.

As part of this argument, Jesus claims to be the ‘bread of life’. We are so familiar with this concept that it can be difficult for us to understand how such a discussion could create the sort of offense that would cause some of Jesus’ disciples to abandon him and Jesus to ask if others too wish to go away. Jesus as the ‘bread of life’ provides us with strength and courage, spiritual nourishment and support.  Perhaps if Jesus had left the argument there his disciples would have remained with him. However, Jesus has claimed to be the bread from heaven which endures forever – unlike the manna in the wilderness which sustained the Israelites in the present, but which was unable to give them eternal life. Among his listeners would have been those who would have heard Jesus’ suggestion that he was more important than – in fact that he had superseded Moses.

If that claim were not confronting enough, Jesus makes the even more disturbing claim: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this brad will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Not only is the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood utterly repulsive, it is impossible for Jesus’ audience to grasp such a difficult and distressing concept. Many of them know Jesus, they know his mother and his father. They know that he is a human being like themselves – how can he say that he has come down from heaven? It is impossible for them to even begin to conceive that it is possible, let alone necessary for them to consume this man’s flesh and blood if they are to have eternal life! No wonder many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him! They say: “This teaching is difficult, who can accept it?”

They have failed to understand that Jesus, through this dramatic and uncomfortable language, Jesus is asking his followers not to physically eat him, but to become one with him, to allow him to become so much a part of them that it is as if they are indeed one flesh and blood. Eating and drinking are metaphors for this complete unity. In some way faith is a process of somehow absorbing Jesus into our lives and allowing our lives to be absorbed into that of Jesus.

Eating and drinking are strong images, but they are not totally unfamiliar. We say to children: “I could just eat you!” We don’t mean that literally, we just mean that we love them so much that we don’t want to be separated from them. This is the sort of relationship that Jesus is asking his disciples (and us) to have with him.

It is at this point that Jesus asks those who remain: “Do you also wish to go away?” To which Peter responds: “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.  We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Peter, who so often fails to understand, who so often gets it wrong has cut to the core. He may not always understand what Jesus has to say, but he knows what Jesus means – to himself and to the world. Peter may not really understand Jesus’ teaching at this point, but he is sure of one thing – that there is nowhere that he would rather be, nowhere else that he would receive the sort of spiritual guidance that he has found in Jesus. He knows that in the present and in the future, it is his relationship with Jesus that has opened the doors of heaven.

I suspect that it is the same for us. There may be times when we do not understand – when scripture seems too difficult, when the events of our lives or the lives of others seem inexplicable – but we with Peter know that Jesus is the means to eternal life. We have thrown in our lot with Jesus, and nothing in this life or the next will separate us.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Eucharist, Feeding of the five thousand, John's Gospel, Pentecost | Comments Off on When it gets too hard do you wish to go away?

Bread of life

August 11, 2012

Pentecost 11

John 6:35, 41-51 

Marian Free

In the name of God who sustains and fulfils us. Amen.

 Some years ago there was an advertisement for a (then) popular deodorant. The ad featured a beautiful woman holding up various essential items and saying things like: “I can do without my iPhone, I can do without my hair dryer, I can do without my first cup of coffee, but I can’t do without my Mum.” Of course, it’s a play on words. Our minds immediately leap to the conclusion that she can’t do without her mother, but in fact Mum is the brand name of the deodorant that she is promoting! It was a clever piece of advertising – not only because obviously I still remember it, but also because for a while, the phrase: “I can’t do without” passed into common use.

In the scale of things, deodorant is a particularly superficial item to be unable to go without. People are starving and dying of disease every day, surely we can go without something that is not vital to our well-being, but only to our vanity. However, the goal of advertising is to convince us that we simply cannot do without the latest fashion, the latest kitchen items, the latest phone or computer. Many of us today have lives cluttered with things that we do not absolutely need, but which seemed a good idea at the time. It gives pause for thought. What do we really require for a reasonable life? What things are absolutely essential for our well-being and what things are essentially luxuries?

Some of the things we need are obvious. We simply cannot survive without water, oxygen and a certain amount of food. Warmth and shelter are also good but not necessary. In 1943 a man named Abraham Maslow published a seminal paper in which he identified a hierarchy of needs. All these years later psychology students would be familiar, if not with his work, then with the hierarchy to which he gave his name. The hierarchy he developed suggests that a person’s basic needs must be met in order for them to be creative and moral. So at the bottom of the hierarchy are things like breathing, food, water, sex. When those needs are met a person may becomes aware of the need for safety (both physical and economic). When one is fed and safe, love and belonging become important for happiness. These are followed, Maslow would say, by the need for self-esteem (confidence, achievement, respect form others). It is only when all these underlying needs are met, he claims, that a person is able to achieve self-actualisation – creativity, spontaneity, lack of prejudice and so on.

There are some flaws in Maslow’s argument. A number of creative people are creative, not because they have reached some higher dimension of existence, but precisely because their needs for love or something else have not been met. Their art is drawn not from their self-fulfilment, but from their suffering. Likewise we often witness people who to us, seem to be living in the most dire of circumstances and yet who are able to express surprising joy and inclusiveness.

Today’s gospel is part of a long discourse on bread in which Jesus claims to be both the bread of life and the living bread that has come down from heaven. For many people bread is one of the staples of life. Jesus appears to be claiming that he is both essential for life and that a relationship with him is the key to eternal life. In contrast to Maslow’s hierarchy, Jesus places himself at the bottom of the pyramid and implies that all else in life is built on faith in him.

