Swallowsrest

Sermon – Advent 1 2011

Mark 13:24-37

Marian Free

 In the name of God who forms and re-forms us. Amen.

A chair

An egg

Uncut cloth

This chair needs repainting. I could just buy some new paint and apply it over the existing paint. However, if I were to do that, the original paint  would continue to peel and flake and the new paint job would not look good for very long. I would achieve a much better result if I carefully sanded the chair back to the original before I began to paint it afresh.

This is a piece of fabric which I can turn into something to wear, but it is really no use to me unless I cut it into appropriate shapes and sew it together to make a dress or some other garment. The final product will have been considerably cut and put together and will only look like the original in colour and texture.

This egg was laid this morning. It is perfect. The shell is hard and perfectly formed. However, as it is, it is no use at all, it will eventually rot and smell, so I will at some point have to break it and eat it. Even if I hard-boil the egg, it will have to be broken in order to be of any use.

So often it seems, destruction precedes building. Chaos and order are opposites yes, but very often it appears they are simply different sides of the same coin, one precedes and is necessary for the other to occur. Rotten timber has to be removed before the new can be installed. The ground has to be broken up before seeds can be planted and produce. Forests have to be burned before the banksia seed can be freed from its cone. Rivers have to flood so that the rich silt can enrich the land.

Images such as these abound in the Old Testament – grapes have to be pruned if they are going to yield a good crop, clay that doesn’t form into the correct shape has to be pummelled down into a lump so that it can be re-thrown and re-shaped and silver and gold have to be refined in fire to rid them of impurities.

That said, the promised violence and devastation of today’s gospel – both human and cosmic  – can still cause us some disquiet. Mark 13 describes a cataclysmic end of the world which will affect humanity, the world and even the cosmos. Brother will betray brother, nations will make war on nations. The earth will experience famines and earthquakes and, more startling, the sky will be darkened, the stars will fall from the sky and even the heavens will be shaken. Everything that we know and don’t know (in heaven as well as on earth) will be devastated if not destroyed. This is not an event to be eagerly anticipated as Paul would have us believe, but an event to be awaited with fear and dread.

It has always fascinated me that the lectionary writers should choose to begin Advent in this way, that the beginning of our church year is filled with such a sense of foreboding. Just when we feel that we are about to focus on the wonderful events surrounding the birth of Jesus, we are hit over the head with the threat of Jesus’ second coming and reminded that the end will be dramatic and violent, sudden and unexpected. We are terrified by warnings to keep alert and to stay awake so that we won’t be caught unawares when he comes. Jesus’ coming as an infant and his return at the end of time are thus confused or at least brought together. It seems that before we even begin we have come to the end.

There is, however, some sense in approaching the Incarnation in this way. Just as my old paint must be dealt with before I can apply the new and just as my cloth must be cut before it can be useful, so God’s new creation cannot come into being unless the old has been properly dealt with and even removed. God cannot make something new, without some pain or without breaking the old. There needs to be a clean sweep before the kingdom can come in. God’s kingdom cannot simply be plastered over the world as it is. The old, damaged creation would eventually break through the new and everything would return to waht it was before. In order to perfect creation, the old and the flawed has to go – at least figuratively speaking.

God is so distinct from anything earthly, that it is in fact impossible to imagine God entering history without creating a massive disruption to the whole of the natural world. The world, even the cosmos, is not sufficient to contain God, therefore it is not surprising to learn that God’s coming will involve some tearing and breaking and burning, even as the coming of God heralds renewal, restoration and re-creation.

All of which makes the birth of Jesus so surprising. Jesus is born without any fanfare. He slips into the world unheralded and largely unnoticed – only the magi notice a new star in the sky. For thirty years Jesus will live inconspicuously among us, before he makes his presence known and even then his public ministry will be carried out in the obscurity of Galillee before his dramatic and fatal trip to Jerusalem. Even so, the same pattern is evident – destruction before re-creation, death before resurrction.

Before the new can come the old must go. In order for something beautiful to be wrought out of something plain, it must be cut and re-shaped. This in part is the journey of faith, allowing ourselves to be formed and re-formed such that we will indeed be part of the new creation and therefore will have nothing to fear and everything to anticipate when Jesus comes again to gather us to himself.

Christ the King 2011

Matthew 25:31- 46

Marian Free

In the name of Jesus who will come in glory to judge all the nations of the world. Amen.

There is a story about a monastery in which all the brothers were unhappy. They were constantly criticising each other, competing with each other, complaining about life in the monastery, resenting the achievements of others and so on. It was a very unpleasant atmosphere filled with bitterness and strife. Needless to say, there were very few new vocations. Who would want to join such a community? and who would want to live in such a toxic atmosphere? Things were so bad, that it looked as though the community would have to disbanded.

One day, a visitor came to the monastery and, despite the argumentative nature of the monks, he stayed for a few days. When he left, the visitor told the monks that God had revealed to him that when Jesus returned to earth, he would come to that particular place.

Well, what a change came over that community. Now nothing was too much trouble, no one complained, each monk was the anxious to be the first to offer to help and everyone treated each other with great respect and love. All the jealousy and small-mindedness of the monks disappeared. Instead of closing, the monastery flourished as the community’s reputation for love and joy spread far and wide.

The community realised that if Jesus was going to come to this community when he returned, what was to say that he was not already there? If he was already there, then each of the monks had to treat the others as if they were Jesus himself – that is with love, kindness, compassion and generosity.

***

Matthew’s gospel is a gospel of judgement. The teaching of Jesus that was aimed at the Jewish community Matthew turns towards those who believe in Jesus. Today’s gospel is part of a sub-section devoted particularly to the subject of the final judgement.  In it Matthew warns the community to be constantly alert because the Son of Man will come without warning. He describes the events that will accompany the end. They will be violent and dramatic – nature itself will be in turmoil. The temple will be destroyed. There will be famine, wars and earthquakes. The sun and moon will be dimmed and stars will fall from the sky.