As he does so often, Jesus seems to be challenging his audience to consider where their priorities lie and where they place their relationship with him in comparison to their other needs and wants. By claiming to be the bread of life and by comparing himself with the manna in the wilderness, Jesus is suggesting that his listeners need to place him at the centre of their lives, to have the confidence that if they put him at the heart, all else will fall into place. Jesus is claiming that faith in him is essential to the well-being of all people. It is not an optional extra that can be drawn on only when it is absolutely needed, rather it is the central requirement for a life that is rich and satisfying.

This is more difficult that it appears – especially for Jesus listeners. Many of them have known him all his life, they know his parents and they know that he didn’t come down from heaven, but was born in the usual way. For Jesus’ audience accepting that he was who he said he was meant suspending their rational minds and allowing themselves to trust that what Jesus said was indeed true and that he could supply all their wants. Further, it meant letting go what they had believed until now and trusting that God was indeed doing something new in Jesus, that they faith they had held was being enlarged to include all that Jesus did and taught. For many this was an impossible task. They simply could not make the leap. They could accept Jesus as a miracle worker, but not as the source of their being or the most essential part of their lives.

This sort of faith is no easier for our generation. Faith still does involve a suspension of the rational and a belief in something that ultimately cannot be proven. The faith that Jesus demands is not new to us as it was to Jesus’ first century listeners. We are not caught by surprise as they were. However, that does not mean that it is easy. For ourselves, accepting Jesus as the bread of life entails trusting Jesus with one’s whole life and not just with part of it. It means relying on Jesus (and not on our own strength) when things get tough. It means learning to be grateful for all that we have and knowing that Jesus will give us those things that we really need. It means that Jesus is the one thing in life that we simply cannot do without.

What is the one thing in life that you cannot do without? Is your answer Jesus?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Identity of Jesus, John's Gospel | Comments Off on Bread of life

It’s good to be here!

August 4, 2012

 

Transfiguration 2012

Mark 9:2-9

Marian Free

In the name of God creator of the universe and all that is in it. Amen.

 “It’s good to be here!” That’s how our hymn began this morning: “It’s good Lord, to be here.” I hadn’t thought about it until now, but there are at least two ways in which to use this phrase. “It’s good to be here” may be said in the form of a sigh – we’re here at last, it’s good to put that behind us. “It’s good to be here“ may be an exclamation of pleasure or delight. We say we’re glad to be here because the company is great, the venue is great, the food is great.

The hymn picks up on the phrase that Peter utters into today’s gospel, but it has one significant difference. Peter puts himself into the situation saying: “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.” Instead of being an impersonal statement it becomes a statement which has the speaker embedded in it. That is, it is less about the event and more about the speaker. It is an interesting reaction to what has happened on the mountaintop. Peter, James and John – Jesus’ inner circle – have had the sort of religious experience that few people have. They have seen Jesus transfigured before them, they have seen first hand the heroes of their faith – Moses and Elijah – and they have heard a voice from heaven declaring Jesus to be God’s Son. They were in fact, in the presence of God. Unless we have had a similar experience, it would be hard to imagine what it must have been like. I imagine that it would have been terrifying, exhilarating, awe-inspiring and humbling all at once. It is the sort of event that would leave one speechless – no words could match the situation that the disciples had experienced.

All the same, Peter can’t help himself. He blurts out: “It’s good for us to be here.” Why does he think it is good? Is it because he, James and John have been given a glimpse of heaven. No. Apparently that is not why it is good that he is there. Is it because he, as part of the inner circle, has been privileged to witness the heavenly Jesus and to discover Jesus’ true identity. No – that is not the reason either. Maybe Peter is grateful that he has had such a life-changing experience. But no, that is not the reason why it is good that he is there. In fact, Peter seems not to have any idea of the significance of the situation. He hasn’t really grasped the enormity of the event or how blessed he has been to have been a part of it. In fact there is no indication that he feels that he has benefited in any way from the experience. The reason that it is good for him to be there is that it is good for everyone else that he is there! It is good that he is there because he can do something to enhance the situation. He can build something that would hold the event in time, a monument to what had happened. It is not that he is blessed to have witnessed something so amazing, but that others are blessed by his being there!

Can you believe it? Peter appears to be telling Jesus how lucky he (Jesus) is that he has taken Peter with him! Lucky Jesus! Where would he be without Peter? Peter knows just what to do in this situation – he can build shelters for Jesus, Moses and Elijah! Jesus can leave it all to him!  This fits with our perception of Peter – he is rash, he always puts his foot in his mouth and he never really understands what is going on. Now he thinks that Jesus needs him. He just doesn’t get it. Jesus, the Son of God, has chosen him among all the disciples to be part of the innermost circle, to see him as he really is and to share Jesus’ most private moments. Jesus who can walk on water, heal the sick, calm the storm, cast out demons doesn’t need Peter. Peter needs him. It is Peter who will change and grow as a result of his relationship with Jesus. However, Peter doesn’t see this, Peter thinks that Jesus needs him and so offers his services at this most inappropriate moment.

As I reflected on Peter’s response, I wondered if it might not be a metaphor for ourselves, for the church. I have a suspicion that from time to time at least, we fall into the trap of believing that God needs us, that without us and without our constant effort, God will be lost – the church will fail and the Christian faith will come to an end. This is evidenced in our constant navel gazing about the state of the church, our anxiety about empty pews and about census figures which reveal that fewer people identify as Christians, the programmes we organize to encourage people to come to church and the ways in which we continually tweak our worship in the hope that more people will join us.

All of this not only demonstrates a lack of trust in God and in God’s presence in the world, but also that we believe that the future of the church, the future of faith is dependent on us. Such an attitude suggests that we feel that God needs our help to be known in the world, that a church is necessary for faith in God to spread throughout the world. Of course this is a ludicrous idea! God can and does manage quite well without our help. Without our help, God created the universe. Without our help God called Abraham and formed the people of God. Without our help, God sent Jesus into the world and without our help God continues to make Godself known to a multitude of people and in a wide variety of ways. And still we think that God needs the church and that God needs our help for the church to survive.

When the situation is put like that we can see that there are times when we can be likened to Peter, that there are times when we fail to wonder at the gift that God has given to us or when, faced with an apparent problem we fall into the trap of thinking that God needs us instead of remembering that it is we who need God.

I wonder what it would be like if instead of wanting to build edifices to contain or to commemorate what we have seen and known, if instead of worrying about the institution, we could simply stand back in awe and wonder at the ingenuity and magnificence of God. What would it be like, if we could simply acknowledge and surrender ourselves to the creative power of God and allow God to determine how the future will look?

It is good that we are here. Our experience and knowledge of God draws us together to offer praise and thanksgiving to the one who has given us everything.  It is good to be here to be drawn in wonder and awe into God’s presence. It is good to be here. It would also be good to be content simply to worship God and let God take care of everything else.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel, Transfiguration, Uncategorized | Comments Off on It’s good to be here!

Knowing Jesus – being part of the story

July 28, 2012

Pentecost 9

John 6:1-21

Marian Free

In the name of God who is the end of all our stories. Amen.

 There is a wonderful movie called “When Harry met Sally”. It is about two graduates who share a ride to New York, separate, meet again, separate and finally admit that they want to spend their lives together. I watched the movie again recently and was reminded that one of Harry’s habits was that he liked to read the end of a book first. He couldn’t stand the suspense of waiting until the end to see how everything worked out, so he would read a few pages at the beginning and then turn to the end before going back to where he had left off.

When I first saw the movie I couldn’t believe that any one could spoil a good read by jumping ahead in that way. However, I have to acknowledge that there are times when I’ve been compelled to ask someone whether or not a book ends well because the suspense is too much for me. I don’t want to know the ending exactly, but I do want to prepare myself to know if, for example, the central characters are going to completely damage their relationship or whether they eventually get it together. If I know that it is all going to end well, then I can cope with the stresses along the way! I have to confess that on one occasion it took me several weeks to read the end of a book, not because I was anxious about the ending, but because I had guessed what the ending was going to be and knew that it would spoil the whole book!

For most of us, knowing the end of a story spoils our enjoyment of it. In fact, reviewers now have an expression: “here comes the spoiler”‘ which acts as a warning for us to stop listening, watching or reading because the end of the story is about to be revealed.

John’s Gospel should perhaps come with such a warning. Throughout John’s gospel we are given a glimpse of the community in the present – the risen Jesus, the Jesus known by believers in the present – makes his presence known in the gospel as much, if not more than, the Jesus of history. This is because the author of John, unlike the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke, writes from the perspective of a community which understands the historical Jesus as a result of knowing the risen Christ. Jesus is understood and taught from the perspective of those who know the risen Jesus. That is, the end of the story determines the way in which the story is told. That is not to say that the communities of the other gospels did not know the risen Christ and that they did not read that knowledge back into the story as they told it. It just means that they wrote their gospels from a different perspective. The writers of the Synoptic Gospels knew the end of the story but they wrote, by and large, as if they did not.

The account of feeding of the five thousand occurs in all four gospels. In fact in some gospels there are two accounts of miraculous feedings – the feeding of the five thousand and the feeding of the four thousand. Likewise in all four gospels the account of Jesus’ walking on the water is attached to the feeding of the five thousand.

John’s account has some marked differences from the other three. His detail of where the event occurred is more specific. He tells us that the Passover was near – a symbol that is associated with Jesus’ death. In John two disciples, Philip and Andrew, are mentioned by name. The emphasis in John is on the abundant provision of bread rather than the miracle itself. After the feeding, the disciples choose to go on ahead while Jesus withdraws by himself. There is a strong wind, but the disciples are more frightened of Jesus than they are of the storm.

A number of other factors in John’s re-telling stand out. These are what lead scholars to believe that the story is being interpreted in the light of the present situation – that of a community which knows the risen Christ. For example, in John’s account Jesus is completely in control. He is not trying to escape the crowds and they don’t reach the spot before him. It is Jesus, not the disciples who notices the hunger of the crowds and he doesn’t send the disciples to buy food to feed them.

In John’s gospel, Jesus sees the crowds coming, takes the initiative and asks Philip where they can buy bread. However, he does not expect an answer, because he already knows what he is going to do. The Jesus of John doesn’t waste time. As soon as he sees the crowds coming he wonders about feeding (not teaching) them. After they are fed, the crowds declare Jesus to be the prophet who is to come into the world. All this is in contrast with the other gospel writers who emphasize Jesus’ compassion, have Jesus teach and heal before the crowds are fed, and who stress the fact that the disciple’s misunderstand the meaning of the bread.

John’s concern in re-telling the story is less with the miracle itself and more with the question of the identity of Jesus. Even though they get it wrong, the recognition of Jesus by the crowds is an important part of the story. The crowds identify Jesus not just as a miracle worker, but as the prophet who is to come into the world. Mistakenly, they seek to make him king, but he is not the sort of king that they expect.