Matthew continues his theme with the parables of the ten bridesmaids and of the talenta – parables that are directed specifically at the church. Being a member of the church is not enough to be assured of a good outcome at the judgement. The bridesmaids who were not ready were locked out of the party. Being in receipt of the gifts of God is not sufficient if one does not put them to good use.

In today’s gospel, Matthew moves from the specific to the universal, from the believing community to the judgement of the nations, from parable to description. The story of the final judgement, of the separation of the sheep from the goats is full of surprises, as it was no doubt intended to be. One can imagine Matthew’s community breathing a sigh of relief when the story begins – the focus has moved off them and onto the world. Surely the unbelieving will have a harder time at the judgment than they will. However they are in for a shock. They are not off the hook, in fact far from it. This scene Matthew describes is designed to force the community to think again about what it means to believe and what the judgement will entail for themselves as well as for others.

There a two major causes for astonishment. in the story First of all, it appears that the criterion for judgement is not faith, but the behaviour that results from faith. Secondly, it is made clear that believers are not privileged over non-believers. Everyone is judged according to the same criteria. Feeding the hungry, providing the thirsty with something to drink, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick and visiting those in prison are the behaviours that will lead to a good outcome at the judgement – not membership of the Christian faith. This fact cannot be ignored – Matthew repeats these criteria no less than four times in the story – twice by the judge and once each by the righteous and the unrighteous.

In view of this story, it is impossible to have an exclusive view of Christianity. According to this account, all nations (and presumably all faiths) are judged by the same criteria. The qualities that this judge is looking for are the same for everyone – for those who believe in Jesus and those who do not. Love, generosity and compassion are the qualifications for a good outcome at the time of judgement, not belief and certainly not pious self-righteousness.

Matthew is writing to a community whose initial enthusiasm for the gospel has waned. Their faith has become lukewarm. They are beginning to take their salvation for granted. They are no longer living as if Jesus might return at any time and they appear not to be making use of the gifts that God has given them. Within the community – as the rest of the gospel makes clear – there are those who were grasping for power and those who hated other members of the church. Matthew is warning his community that that they are not in a position to judge the other members of the church – God is the judge, God alone can determine the goodness of a person. In taking them to task he is also making it clear that a person’s relationship with God cannot be separated from their relationship with people – love of God and love of neighbour go hand in hand.

Today, the last Sunday of the church year, climaxes with this account of Jesus’ return and the coming judgement. We do not know exactly what form that judgement will take, but we do believe that at some point we will all stand before the throne of God and answer for what we have done and not done. If that time were today, what would you regret? what would you wish you had done?

As we come to the end of another year and prepare to begin a new one, we have the opportunity to look forward and to look back, to review and lay to rest what has been and to set goals for the future.

When the end comes, what would you like your life to look like and what do you need to do in the present to make that happen?

Pentecost 22

Matthew 24:14-31

Marian Free

(Last week I was on holiday – apologies to those who looked and found nothing new. MF)

In the name of God whose abundant love is more than we can measure or imagine.
Amen.

The recent visit of Kim Kardashian intrigued me. Until her visit to Australia I was only vaguely aware of this reality star who had had a very extravagant and public wedding, so the fact that her visit made it to the front page of the newspaper fascinated me. It represents a growing trend. In the past few years it has become possible to become famous (and rich) just by gaining enough attention to oneself. Kim has become her own brand and now earns in the vicinity of $72 million a year because she is so
good at selling herself. Of course she works very hard at what she does and her
success is only possible because people do take notice of her and of what she
does.

In many areas of life today self-promotion works as well, if not better, than
sheer talent. We live in a world that encourages us to believe that we can
achieve anything we set our minds to (regardless of our background or ability).
So pervasive has this attitude that something like 30 percent of American
teenagers told a recent survey that their life goal was to be famous. While
having goals and striving to achieve them is commendable the sad truth is that
there is not enough room for all of us to be at the top. For one person to earn
huge amounts of money a great many have to earn less. for a person to receive
massive media attention, there have to be hundred of people willing to purchase
or watch the media. Not everyone’s circumstance is such that their hard work
will earn them the recognition that they deserve or seek. We can’t all be rich
and/or famous.

Today’s parable seems to suggest that we have an obligation to strive to get the most
value out of the gifts we have been given – to be like the Kim Kardashians of
this world. In fact the parable HAS been used in the past to defend ruthless
profiteering – often at the expense of others – on the basis that the slaves
who doubled their talents were commended and the one who buried his was not
only censured, but punished. In more recent times, interpretations have
confused the monetary value (a greek “talent”) with our English word
“talent” which means gift or ability. Congregations have been urged
to make the best use of their gifts and abilities and the enormity of the trust
overlooked.

There is not time or space to go into all the intricate details and levels of meaning
or to elaborate on the history of the parable’s development. Suffice to say
that like many of our Gospel readings, this too has undergone some development
and interpretation at the hands of Matthew and to note that there are at least
three extant versions – that of Matthew, that of Luke and that of the later
document the Gospel of the Nazarenes. Behind all of these lies Jesus’ original
parable. Similar stories can be found in Jewish literature, and there is at
least one fairy tale that strongly resembles the parable. All imply – on one
level – that growth on a loan or gift is expected.

In Matthew’s account three slaves are given – according to their ability –
portions of their master’s property – ten talents, five talents and one talent.
Even in our terms, these are large sums of money. A talent was the largest
denomination of the Roman coinage. Its physical weight was significant and it
was worth something like 15 year’s wages. That means that even the slave who
was given one talent was entrusted with a very large sum of money.

All the attention in this story is focused on the third slave. Our interest is piqued
when he behaves differently from his fellow slaves. they trade with their money
whereas he buries his. When the master returns, we are alert and waiting – what
will be the master’s response to the third slave? At first this man has our
sympathy – his actions were a reaction to the greed and cruelty of his master.
However, if we have paid attention, we notice too that the slave is defiant and
sullen as well as afraid. Is it possible that his actions were designed to
ensure that the master did not profit, but only got back what he had given?