At the same time, the multiplication of the loaves provides an opportunity for teaching  – something that is a common feature in John’s gospel.  The Jesus of John doesn’t teach and heal the crowds and then feel obliged to feed them because he has kept them so late. In John the crowds are fed first. The miracle of the feeding provides the illustration and sets the scene for the teaching that is to come. (For the remainder of this very long chapter, Jesus will explain the meaning of the bread, claim to be the bread of life and demand that people identify completely with him by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. In fact, as we will discover the teaching is so difficult that it separates the Jesus’ true followers from those who just want what Jesus can do for them.)

As in Matthew and Mark, John’s account is followed by Jesus’ walking on the water. Again there are a number of differences in John which suggest an interpretation by the post-resurrection church. Two features stand out – Jesus comes to the disciples (as he does after the resurrection) and the key to the story is the recognition of Jesus by the disciples (they don’t mistake him for a ghost). When Jesus walks towards the boat the disciples are terrified, but when they know it is Jesus, they try to get him to come into the boat with him.

Their recognition of Jesus also serves to separate the disciples from the rest of the world. The disciples recognise Jesus for who he is, whereas the crowds see him as they want to see him. The crowds judge Jesus by worldly not other-worldly categories, they can see him only in earthly terms. The disciples know the deeper, spiritual significance of Jesus, and understand that as a result of such knowing they are set apart as the community that follows in his name.

Like the gospel writers, we too know the end of the Jesus’ story. Like the community for whom John’s gospel was written, our lives and our understanding of Jesus are determined as much by the Jesus who is present with us, as they are by our knowledge of the historic Jesus. The story of the historical Jesus is essential for our understanding of our faith, but it is the risen Jesus who informs, teaches, challenges and guides all that we do in the present.

Our present is the end of the story so far, our past is already a part of the story, and our future will determine how the story is told. In fact our future may determine whether or not the story continues to be told.

May we live in such a way that the story known through us is a story which is filled with the transforming power of the risen Christ in our lives.

(I am indebted to L.Th. Witkamp “Some Specific Johannine Features in John 6:1-21.” in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 40 (1990) 43-60. for some of the ideas above.)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Feeding of the five thousand, Identity of Jesus, John's Gospel, Pentecost | Comments Off on Knowing Jesus – being part of the story

Boxed in

July 21, 2012

Mary Magdalene 2012 (Pentecost 8)

John 20:1-18

Marian Free

In the name of God who values us all, created as we are in the image of God. Amen.

On Friday evening Michael and I attended a play at the Cremorne Theatre called: “Head full of Love”. The play chronicles the friendship that develops between two unlikely women – a Northern Territory Aboriginal suffering from renal failure and an anxiety-ridden white woman who has run away from her over-bearing son. As the two women circle around, trying to understand each other, the dialogue between them exposes the sorts of prejudices and false assumptions that many white people make of the original inhabitants of this land and how difficult it can be to overturn those prejudices, even when contrary evidence stares you in the face.

Lilly requires five hours of dialysis five times a week. Nina naturally assumes that her kidney problems are a result of alcohol abuse. She blunders around trying to get Lilly to admit that this is true and initially refuses point blank to accept that Lilly has never drunk alcohol. It takes some time for Lilly to convince Nina that she, like many other indigenous people are simply born with underdeveloped kidneys, often as a result of low birth weight. Nina has absorbed one type of folklore about aboriginals which she unquestioningly applies to Lilly. When that view is challenged she finds it difficult to change her mindset and to see the issue through a different set of lenses.

Nina is not alone. When people do not have a wide variety of experience, or a personal knowledge of those who are different from themselves, they tend to accept the prevailing view as not only valid, but as characteristic of a whole group of people. So there are those who accept the view that all boat people are terrorists, or that all welfare recipients are lazy and don’t want to work, or that all members of Generation Y are unreliable and flighty. . The world is much simpler to understand and manage if we categorise people according to their gender, their age, their profession, their race or by any other characteristic that they might have in common. Once we have grouped people together we begin to see the ways in which they are the same and become blinded to the ways in which those within the group exhibit a huge variety of ability, intention and behaviour.

The human need to classify is as true with regard to individuals as it is to groups of people.

Our opinion of someone is formed on the basis of what we observe to be true and we find it hard to change that opinion even when all the evidence indicates that we were wrong or that the person has changed. No one expects an ugly duckling to become a swan, or the leopard to change its spots.

Mary Magdalene is one such person who has been defined and categorised to the point that many of us assume that we know all there is to know about her. Yet Mary remains an enigma. Over the past two thousand years she has been cast in many roles. She has been identified as sinner, lover, witness to the resurrection and more. Scholars and novelists have made her a person of interest – building on or breaking down the mythology that surrounds her. For example, scholars have made the claim that Mary was married to Jesus and Dan Brown has used her to forward an argument that Jesus produced children and that Jesus’ descendants continue to walk the earth.

Given the degree of interest in her that is shown in art, scholarship and fiction, it is interesting to note that Mary is mentioned rarely in the gospels. Most of the mythology that surrounds her is based on conjecture. Luke mentions Mary as one of the women who supported Jesus in his ministry  (8:1-3, cf Mark 14:40-43) and all four gospels include Mary in the accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection. She is the woman from whom seven demons are cast out (Lk 8:2) and the one who announced the resurrection to the disciples (Jn  20:18).