There is reason to believe that Matthew is writing to a community that has become
lax and complacent. They no longer share the enthusiasm of the first converts
and neither are they living in such a way that they draw others into the
community of faith. Matthew arranges and edits his material in such a way as to
challenge and re-enthuse the community of faith for whom he writes. Jesus
called the nation of Israel to repentance. Matthew records Jesus’ teaching on judgement, but he applies it to the church. In Matthew’s view it is the church that needs to look to itself, to understand the magnitude of the gift that they have on
trust and to put it to good use. The third slave represents all those believers
who have taken the gift for granted or worse have failed to recognise its value
and to build on it.

Read in this light the parable becomes a modern parable for the church. Until the
last fifty years or so we have taken for granted our place in the world. We
have blithely believed that that place was assured and so have done little to
encourage others to join us or to spread the gospel to those for whom it has
become stale or to those who have never heard it. We have accepted the talent
with which God endowed us and have expected life to continue much the same –
that is that we would live in a world that was nominally Christian and that
people would continue to attend church on a more or less regular basis. The
consequence of our complacency and our timidity has been the decline in
congregation numbers and the increasing marginalisation not only of our
practice but of our faith.

In Matthew’s version of the parable the inaction of the third slave results in the
confiscation of the one talent and his being cast out of God’s presence. The
one talent is given to the slave who know has twenty one.

God’s gifts to us are beyond measure, God’s love for us is beyond our imagination. If
we grasp their significance our lives will shine with God’s presence, our love
and enthusiasm will spill over such that they affect the lives of others. Even
one talent will be more than enough. We can’t afford to prevaricate now is the
time to embrace all that God has entrusted to us and to play our role in the
expansion of the kingdom.

Pentecost 20

Matthew 23.1-12, 37-39

Marian Free

 In the name of  Jesus who came among us as one who serves and who calls us to be an example of humility and love to those around us. Amen.

Two very different leaders have been in the news lately and for very different reasons. The recent visit of the Queen was greeted with much excitement in this nation. People waited for hours in the hope of catching a glimpse her and the media was consumed with accounts of what she wore, to whom she spoke and what she ate. One person who waited in the crowds saw only the Queen’s hat and yet was satisfied that the wait had been worth it and that the view of the hat was reward enough.

Despite the efforts of the Republican movement the Royal family is still much loved in this country and elsewhere. This has not always been the case. In past centuries the Royal family, like Royalty elsewhere was remote and inward looking, more interested in furthering their own interests than that of the people whom they governed. Over time the power of the monarchy has been reduced, but the affection in which they are held has grown.

How very different this is from the scenes we have witnessed recently in the Arab world and in Libya in particular. Authoritarian leaders who have inspired only fear and loathing, have faced angry crowds calling for their demise. In Libya, a family which once had wealth and power were forced to flea and the nation’s former leader was dragged from a drain in which he sought refuge from the mob.

The reaction to these very different leaders tells us something about the nature of their leadership. While she has little formal power, the Queen is gracious and compassionate, demonstrating an interest in those for whom she has titular responsibility. At the time of the floods in Brisbane and the earthquake in Christchurch, the Queen sent messages of condolence and Prince William paid a visit to demonstrate the concern felt by the Royal family for those in this far flung part of the Commonwealth. In contrast, it appears that Gaddafi had little interest in or regard for the people he governed. From what we can gather, he enriched himself and his family at the expense of the Libyan people, he was removed from the concerns of the people, he limited their freedom and ruthlessly quelled any opposition.

Gaddafi was not alone in the way he exercised his power. In many parts of the world there are leaders who, sometimes despite good beginnings, get caught up in their own self-importance and self-aggrandisement and become increasingly divorced from the people whom they are called to serve.

Of course, democracy does not prevent arrogance and self-centredness in those who lead, but there are checks and balances to ensure that leaders exercise their leadership responsibly, that they don’t take advantage of their position to enrich themselves and that they don’t use violence to quell opposition. If the checks and balances fail, the people can hope for an election at which those who are found wanting can be removed from office without civil war or assassination.

Power and authority can be very seductive. It is human nature for someone to want public recognition and to want to be in a position in which to be able to make decisions about the things that affect their life. The problem is that the desire for recognition can turn into the desire for adulation, and decisions which are made to benefit one person or group of people very often disadvantage another.

In today’s readings we have a number of different examples of leadership. In the Gospel, Jesus attacks the Pharisees who use their leadership status to gain benefits and recognition for themselves and who in the process of seeking ease for themselves have placed burdens on the shoulders of others. In contrast, Paul’s concern for the Thessalonians outweighs his concern for himself.  He cannot rest until he knows how they are and how they are bearing up under persecution. He is so worried that he sends Timothy to encourage them and so relieved when he hears that they are holding fast. Even when Paul was with the community in Thessalonica he put their needs before his own, saying that he wants to share with them not only the gospel but also his very self.

Yet another example of leadership is found in the reading from Joshua. Joshua takes over where Moses leaves off. It is his task to lead the people of Israel across the river Jordan and into the promised land. In order to do that, he and the priests stand in the breach, holding back the water and putting themselves at risk for the sake of the people and seeing them safely across.

The leadership that Jesus models and that Joshua and Paul exhibit is that of service, of putting the other first, of standing between them and danger, and ultimately of risking their lives for those whom they serve. This sort of leadership does not seek public recognition or reward but finds satisfaction in promoting the happiness and security of others.  A leader who follows Christ does not seek to promote his or her own interests, but aims to encourage and build up those around them.

Whether we have responsibility for large numbers of people or only a few, whether we exercise influence on a wide scale or only within the scope of our families and friends, whether we have power over many or only over one, we are called first and foremost to serve, to exercise leadership by putting ourselves and our own needs second and the needs of others first. Only in this way will we break down the barriers which divide, contribute to harmony and peace in the world and demonstrate God’s love for all people.

Pentecost 19
Matthew 22: 34-46
Marian Free

In the name of God, who asks that we have integrity in ourselves and that we do not compromise our faith in order to conform to the world around us. Amen.

During the past year we have witnessed just how bloody and brutal dictators can be, and how ruthlessly they act to crush any opposition to their rule. We have the violent repression of protests throughout the Arab world as non-elected and non-democratic leaders have tried to cling to power in the face of increasing dissatisfaction with their authority. We have seen too the lengths that repressed peoples will go to in order to bring about change in their nations. In Libya alone it has been estimated that up to 25,000 people have been killed in the course of the uprising. For those on both sides of the political divide, the struggle has been costly and deadly.

Those who have the courage to take on authoritarian governments and those who follow their lead do so knowing that their lives are at risk. Throughout the Arab world this year, there have been attempts to oust despots and military rulers. Thousands have lost their lives in the process, economies have been compromised, basic services have been severely disrupted and homes and livelihoods have been destroyed. Even in the case of victory the protestors will have to completely rebuild their country.

There is no romance in resistance. For many, living under a repressive regime is the lesser of two evils. The rule of a dictator may be tyrannical and harsh, but so long as one stays within the law one can avoid the sort of brutal crack down that we have witnessed in Libya, Yemeni, Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. One can go quietly about one’s business without fear of reprisal. The situation may be bad, but it could be a lot worse. It is easier to fit in than to face the consequences of rebellion.

It was just such a situation that the leaders of the Jews were trying to avoid in first century Palestine. Rome had occupied that land for sixty three years and, while the Empire had brought many benefits to the countries it had conquered, it kept the peace by ruling with an iron rod and imposed heavy taxes which impoverished the ordinary people. Within Palestine there were many who resented the occupation and who organized or participated in resistance movements.

These groups were seen as a threat to the peace and security of the region – not only by Rome, but also by the Jewish leaders who had come to some sort of accommodation with the occupying power. The leaders knew that as long as they didn’t tip the boat, as long as they co-operated with the Roman Government, they could be reasonably confident that they could go about their business undisturbed. For this reason it was in their interest to confront and discourage any resistance among the people.

On the other hand, those who felt the full weight of Rome’s might were drawn to anyone who dared to confront the power of the Empire. At the time of Jesus there were several such resistance groups that had gathered around leaders who promised to liberate them from Rome’s dominion. These leaders were called in Hebrew “Messiach” which, when transliterated, is our English word “Messiah” and their activity threatened the peace and stability of the region.

In today’s gospel, the Jewish leaders are continuing the line of questioning that began at the start of chapter 22. Their intention is to trick Jesus into saying something that will discredit him in the eyes of faithful Jews, or that will prove him to be an insurgent and therefore bring him to the notice of the Roman rulers. However, as we saw last week, Jesus is not so easily drawn into their ruse.

The Pharisees try one more time to catch Jesus out: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus responds by quoting scripture and demonstrating that not only does he know the sacred texts, but that he also knows how to interpret them.

Jesus has answered the questions of the Jewish leaders and now it is his turn. Demonstrating that he knows what the Pharisees and Sadducees are up to, Jesus asks a question of his own. He knows that one of the things that they are trying to prove is that he is an insurrectionist, someone claiming to be the “Messiach” who is gathering followers to mount a rebellion against Rome. Jesus knows too, that in popular imagination this “Messiach” is considered to be the son of David – Israel’s most powerful king – the one who will set Israel free. So he poses a trick question of his own: if the “Messiach” (the anointed one) is the son of David how is it that David calls him Lord?

Jesus is quoting Psalm 110 to create a conundrum – how can the Messiah be both David’s son and his Lord? The anointed one cannot be both son and Lord. Jesus might be of Davidic descent, but this does not have to mean that he plans to lead an armed uprising against the Roman Empire. Jesus’ question challenges not only the conclusions that the Jewish leaders have drawn from scripture, but also their assumptions about himself and his role. They have presumed that he is an insurrectionist, but Jesus has shown that the premise for their assumption is baseless. His question has no easy answer. Jesus has done to the Pharisees what they hoped to do to him. He has exposed their lack of understanding and managed to silence them. From then on, no one dared to ask him any question.

The Jewish leaders who have tried to outsmart Jesus find that they are outsmarted. Jesus knows the Jewish faith as well, if not better, than they do and he will not allow himself to be painted as the leader of a rebellion. He will not be made a fool of in front of the Jewish people nor will he allow himself to be made out to be something that he is not.

Jesus comes through the debates unscathed whereas the Jewish leaders are exposed as both ignorant and petty. Jesus does not have a problem with Judaism or with the Jewish people. His argument is with the leaders of the Jews who have compromised themselves and their faith and become bed-fellows with their oppressors.

We live in a free and democratic society, but that does not mean that we do not make compromises to fit in with the world around us, nor does it mean that we are any better than the Pharisees at discerning who does and who does not threaten our security and stability. Jesus was very clear about who he was and what he stood for. No matter what the cost to himself, he maintained his integrity, his absolute loyalty to God and his commitment to the faith that he held.

This is the example we are called to follow – steadfastness in faith, no matter what the cost, integrity in our lives, no matter what the reaction of others and complete obedience to God no matter what the temptation to do otherwise.

Pentecost 18

Matthew 22:15-33

Marian Free 

In the name of God, whose wisdom surpasses human knowing. Amen.

Even if you don’t have a degree in English literature, you will be aware that writers of novels use a variety of techniques to grab our attention, to develop a plot and to build tension. We are all so familiar with the Biblical texts and so used to reading the Bible in small, designated amounts, that we do not often appreciate the skill with which the writers tell their story.  Each of the gospel writers has carefully arranged and drafted their account of Jesus’ life so as to gain maximum effect and to ensure that the listeners are drawn into the story and, more importantly, brought to faith.

This is most clearly demonstrated in the Gospel of John that gathers impetus and builds dramatic tension until the story reaches its climax in the raising of Lazarus. It is also true of the Synoptic gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke all organise the stories of Jesus’ life in the way that most suits the message that they wish their listeners to hear.

Our weekly diet of selected readings means that we often miss important connections and fail to see how the author has been building an argument or a point of view. Last week, for example, we saw that Matthew’s account of the parable of the banquet is the final parable in a series of three in which Jesus has been attacking official Judaism – in particular that of the chief priests and the scribes who had been questioning his authority.