Even though the gospels contain so few references to Mary, she has been identified with at least two of the unnamed women – the sinful woman who anointed Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great sealed her fate by identifying Mary as the repentant sinner who washed Jesus’ feet. For centuries Mary Magdalene became Mary the reformed prostitute. It was only in the last century that feminists, determined to rescue her from this unwarranted position of subjugation, tried to reclaim her. In so doing they found the Mary of John’s gospel and the Mary of the Gospel of Philip. Mary Magdalene – the apostle to the apostles – had been buried under centuries of complacent presupposition even though she had had a prominent and leading role in the early Christian community.

Pope Gregory made Mary into a fallen woman – the perfect foil the other Mary, the Virgin who remained pure and sinless. These two women became images for womanhood -woman is either fallen or pure. Feminists may have redeemed Magdalene, but their weakness was to imply that Mary had value only when she could be demonstrated to hold a position of authority within the early church. Neither categorisation is satisfactory. The problem with both approaches is that they serve to colonize and to appropriate Mary to serve a particular purpose, rather than allow her to be herself – whatever that may be. If Pope Gregory relegated Mary to the role of repentant sinner, the feminists have inadvertently implied that for a person to be deemed as significant, they must be shown hold a position of authority.  In this way Mary is redeemed at the expense of the millions of Christians throughout the ages who have not aspired to or attained leadership roles with the Christian community.

Whatever scholars uncover about the Mary of history – and that will not be very much, we can be sure that she was a unique individual who brought to the early church a variety of gifts and talents and that her past – whether as sinner or leader – did not continue to define her. We can learn from the treatment of Mary throughout history and even in recent times, that we do a great injustice to people – individuals and groups- when we attempt to define them or when we use a few basic characteristics to classify and to categorise them.

If we believe that all people are created in God’s image and that everyone is precious in God’s sight it is incumbent upon us all to create environments that allow people from all races, genders and backgrounds to reach their full potential. It is important to value all people – especially those who are different from ourselves -, to help them to find and name their own identity – not one we have imposed on them, and to recognize and treasure the gifts that each person brings to the body of Christ.

We are all so many things, family and friend, teacher and student, helper and helped. None of us would like to be known for only one aspect of who we are and none of us would like to think that something from our past continued to define us in the present.

Life might be easier if we put individuals and groups into neat little packages, however, we do no one a service if we do not allow them to continually surprise or astonish us. We will find ourselves the poorer if we box people in and expect them to always behave in a consistent way and we will be guilty of failing to recognize the wonder and diversity of God’s creation if we hold on to our prejudices in the face of information which conflicts with what we think we know.

Centuries after Jesus walked on earth, the true Mary continues to elude us.

May she be a reminder to us that we do not always see all that there is to see and may we accept the challenge to be ready, open and willing to learn about and from those whom today we do not fully understand.

Tags: ,
Posted in John's Gospel, Mary Magdalene | Comments Off on Boxed in

Humanity exposed

July 14, 2012

Pentecost 7

Mark 6:14-end

Marian Free

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

The past few decades have revealed in vivid detail how violent the world is and how precarious, for many, is their hold on life. This week on You Tube a video was posted of a woman being executed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. On Wednesday a young man cried before the International Court as he told the story of the last time he saw his Bosnian father. Throughout the world people flee from violence to an uncertain future. In refugee camps around the world, women are routinely raped and not only by those whom they might consider their enemies. Women and children are trafficked as sex slaves even in Australia. In Syria today, Libya yesterday, autocratic rulers and their followers who are trying to hold on to power violently suppress any opposition to their rule.

Modern methods of communication mean that we receive news (especially bad news) almost immediately. Remember the video of the young protester shot in Egypt. Another person who was present took a film on their mobile phone and within minutes the world knew what had happened.

My point is this, a person would be hard pressed not to know that there are many really shocking things taking place every day and that innocent people -simply because of the countries into which they are born – are experiencing what to us is unimaginable violence and cruelty often on a daily basis.

It is not as if the world has changed, but our knowledge of the world has expanded to the point where it is impossible to ignore what goes on around us.

This is the context in which we read the account of the death of John the Baptist. Palestine of the first century was no more unstable or violent than many countries are today. Rulers like Herod, whose hold on power was to some extent dependent on the whim of Rome, were under some pressure to maintain order. Not only that, but there would be other opportunists like himself ready to take his place if the situation arose. For that reason, opposition had to be quickly dispensed. So, if someone like John was perceived as disturbing the peace then he (like say, Aung San Suu Kyi) would need to be neutralized by placing him under arrest. The execution of John  (or Aung San) would have been a more permanent solution, the death of John of Aung San might have incited their followers to cause unrest so arrest was the safer option.

Herod’s hold on power might have been precarious, but spare a thought for his wife, who like many women throughout history found herself in a situation that was extremely precarious and which – especially as her power and influence had been ill-gained – could only be maintained by devious or violent measures. If you read the second book of Chronicles you will hear the story Athaliah, Ahaziah’s mother, who set out to slaughter all the Royal household of Judah in order to gain the throne and to assure herself of some sort of security. You don’t need to go that far back to be reminded that women often had no say in their future, but were wedded off to whomever might provide greater stability for their fathers. Some of these women achieved security for themselves and for their children by means that we would consider immoral, conniving or brutal.

The position of Herod’s wife was not at all secure, and her daughter’s less so. Having abandoned her husband for Herod, – possibly lured by his greater power and wealth – she would be aware that relationships were tenuous and that there was no guarantee that she would remain in Herod’s favour. Further, having achieved Herod’s favour in a way that some considered immoral, it is understandable that she might have been all the more determined to ensure that she gained the respect of those around her. Her daughter, who is not the daughter of Herod, is equally vulnerable. No wonder then that the mother is anxious to rid herself of a man who is troubling her husband’s conscience and threatening her position. No wonder that her daughter seeks her advice and is willing to act on it.