In today’s gospel, we begin a series of confrontations between Jesus and the Jewish leadership.  The Jewish leaders – first the Pharisees (and Herodians) then the Sadducees, then the Pharisees again try to trick Jesus with clever questions – should one pay tax to Caesar, what happens in the resurrection and what is the greatest commandment? These confrontations serve two purposes in the narrative of the gospel. Firstly, they expose the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders and secondly they demonstrate Jesus’ wisdom and discernment. The debates reveal that not only are the leaders of Judaism unable to trick Jesus, but that they are ignorant in regard to the workings and teaching of their faith.

The two questions are carefully thought out. They are designed to trick Jesus into saying something that will expose him as a radical or as someone whose teaching is contradictory to the teachings of Judaism. The first question is about taxes, but in fact, as Jesus is aware, it has nothing to do with taxes. It is in reality a question about the Empire and about Jesus’ attitude to Rome.  Romans coins were, from Caesar’s time onwards, stamped with an image of the Emperor. Very often the image was presented in such a way as to make the Emperor look like a god. The coins were the only coins that could be used in trade and their use was associated with Emperor worship. Some Jews, particularly the Zealots, refused to use the coins. They felt that having in their possession a coin that depicted someone who claimed to be a god would compromise their faith.

The Pharisees thought that if Jesus responded by saying that taxes should be withheld, that they could accuse him of being a trouble-maker, a revolutionary and that this would put Jesus in a difficult position with regard to the Roman authorities. On the other hand, if Jesus argued that the taxes should be paid, it could be made to look as though he supported the Roman rule of Palestine or even the worship of the Emperor. This response would lose him the support of the Jewish people. However, Jesus is aware that his questioners are trying to entrap him, so he side-steps the question. He makes it clear that he belongs in neither camp – ‘give to the Emperor the things that are the Emperor’s and to God the things that are God’s’.

The second question is about the resurrection. In the first century, the matter of resurrection was of some contention. The Pharisees believed that the dead would be raised and the Sadducees did not.  So the Sadducees bring a question to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to believe in the resurrection. According to tradition if a man dies childless, his brother must take his wife as his own to try to ensure that his brother’s line continues. If seven brothers all die childless a woman would, in effect, have seven husbands in heaven.

Jesus responds by pointing out that it is not that the resurrection is a foolish idea, but that the Sadducees do not know what they are talking about. Heaven, Jesus says, is vastly different from earth, and heavenly relationships will not be the same as earthly relationships. As to the resurrection, Jesus quotes God speaking to Moses ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? Thus he use scripture to  prove that the dead will be raised.

We live in interesting times. Not only do we live in a culture in which many faiths are represented, but we also live in a time when atheists such as Richard Dawkins are becoming increasingly aggressive and antagonistic to Christianity.

Very often, those who reject the faith, reject things that you and I would not even consider to be a part of our faith and that, if we ever believed them, we have long since ceased to do so. What I have seen of Richard Dawkins leads me to believe that he is operating from a number misapprehensions. That I consider these people to be wrong, does not alter the fact, that among a number of people it is considered not only OK, but cool or smart, to denigrate the Christian faith as irrational and un-scientific, and to dismiss God as judgmental and demanding.

We can no longer count on sympathy, tolerance or even blithe indifference to our beliefs. For this reason it is beoming increasingly important for us to have a clear understanding of our faith and of the scripture that lies behind our faith. There are many texts that on the surface are difficult to understand and that may be used by our opponents to discredit us or to turn others against us. It is important that, like Jesus we learn not to be caught up in the agendas of other people and to engage in fruitless arguments. We need to learn to make our case clearly and directly and not to be distracted by arguments that are not relevant to our core beliefs or that are designed to trick us into saying something that we might regret.

We can no longer assume that our neighbours share our faith, that they have an accurate knowledge of our faith or that they know anything at all. We must be sure of what we believe and equip ourselves to share that knowledge with friend and foe alike.

Pentecost 17

Matthew 22:1-14

Marian Free 

In the name of God, who calls us and calls us. Amen.

Last week, we considered the problem that the early church had in accommodating those who were not Jews into the Jewish faith – or at least into that part of Judaism that accepted Jesus as the anointed one, the one sent by God. At the time that Paul was writing his epistles, this was a burning issue for believers. The Jewish nation, had over centuries, developed rituals, behaviours and patterns of belief that set them apart as a distinct community. We saw that this was especially important for a nation of people who often found themselves in a minority and who had endured exile and centuries of foreign rule. Paul’s letters give us some insight into how difficult it was to find a way to include non-Jews into what had been in many ways a closed society.

The gospels were written some twenty to forty years after the letters of Paul. Much had happened in that time. In the year seventy, the Romans brutally crushed a revolt by the Jews, destroying Jerusalem in the process. This led to the further dispersion of Jews throughout the Empire and, as best we can tell, to a more rigid adherence to the law. In the absence of the Temple, the law became one of the defining characteristics of Judaism. At the same time, the Jewish revolt and destruction of the Temple seems to have been a defining moment in Jewish/Christian relations. Those who believed in Jesus had refused to join with the Jews in the revolt against Roman rule. This caused an irreconcilable rift that led to the exclusion of Christians from the synagogue and from the Jewish source of their faith.

In the letters of Paul, a major issue is the inclusion (or not) of the Gentiles. In the gospels an overwhelming concern is the failure of the Jews to believe in Jesus. The problem was this – if Jesus was the culmination of all that at the Jews had been promised and all that they had hoped for, why was it that so many refused to believe in him? This is the question that is played out in the three parables that Matthew has placed together in chapters 21 and 22. In response to a challenge to his authority, Jesus asks the leaders of the Jews a question about John the Baptist that they are unable to answer. This leads Jesus to tell three parables that exposes the failure of official Judaism to understand who he is and what he is here for. These parables also make it clear that it is in fact the Jewish failure to believe that has led to the inclusion of the Gentiles.

The first of the three parables is the parable of the two sons. In this parable a father asks his sons in turn to go into the vineyard to work. The first son says that he will not go, but changes his mind and goes anyway. The second son says that he will go but does not go In the second parable we have a barely veiled account of the death of the prophets and of Jesus. A landowner plants a vineyard and lets it out to tenants. When the harvest is due, the landowner sends two successive groups of slaves, both of whom are beaten and sent away without being given what their master is due. Finally the landowner sends his own son, expecting that he will receive the respect that is his due and that the tenants will pay the rent to him. His confidence is misplaced, the tenants take him and kill him thinking that if they kill the son and heir that the vineyard will be theirs.

In the first parable we are meant to assume that the son who said he would not go represents the Gentiles (those who didn’t believe in Yahweh but who do what God requires). The son who says he will go and does not represents the Jews who claim to believe, but who do not accept Jesus as the anointed one sent by God. The second parable presents a much more vivid description of the rejection of Jesus. It points out that the tenants who rejected the son (the Jewish leaders) will lose their place and another group of tenants (the Gentiles) will take charge of the vineyar

The third parable is that which we have heard this morning. A king gives a banquet for his son’s wedding but, at the appointed time, the invited guests (the Jewish people) refuse to come. In his anger the king destroys their city and invites all and sundry (the Gentiles) to come.

These three parables all illustrate the point that those to whom Jesus was sent rejected him and refused God’s invitation to be part of something new. As a consequence, God unexpectedly extended the invitation to a much broader and more diverse group of people. Through these parables, Matthew radically redefines the notion of who is chosen and who is not. The Israelites, the descendants of Abraham were so convinced that they were God’s chosen people and so keen to protect their position that they rejected anything – including Jesus – that threatened this sense of identity or that de-stablised their concept of reality. Their very attempt to hold on to their place before God led to their failure to see that God was doing something new. They saw no need to work in the vineyard when asked, to pay rent to the landowner or to respond to the invitation. As far as they were concerned their place was assured.

Through the parables (and through other means) Jesus makes it clear that their birthright alone is not enough to maintain their place as members of God’s chosen. In fact, their failure to respond led God to invite others – the son who did what the father asked, the new tenants of the vineyard, and those who were gathered in from the highways and the by-ways – these are invited to become members of the new people of God.

What is clear is that the Israelites no longer had the sole claim and right to be God’s chosen people, anyone who does what God requires, accepts Jesus as one sent from God and responds to God’s call can in this new way of seeing things be considered among God’s chosen. “Many are called but few are chosen.” This apparently exclusive statement in fact points in the opposite direction. Those who can be counted among the chosen “few” are no longer only those who are descended from Abraham and who keep the law, but all those who accept God’s invitation to belong – Jew AND Gentile.

Contrary to what we might think, these parables are not an attack on Judaism or Jews per se. They do not provide us with an excuse to denigrate or vilify our brothers and sisters of the Jewish faith. In their context, they are a means to help the early church come to terms with the fact that the faith from which they emerged was no longer the faith in which they found their home and to explain why those to whom Jesus was sent did not accept and follow.

Jesus’ death and resurrection flung wide the doors to salvation such that any who believe – Jew or Gentile might go through.

The parables give us an insight into the historical context of the gospel but they also provide a caution against the sort of self satisfaction and complacency that allows us to believe that we have a monopoly on salvation and that by virtue of faith or some other criterion others are excluded. We are challenged to accept the fact that it is sometimes the most surprising of people who will respond to God’s invitation and that if we are not careful we will be left behind.

Pentecost 16

Philippians 3

Marian Free

In the name of God, who calls us to freedom from rigid moral codes in order that we might submit ourselves completely to God. Amen.

 Recently I watched a movie called “Sabah”. It relates the story of an Arab family who had moved to Canada for a better life.  As is the case with many migrant families there is a tension between those who want to keep the traditions of their culture and homeland and a younger generation who, exposed to the values of a new land want to be free of the limitations imposed by their cultural heritage.

When the movie begins, the family is celebrating the birthday of the eldest daughter Sabah. One of the gifts is a photo of Sabah and her father at the beach. The photo awakens in her a desire to swim – something she has not done for years because it is considered an unseemly behaviour for a Muslim woman. Despite this, Sabah cannot suppress her longing to swim. Without her family’s knowledge she takes up swimming. In the process she meets and falls in love with a Canadian man. This is totally unacceptable to her family who give Sabah an ultimatum – she must end the relationship or no longer be a part of the family.

Sabah makes the choice to stay in the relationship. Fortunately, first her mother and sisters and then her brother come around to the idea of her being with a Westerner. Together they come to terms with the fact that adapting to the culture of their current home may involve relinquishing some of the rigid practices of the past, but it does not mean that they have to lose their identity nor does it necessarily mean that their moral values have to be compromised.

Stories such as this are common in our multi-cultural world. In Australia there are stories of tensions within families in which an older generation of migrants wants to hold to the traditions and values of their country of origin whereas a younger generation wants to feel that they belong in the country that has become their home. It would be foolish to think that it is easy for families to make the sort of transitions that are required to enable them to fit into a new community. Habits and traditions are not only comfortable and reassuring, but they often carry with them moral overtones. To break with the past, is not only to reject one’s culture but to expose oneself to criticism for moral turpitude.

This is the sort of clash of cultures that caused so many problems for the early Christian community. As we know, Christianity emerged out of Judaism – Jesus was a Jew, the disciples were Jews and Paul was a Jew. The earliest believers simply incorporated their faith in Jesus into their practice of the Jewish faith. Difficulties arose when non-Jews began to believe in Jesus. Members of the Jewish faith were challenged what they perceived as the intrusion of the Gentiles. They struggled to maintain the traditions and rituals that were essential for their self identity and tried to impose them on the new-comers.