I always find it extraordinary that the Gospels have such an extended account of such a gruesome story. Some other events are mentioned only in passing, but here we have the details of the dinner, the dance, the promise, the request and its completion. The same is true of other grusomes stories in the Bible. I think for example of the Levite’s concubine whom, we are told was cut into twelve pieces, or of the rape of Tamar, or the destruction of the tribe of Bethlehem. (Those OT stories are only the internal stories, not ones about Israel’s enemies!)  They are hardly edifying, not the sort of story that would enhance one’s faith or deepen one’s spirituality. However, they are important stories, not least because they reveal the ugliness of human nature and the depths to which some people will sink.

If nothing else, these accounts make us aware of the complexity of the human heart and help us to think about the nature of our own thoughts, our own petty jealousies, our own need to protect the roles that make us feel worthwhile and important or our desire to hurt or destroy those things or people who threaten us or who threaten our comfortable existence.

We live in a world which is becoming increasingly polarized. Religious conflict between those who hold the same faith and those of different faiths is increasing in some parts of the world. In other parts of the world there is suspicion that different faith groups are planning to “take over”.  Even before the GFC there was an increasing gap between the very rich and the very poor. Now we are starting to see a gap between those who are employed and those who are not. In such an environment, the baser side of human nature tends to be exposed as people compete for resources and power and those with resources do whatever it takes to protect them.

The ugly stories of our scriptures remind us that, while we might not like to admit it, we share with the rest of humanity a potential for evil as well as for good. Our scriptures don’t gloss over the difficult and uncomfortable, but expose both the best and the worst of human nature. This helps us to be honest and realistic with ourselves, to know of what we are capable, to recognise and confront the ugly parts of ourselves, and to identify and strengthen all that is good. It is important always to have an unblinkered view of ourselves for only then will we have the will to open about our frailty, willing to grow and change and cautious about judging the world.

Tags:
Posted in Humanity, Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Humanity exposed

How will they hear?

July 7, 2012

Pentecost 6

Mark 6:1-13

Marian Free

In the name of God whose word informs and enlightens our faith. Amen.

 

In his charge to Synod, the Archbishop spoke with passion about the Bible – the contradictions contained within it and the importance of studying it. (anglicanbrisbane.org.au) The reason that he spoke so strongly is that the Natural Church Development tool that is being used by many of the Parishes in the Diocese has revealed that one of the weaknesses in our Parish life is passionate spirituality – our reading and understanding of the Bible. We all know what we believe and some of us are able to articulate it to others, but when it comes to explaining the central texts of our faith we are on less certain ground.

There are at least two barriers to becoming more familiar with the Bible. One is that academic study of the Bible can be quite challenging, if not confronting. For many, it is a discipline that is demanding and difficult. A second barrier is that of time – in particular the lack of it. In past centuries, the services of Morning and Evening Prayer were designed to provide an opportunity for the Bible to be explained and expounded. Longer passages of the Bible were read during these services and it was expected that the sermon would be up to half an hour in length. In a less pressured world, in which there were fewer forms of entertainment, there was more leisure to spend time in church. Many people attended both Morning and Evening Prayer or Communion and Evening Prayer which provided a larger diet of Bible reading than is possible in the Eucharist alone. Longer readings and longer sermons on Sunday mornings might solve the problem, but would destroy the balance of Word and Sacrament which is central to the Eucharist and perhaps lead to fewer people attending church.

Not only do we have less time to spend expounding the Bible, it is also true that not all members of the clergy have had the confidence or courage to share the latest scholarship with their congregations. What this means is that few lay people have been given the opportunity to keep up with the research of the last 100 years and many are shocked and surprised when informed that scholars have made discoveries that change the way in which familiar stories have been previously taught and understood.

As you know, the Bible study group in this Parish has been studying the gospel of Luke using a commentary written by Brendan Byrne. Over the course of the study, I have become acutely aware of how complex much of Jesus’ teaching is and how difficult it is to understand unless one has the tools with which to interpret it. I think for example of the story of the dishonest steward who is praised by Jesus for acting in a way which will secure his future. At first glance it appears that Jesus is saying that God approves of dishonesty! Then there is the story of the widow who wears down the unjust judge through her persistence. Does this mean that God is like the unjust judge and will not act unless we wear him down with a constant repetition of our requests?

There is a lot more to the New Testament than the wonderful stories and adventures that we learn at Sunday School. Our understanding of our faith is enhanced and our appreciation of our texts is enriched if we take some time to grapple with and to try to understand what the more difficult passages really mean. For example, the story of the dishonest steward is, of course, not a story about God’s approving dishonesty but rather it is Jesus’ challenge to all of us that we make sure that we live our lives in such a way that we will be welcomed into heaven – that, like the dishonest steward, we make provision for our future salvation. The story of the widow and the judge is not about our wearing God down through endless prayer. Rather a reminder that God is not like the unjust judge and will hear our prayer. This means we should not allow ourselves to feel disheartened when times are difficult, but that we should remain confident that God will hear us. In both stories, Jesus is using unsavoury characters to shock us into paying attention to what he is saying.

During my week away I was able to read a book written by a friend of ours – Paula Gooder . In it she explores a wide variety of methods that are used by scholars to study the New Testament. What makes this book easy to read is that it is aimed at those who are new to biblical studies. Not only is each explanation brief but each is followed by an example of how the particular technique is used to interpret a passage of the bible. This means is that the reader not only learns all kinds of interesting things about the New Testament, but is also able to apply what they have learnt.