We should not underestimate how difficult it was to combine the two communities. Years of exile and foreign rule had meant that the Jewish people had had to fight hard to maintain their identity. They did this, it appears, by putting a great deal of emphasis on those things which set them apart – the food that they were allowed to eat, the cleanliness rituals that they observed, circumcision of all males over 8 days old and so on. These behaviours and observances not only affirmed their identity as a people, they were also considered markers of their purity and holiness. This meant that failure to observe the cultural and religious mores would jeopardize not only their membership of the community but also their relationship with God.

The problem for the early church was that the very things set the Jews apart – those things that identified them as God’s chosen people – were the things that made it impossible for them to be part of a community that had non-Jewish members. Associating with those who were not Jewish, especially eating with them would make them ritually unclean – unfit for God. It was not something to be taken lightly. A way around this problem was to insist that the Gentiles should become as Jews observing the same rules and regulations as themselves – including being circumcised.

This is a solution that Paul strenuously opposes as we can see in the letters to Galatia and Rome. In the letter to Philippi we get a sense of the strength of Paul’s feeling on this matter. He warns the Philippians: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh!” Paul was convinced that it was knowledge of and faith in Jesus that was important, not the observation of rituals and laws or by external identity markers such as circumcision. These were all things that he once considered important – in fact, in terms of these outward forms of identification – circumcision, membership of the people of Israel, a Pharisee and so on- Paul says that he exceeded his fellow Jews. However, now that he knows Christ Jesus, everything that he once considered important – not only for his identity but for also for his salvation, he now considers as nothing more than rubbish.

According to Paul the criterion by which one is saved is faith, and if it is faith, then Jew and Gentile are saved by the same means – by faith in Jesus Christ. This does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong in the practice of the Jews, but it does mean that the Gentiles do not have to observe the same rituals. It also means that the Jews will not find themselves excluded from salvation if they rely on faith for their salvation and relax some of the rules to enable them to accept the Gentile members of the new community and to worship with and eat with them. When it comes to faith, it is not the externals that matter, Paul says, but the state of the heart.

This long ago dispute serves as a warning to our generation. It reminds us not to take ourselves and our practice too seriously, not to place too much importance on the external observance of our faith and not to hold so rigidly to the past that we are unable to see what God is doing in the present. Times change and so too must we. If we are not to be left behind, we must distinguish between that which is at the heart of our faith and those things that we have added to enhance our expression of that faith. The former must be brought with us into the future whereas the latter can be safely left behind. Paul reminds us, as he does the Philippians – that in the final analysis, it is the strength of our belief and not our outward display that matters.

Pentecost 15 – 2011

Philippians 2

Marian Free 

In the name of God who calls us to hold fast to the values of the kingdom and not to be seduced by the values of the world. Amen.

Most of us have seen such BBC dramas as Pride and Prejudice or comedies like To the Manor Born. Both illustrate the way in which the landed gentry of their time felt that it was their right to determine not only the behaviour of the clergy, but also the content of their sermons. In other words, they saw the church and the faith it imparted as something under their authority. This attitude relates in part to the fact that the Church of England is the established or state church. Since the time of Henry VIII church and state have been intimately entwined such that those who felt that they represented the state felt that they also represented the church.

One of the consequences of this relationship between church and state was the belief that the church and its members conformed to and upheld the establishment. Societal norms were assumed to be indistinguishable from Christian norms. Members of the Church of England were good, pious citizens who supported the status quo. The role of the church was in part to produce good upstanding citizens who did not rock the boat. Many would say that this was still the case today – that the role of the church (and of church goers) is to be responsible citizens who conform to societal values.

It would probably come as a surprise then, to discover that even the most conventional of we church-goers are in fact, non-conformists. We live in a world that values material possessions as a sign of success and a successful career as a means of distinguishing oneself. We inhabit a world in which ambition leads to competition with each other for recognition and in which there are many are who are judgmental, hard and unforgiving.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that for most of us, even though we are comfortable, we do not let our possessions define us, that while we might strive to succeed we try not to do so at the expense of others and that by and large we understand our own frailty enough to be forgiving of the frailties of others – that means, believe it or not, that we are all counter-cultural. We represent a subversive element in a materialistic, competitive and unforgiving world! (Try telling that to your children or grandchildren!)

It is this counter-cultural attitude that Paul is trying to encourage when he writes to the community in Philippi. The church at Philippi have been particularly supportive of Paul, and the letter is primarily one of thanksgiving. At the same time, Paul takes the opportunity to reinforce behaviours and attitudes that he thinks are essential for the Christian life.  He reminds the community that as a result of their faith in Jesus their citizenship is in heaven (3:21).  This means that their values and ideals are to be measured by heavenly and not earthly standards.

Paul himself now regards everything that he formerly held to be important to be nothing more than rubbish compared with the benefits of knowing Christ. His status by birth, his position compared to other members of the Jewish faith, his blamelessness under the law – all the measures that he once considered essential, he now considers a loss.

The basis of, and example for, this radical, counter cultural attitude is none other than Jesus. According to Paul, Jesus overturns the standards and expectations of his day, Jesus not only refuses to conform by seeking recognition, power and wealth, but he encourages his disciples to follow his example by rejecting them. Jesus exemplifies the behaviour of a Christian. As Paul says: “though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.”

The idea that someone could be God and yet not exploit the situation is beyond comprehension to those who hold fast to the values of the world. That that same person (despite being God) would choose to be obedient to the point of death is a radically shocking idea – especially in a first century world that was populated with a multitude of gods who completed for the attention of the community and in the context of the Roman Empire in which power and might were all important. It would have been inconceivable to most of the residents of Philippi that someone one would have both power and might in their reach and would surrender them of their own volition.

Paul understands that Jesus, through his teaching and by example, confronts and overturns the values of the world and he urges the Philippians to have the same mind as Christ Jesus – to regard others as better than themselves (2:3-4), to do nothing from selfish ambition (2:3), or from rivalry or conceit, not to look to their own interests but to the interests of others (2:4), not to place value in appearances or in worldly distinction (3:7f) and to believe that God will supply everything that they need (4:19).

Paul understands the ultimate goal of such reversal. He knows – again through the example of Jesus, that it is by surrendering everything that Jesus gains everything: ‘Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”, This reversal of expectations is Paul’s experience and the experience of all who follow Christ. For example, instead of limiting Paul’s missionary activity, his being in prison, has actually helped to spread the gospel! In the same way the suffering of the Philippians is not a sign that things are going badly, but rather that they have the privilege of sharing in Christ’s suffering and that as they share in Christ’s suffering, so they will share in his resurrection.

Jesus was a radical, counter-cultural, revolutionary and subversive figure. In his battle to change society, his weapons of choice were love, vulnerability, humility and compassion. He demonstrated that acceptance and understanding were more potent agents of change than exclusion and censure.

If we are to follow in his footsteps and make the world a better place, we too must choose weakness over strength, compassion over condemnation, co-operation over rivalry. If we choose heavenly values over earthly values, we will shine as a light in this troubled world and, contrary to all expectation, not only will we discover that we lose nothing but gain everything, but we can be sure that with Christ, we will inherit life eternal.

Pentecost 14

Matthew 20:1-16

Marian Free

 In the name of God who loves us all and desires that we might be saved. Amen.

I don’t know if any one does this anymore. When I was a child there was a clear rule about sharing food. If there was one banana and two children – one child was allowed to cut it in two and the other was allowed to choose which of the halves they would take to eat. As you might imagine, the process was taken very seriously. The child who made the division went to a considerable amount of trouble to ensure that the banana was indeed cut into halves and the one who made the choice between the two pieces went to an equal amount of trouble to discern if one piece was bigger than the other. This method had two advantages, not only did the person with the knife try very hard to ensure that the division was equitable, but both children had an opportunity to determine what half a banana looked like. No one could say that the process was not fair.

It seems that we are born with an innate sense of fairness. I wonder if there is anyone here who has never said: “It’s not fair!” We have such a concern with equity, that it can come as a surprise to discover that not only is the gospel NOT about God being fair, but just the opposite. The gospel consistently reminds us that God is blatantly unfair.

In simple terms we think like this – those who are good will get to heaven and those who are bad will not.  Those who obey the law will find themselves in God’s good books and those who do not obey will find themselves on God’s bad side. The problem with this point of view is that God does not have a bad side! God does not measure out God’s love according to a pre-determined principle. God cannot restrict God’s love only to those who reach some pre-determined standard.

This point is so important that Jesus hammers it out in the gospels – people who behave badly do not get their just desserts and those who are good according to the law are not always rewarded in the way that they expect. Over and over again, in story and parable, Jesus reminds us that contrary to expectation, the kingdom of God is simply not fair. The prodigal son wastes his inheritance and yet the father welcomes him home and kills the fatted calf. It’s not fair. The Pharisee who invites Jesus to supper obeys all the commandments, and yet Jesus commends not him, but the woman (a known sinner) who washes his feet. It’s not fair. Ninety-nine sheep do the right thing and stay together, but does the farmer care? No he seeks out the one who has wandered away holds a party when it is found. It’s not fair. More than once Jesus says: “The last will be first and the first will be last.” It’s not fair!

The fact that God is unfair is so contrary to our sense of justice and our notion of fairness that Jesus wants to be absolutely sure that we understand – that we see that the values of the kingdom are completely different from the values of this world. Justice in the kingdom is God’s justice which is not limited by human ideas of equity or fairness– if they were, we would have been abandoned long ago for our ingratitude, our failure to trust in God, our propensity to worship other gods and our failure to heed the warnings of the prophets. However, instead of rejecting us, God sent Jesus to save us.

The problem with believing that God will be just according to our understanding of justice is that there are not grades of salvation. One is either saved or one is not. It is impossible to be more saved than someone else. For that reason there is no point measuring oneself against someone else and determining that because you are more honest, or more generous that God will favour you above that person because there will always be someone more honest, more generous than you and by your own standards you will be found wanting.

God’s kingdom does not fit with our sense of justice because there is only one reward and only one way to achieve it. The reward is eternal life and the way to gain that reward is simply to believe in Jesus Christ. Let me say that again. There is only one reward and only one way to achieve it. That means that everyone who believes in Jesus will inherit eternal life. God will not be measuring us against each other according to how good we have been, or how bad we have been – because there is only one criteria – faith.

Of course that makes sense if we think about it. If the measure relates to our goodness or lack of it, where would the cut off mark be? Would only the absolutely perfect pass the test or would those who had only been a little bit bad slip through? How much is too bad? Is goodness enough or does it have to be accompanied by humility and love? If only the perfect can enter heaven, we are all in trouble because only Jesus is perfect. On the other hand if the imperfect (and that includes us) can enter heaven – where does it all stop? At what point is someone too imperfect to have eternal life?

Today’s parable is a perfect example of the problem of God’s justice. I imagine that all of us can relate to the attitude of those who have worked all day in the hot sun. When they see those who have only worked an hour being paid a full day’s wage, they naturally expect that their work will be more amply rewarded. If some get a day’s wage for only one hour’s work, then perhaps those who have worked all day will get 12 days wages for 12 hours work. That’s only fair!  No wonder they are disappointed – despite working all day they only get paid the same as the other workers. “It’s not fair!”

It’s not fair. That’s the point – it’s not fair. It’s not fair because there is no hierarchy in heaven. The extra-good don’t get better treatment or a more comfortable spot than the not quite so good. The not quite so good don’t get better treatment or a more comfortable spot than the good enough. The good enough don’t get better treatment or a more comfortable spot than the nearly good enough and so on. If heaven is the reward of those who believe, then those who believe must expect to be mixed up with all those who believe – the very good, the not good, and perhaps even the bad. It is a challenging thought – that those whom we consider less deserving than ourselves may well be spending eternity with us. At the same time, it is humbling to consider that the saints of every age will have to share eternity with those who are as imperfect as us.

God is not fair and that is good news. Our sense of justice might see many excluded from the kingdom, but if we relied on our own efforts, the very standards we set might exclude even us. It is because God is unfair that we can be assured that we will be saved and if God should choose to save us, why should we begrudge that salvation to others?