Today’s gospel consists of two discrete stories both of which contain puzzles for the modern reader. In the first section, Jesus is welcomed by the people of his hometown, but shortly afterwards they are scandalized by him. Why their change in attitude? Secondly, Jesus is identified as the son of Mary. This is quite unusual in first century Palestine – a person would usually be identified by their father’s name. The first puzzle is solved if we understand that the people attribute Jesus’ ability to work miracles not to God, but to some other – possibly demonic-force and so they treat him with suspicion. The second puzzle – that of his name may be a derogatory inference to the fact that his father is unknown. Put together these two explanations help us to make sense of why Jesus was rejected by his hometown.

The second story in today’s gospel relates the sending out of the twelve disciples. In itself, the account is reasonably straightforward unless we are familiar with the ways in which Matthew and Luke record the same account. Not only is Mark’s account briefer, but Matthew and Luke change at least three significant details. Whereas Mark’s Jesus sends the disciples two by two, Matthew and Luke send them out all together, Mark says the disciples may take a staff, Matthew and Luke expressly forbid the taking of a staff and finally, Matthew and Luke enlarge the disciple’s task by adding the healing of the sick to Jesus’ command to cast out unclean spirits. Among other things, these differences have led scholars to believe that Mark was written first and that Luke and Matthew used Mark to write their accounts but added to it details that were known to them.

Our scriptures provide us with an exciting and fascinating glimpse into the life and teaching of our Saviour, they give us insights as to how we should live as followers of Christ and they open doors into the way that Jesus was seen and understood by his contemporaries and those who followed after. Passages that at first seem difficult to understand are often easily explained and others that seem harsh and uncompromising are sometimes a means to shock us into action.How will we know what they mean if we don’t make time to read and understand them? We live in a world that is increasingly divorced from the church and from the teachings of Jesus.

If we don’t know and tell our story who will?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Biblical interpretation, Luke's gospel, Mark's gospel, Paula Gooder | Comments Off on How will they hear?

June 24, 2012

Pentecost 4

Mark 4:35-41

http://bible.oremus.org/ 

A Reflection

Marian Free

In the name of God who is present with us in all life’s circumstances. Amen.

 A soldier was captured by his enemies and tossed into a prison cell. He knew that in the morning he would be tortured, even killed. As he tossed and turned, he remembered the words: “Do not be anxious for the morrow.” With those words ringing in his ears he fell into a deep and peaceful sleep.

In today’s gospel, the disciples are in a boat with Jesus. As is common on the Lake of Galilee, a violent storm suddenly arises, tossing the boat on the waves, filling it with water and terrifying the disciples. Despite the fact that Jesus was in the boat with the disciples, they were unable to relax and to trust that everything would be OK. They cried out in anguish and accused Jesus of not caring about what might happen to them.

Jesus’ response to the storm is quite different. Even though the boat was being hurled around on the waves, and the storm raged about him Jesus was able to sleep unperturbed (that is, until he was woken!). Throughout his life and especially towards its end, Jesus demonstrated a trust in God that was unshakeable – even in the most awful of circumstances. In the face of extreme temptation in the desert, Jesus’ trust in God was steadfast. In the face of severe criticism from the leaders of the establishment, Jesus held firm. Confronted with the most terrible form of torture and death, Jesus never wavered in his resolve. Throughout it all, Jesus remained confident that God was with him and that God would never abandon him.

In comparison, the disciples seem to have learned nothing from their time with Jesus. As Jesus rests, oblivious to the storm and to the concerns of his friends, they fret and worry about their future, crying out in fear and terrified that they would perish.

How like the disciples many of us are. Despite our claims of faith our comfortable recitation of scripture like the 23rd Psalm, many of us waste time and energy worrying about things which may or may not happen. Too many of us are so focussed on the future that we fail to enjoy the present. Instead of placing our trust solely in God, we toss and turn in the face of life’s difficulties. We rely on our own abilities instead of having confidence that God will see us through.

For a few minutes, think of life as a boat in which God is holding you safely. When the storms rage around you, do you like Jesus place all your trust in God? Are you able to place your life completely in God’s hands? Are there anxieties and worries that you can lay to rest today?

You might like to spend some time reflecting on the sentences of scripture below. I find the two prayers useful for when I wake in the morning and before I go to sleep. (At least at those two points in the day) I make myself aware that I have chosen to place my life in God’s hands.

Scripture and prayers to remind you to trust in God

A prayer of St Francis:

Lord help me to live this day quietly, easily,

to lean on your great strength trustfully, restfully,

to wait for the unfolding of your will patiently, serenely,

to greet others peacefully, joyfully

to face tomorrow confidently, courageously.

Psalm 4:8

I will both lie down and sleep in peace;

for you alone, O Lord, make me lie down in safety.

Psalm 23

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.

He makes me to lie down in green pastures;

Psalm 91

God will cover you with his pinions,

and under his wings you will find refuge;

Psalm 121

The Lord will keep your going out and your coming in

from this time on and forevermore.

Psalm 131

I have  calmed and quieted my soul,

like a weaned child with its mother,

Isaiah 49:16

I will not forget you

See I have inscribed you on the palms of my hands.

Jeremiah 28:11

For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD,

plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.

Matthew 6:34

Do not worry about tomorrow,

for tomorrow will have enough worries of its own.

From the New Zealand Prayer Book (Compline            It is night after along day.

What has been done is done;

what has not been done has not been done.

let it be.

Thank God for God’s presence with you in all the circumstances of your life.

Let us pray:

In this storm tossed life

   give us the courage to face the obstacles that lie before us

      the confidence to trust in your love for us

          and the faith to know that you will never abandon us. Amen.

Posted in Mark's gospel, Pentecost, Prayer, Trust | Comments Off on

Flawed but chosen

June 16, 2012

Pentecost 3 – 2012

Mark 4:26-34 (1 Samuel 15:34-16:3) http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=

Marian Free

 In the name of God who chooses very ordinary people to do extraordinary things. Amen.

During the week I was talking to the moderator of the Uniting Church about today’s gospel. To her, it spoke about vocation. She equated the secret growth of the seed with the seed that God plants in our hearts and which quietly grows until it comes to maturity and we recognize what it is that God is asking us to do with our lives. You may recognize that seed in your life as the quiet tug of conscience, a sense of disquiet about the way your life is going, the conviction that you must change your career, get a new job, take on a role in the Parish or community and so on. Sometimes, this sense of call (or purpose) comes as a blinding flash of insight, but even then God will have laid the groundwork. The seed will have been sown some time before. The sudden experience of God may come as a shock, but when we look back over our lives we will probably be able to identify the ways in which God has been trying to get our attention.

The series of meditations to mark the twentieth anniversary of the ordination of women as priests (http://20thanniversarywomenpriests.wordpress.com/) in this country reminded me of my own sense of call and also gave me an opportunity to learn about the journeys of other women – ordained and lay. Many of the participants expressed a belief that God had been quietly working in their lives for some time, so that when they came to accept their vocation they could look back on their lives and see how God had been leading or prompting them until they finally acknowledged their call or responded to a more dramatic event which they could not ignore.

Today’s reading from the book of Samuel tells the story of God’s choice of David as King. As we heard last week, the people of Israel had demanded a king to rule over them so that they could be more like the neighbouring countries. The first king – Saul – was not only mad, but he also rejected God and failed to trust God so that God was determined to take the throne from him and from his heirs. Unlike the situation in Europe where royal families are often related to each other, there was no obvious family from whom to choose a replacement future king, so God sends Samuel off to find the man of God’s choice – a son of Jesse. Jesse has eight sons, all of them appearing to Samuel to have the bearing and character of a king. However, one after another they are rejected by God. The seven elder brothers pass by Samuel but not one is chosen. The youngest son is not even present. No one imagines that he is of any importance. However, despite his youth and his inexperience, David is the one whom God has chosen to be king over Israel.

Samuel had thought that of the eight sons, Eliab was the obvious choice for king, and if not him, then Abinadab or Shammah, or any one of the older sons but, despite what Samuel sees, none of them are acceptable – for God sees what we do not see. God does not judge by outward appearance, but by the heart.

Over and over again, in both the Old Testament and in the New we can see that God’s choice is not determined or limited by human standards. God chooses the younger, slyer Jacob over his brother Esau, Jacob’s second youngest son, Joseph, is the one out of the twelve brothers who is set for greatness. Moses, who by his own admission is no orator, a selected to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt. Ruth – the Moabite – is chosen to be the forebear of Jesus and so it goes. God chooses the most unlikely people to do

God’s work in the world.

God does not choose the good, the brave, the rich or the powerful – just the opposite. Very often God chooses the unscrupulous (Jacob), the cowardly (Jonah), the proud (Joseph), the vulnerable (David), the sinful (Moses), the outsider (Ruth) and the sulky (Elijah). Our Old Testament heroes are deceivers, murderers and adulterers – hardly the sort of people whom you would expect to have held up as exemplars of the faith and certainly not the sort of people whom we would want to set up as role models.

In the New Testament, the disciples are slightly more conventional – that is, so far as we know they do not include people as flawed as Jacob and David. We don’t think that they were murderers or adulterers. However, they are not exactly hero material either. They compete with one another to be Jesus’ favourite, they try to talk Jesus out of his mission when it gets dangerous, they push people (including children) away from Jesus and they fail to trust in him and in his sense of purpose. Peter denies him and when Jesus is arrested and crucified, the disciples are nowhere to be found. Paul, the imposing figure of the early church, is the last person you would expect to be chosen by God. He was so convinced that Jesus was a fraud that he actively persecuted those who believed and yet, without his passion and enthusiasm it is possible that the church as we know it simply would not have come to be.

All these frail and very human figures were chosen by God to do God’s work. These most unlikely heroes formed the people of Israel and ensured that the memory of Jesus lived on in the generations that were to come. These broken and very human characters were chosen because God knew what was in their hearts and of what stuff they were really made. God knew that despite their very obvious flaws, these would be the people who would be able to carry and spread the faith and, that in many cases, it would be their very frailty that would enable them to depend on God and to allow God to work through them to achieve God’s purpose for them and for the world.

God’s choice is the most extraordinary thing and not something that we can easily comprehend because God is not bound by human expectations or confined by human conventions. God chooses those who can carry out God’s purpose and God chooses them regardless of their strength, their influence, their appearance, their stature or their state of perfection.

So it is with us. We are not necessarily set apart by our piety or our goodness, but by our frailty and brokenness and our belief that despite all our imperfections, God has chosen us, God loves us and perhaps most amazing of all, God can use us to achieve God’s purpose in the world.

Posted in 1 Samuel, King David, Mark's gospel, Uncategorized, Vocation | Comments Off on Flawed but chosen

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »