Swallowsrest

Pentecost 13  2011

Matthew 18:21-35

Marian Free

In the name of God whose forgiveness of us knows no bounds. Amen.

During the second world war, a Dutch woman. Corrie ten Boom. was complicit in hiding Jews from the Nazis. When her family’s action was discovered, she and her sister Betsie were sent off to the concentration camps, and at the end of the war they found themselves in Ravensbruck. Their story is remarkable, in particular the way in which they managed to maintain and share their faith – and even remain thankful in what were horrendous circumstances. During their time in the camps they made a plan. When the war was over, they were determined to establish places of forgiveness where those from both sides of the conflict could meet and find ways to set the past behind them. It was their wish that the enmity created by the war not be extended by a failure to forgive and to move into the future.

Unfortunately Betsie died before the war ended, but Corrie was determined that their vision be brought to fruition. One of the ways in which she achieved this goal was to travel the world to spread the message of forgiveness. In theory it seems that it was relatively easy to share with others a message she passionately believed. However, one evening Corrie was called to put into practice what she had been preaching. At the conclusion of an evening’s lecture a man approached her. She recognised him at once as one of the most cruel guards from Ravensbruck and one who had been guilty of humiliating her beloved sister. He walked up to her and as he reached her he said: “A fine message, Fraulein! How good it is to know that, as your say, all our sins are at the bottom of the sea! I have become a Christian, I know that God has forgiven me for the cruel things I did at Ravensbruck, but I would like to hear it from your lips as well. Fraulein – will you forgive me?”

Corrie reports that she was frozen. Nothing could make her extend her hand to meet his, or to say the words that he longed to hear. (Could he erase Betsie’s slow and terrible suffering just for the asking?)  She says: “I stood there with coldness clutching my heart. But forgiveness is not an emotion – I knew that too. Forgiveness is an act of the will.” Corrie’s only recourse was to pray, “Jesus help me!” She forced herself to raise her hand and as she reached out to take the hand of the guard, she felt a current flow down into her hand, and felt a healing warmth flood her whole body. “I forgive you brother with all my heart![1]”

I tell this story, not only because it is so powerful, but also because it demonstrates that forgiveness is not an action that comes easily. Sometimes it depends on an act of will that requires supernatural power to put into effect. Forgiveness is not an easy facile thing. It is often a difficult, powerful act that requires, as Corrie reminds us, not only an act of will but divine intervention. Those who have experienced abuse, oppression or violence at the hand of another need to find an extraordinary strength to hold out the hand of forgiveness to the perpetrator. If and when they do, they will experience the amazing healing that forgiveness can bring to themselves and to the other.

“Forgiving and forgetting” is not an easy thing to do as we are sometimes made to feel by the way the phrase is bandied about so lightly[2].

Today’s parable makes this clear. In the parable, a slave who is forgiven a huge debt, refuses to forgiven the infinitely smaller debt of another slave. For some reason, the former slave has not seen how like the other he is. He is unable to equate his failure and the failure of his fellow slave. His indebtedness to his master had exposed his own weakness. Instead of feeling gratitude, instead of grasping the power of forgiveness, he feels embarrassed and humiliated. To restore his sense of self he exercises his power over someone weaker than himself.

Jesus’ parable aptly sums up the problem for many of us – we see too clearly the faults of others and are blind to our own faults. Because we don’t understand that we too need forgiveness, we are often unwilling to extend that forgiveness to others. It is only when we truly understand our own frailties and acknowledge our own weakness and sinfulness that we come to understand that we share with all humankind the failure to live as the people whom God created in his image. It is only when we understand how far short we fall from the glory of God, that we see that however, “good” we are, we are far, far from perfect. It is only when we fully comprehend our own shortcomings, that it becomes a little easier to accept and overlook the shortcomings of others.

What is more, it is only when we truly understand that not only are we not perfect, but that we will not – in this life – ever be perfect,  that we will be overwhelmed by the enormity of God’s grace, that we will understand how little we have done to deserve God’s love for us, and that we will be completely astounded that God has forgiven and will continue to forgive us.

Once we know how little we ourselves have done to deserve God’s forgiveness, we will find it a little easier to extend that forgiveness to others whom we might previously have believed did not deserve it.

At the centre of our faith is the cross – an act of love and forgiveness freely given to an undeserving and uncaring world. To truly grasp the message of the gospel is to accept the message of unconditional love demonstrated by the cross, and having truly accepted that love we will find it impossible not to extend it to others. In a million lifetimes we could not do enough to earn such love, why then should we expect others to earn it in one?

Pentecost 12 2011

Romans 13:1-7

Marian Free

In the name of God who desires that we seek peace and justice for all. Amen.

“Rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad.” So writes Paul in his letter to the Romans. If we were to apply this literally today, we would have to condemn the actions related to the so-called “Arab spring”. We would have to agree with the Burmese government that Aung San Suu Kyi is a threat to stability in that country and that Nelson Mandela should never have been freed. If those who resist authority resist what God appointed and should incur judgement, then we should not be incensed by the imprisonment and torture of political activists in many parts of the world.

A literal interpretation of this section of Paul’s letter allowed the German people, many of them Christians, to stand by or even support the actions of Hitler during the second World War. Government, even oppressive and violent government could be seen as ordained by God and its actions therefore not to be questioned.

Texts such as Romans 13, force us to consider how we are to approach our biblical texts. Do we accept and apply every word without question or do we seek to understand the context in which the bible was written and then try to see how it might apply in our own time? Do we take every sentence literally or do we try to see how the writers used drama and rhetoric to make their point? Do we pick and choose what to accept and what to ignore according to our own theology?

What we know as our Holy Scriptures is the most complex set of writings. They include story, history, poetry, prophecy, gospels and even letters! Across the breadth of the Bible we find repetition and contradiction, we discover both fact and fantasy and we see that some things were written for a particular time and place and others are truths that remain so forever.

When Paul was writing to the Romans, he almost certainly had no idea that two thousand years later his letter of introduction to the people there would be being treated as Holy Scripture. He certainly had no thought that one part of that letter would effectively result in the extermination of six million of his fellow Jews!

The situation in Rome was a difficult and sensitive one for the first believers for a number of reasons. Firstly, around the year 49 the Jews had been expelled from Rome “on account of disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (a term is commonly believed to refer to Christ). This meant that those to whom Paul was writing were living in a precarious situation. Drawing attention to themselves would not have been helpful if they hoped to remain in Rome.

Another problem was that the early Christians created a situation hitherto unknown in the Roman Empire. The God whom they worshipped was a universal God, not the God of a particular nation. Romans worshipped a number of gods and they were reasonably tolerant of the gods of the nations over whom they ruled – including Yahweh whom the Jews worshipped. They could not understand and therefore not tolerant of a god who was not restricted to a particular nation but who was claimed as THE God with power over all the world. While the Jews had permission to worship their God, the Christians (whose God was not related to their nationality) did not. This meant that were they to draw attention to themselves, they may have been forbidden to gather for worship.

Thirdly, in the first century, government was very different to that with which we are familiar. Power was restricted to a few and held by force. An empire as large as that of Rome had to be tightly contained and unrest had to be quickly put down. Add to this the fact that a majority of those who lived in Rome were slaves and it is easy to see that it would have been impossible for any group to consider taking on the might of the Emperor. It is in this context that Paul cautions the believers in Rome against causing trouble.

Circumstances have changed considerably since the writing of the New Testament. We live in a very different time and under a very different form of government. We have the right not only to choose who will be in our parliaments, but also to challenge their decisions. Many other things have changed in the intervening years – the printing press has been invented making the bible accessible to all not just a few, most people in the Western world have access to education and can read, slavery has been abolished (at least in theory), women have legal rights, can work for a living and own property.

When we read the scriptures, it is important to take into account the circumstances in which they were written, to understand the intentions of the writers and the nature of the communities to whom they were written in this way we avoid taking literally things that we intended to be understood figuratively, we avoid being dogmatic about things that that pertained to a particular time and place and we avoid applying outdated mores to a different time and culture.

It is true that God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. However, scripture was written by fallible human beings who wrote to particular groups of people at a particular time and place. As we seek to live out the faith they knew and proclaimed and we must look beyond the surface of what is written to the truths are revealed and maintain an openness to the Holy Spirit who, working in, through and with us continues to make God known in every place and in every age.

Pentecost 11 2011

Matthew 16:21-28

Marian Free

 In the name of God who calls us into being, and into being in him. Amen.

For those of us who grew up with the 1662 prayer book, the words of the Collects that were repeated on the same Sunday year after year both formed the pattern of our lives and formed our spirituality. I know that many of us developed the habit of making our Christmas cakes and puddings on the feast of Christ the King. On that day the collect included the words “stir up your hearts”  – words that became so familiar that the Sunday became known to the cake-makers of the English world as “stir up Sunday”. The collects also formed us spiritually because the language that we heard each year was rich and beautiful and tapped into the deep places of our hearts.

These collects have not been discarded entirely but continue to form part of the menu of our daily worship. The collects used during the week for Morning and Evening Prayer and for the daily Eucharist come from the Book of Common Prayer. They not only bring back memories of the time in which the faith of many of us was formed, but they also reveal profound truths that inform and shape the way we understand our faith.

Take for example, the collect that is now set for the second week of Lent: “Remember, O Lord, what you have wrought in us and not what we deserve, and, as you have called us to your service, make us worthy of our calling; through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Or one of my favourites which was the Collect set for last week: “Creator God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you: teach us to offer ourselves to your service, that here we may have peace and in the world to come may see you face to face; through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The words, “Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you” express the deepest longing of the soul that cannot be content so long as it is separated from the one who created it. It recognises the truth that we do not really belong in this world, but in the world to come.

Today there are many people who experience a deep sense of dissatisfaction with the world and with their place in it.  Failing to understand the true reason for their restlessness, they seek to fill the void in their lives with the pursuit of prestige, of wealth and even of relationships instead of exploring the reason for their distress. They live life on the surface, seeking contentment in superficial, material, transient things. These people measure their lives by what they achieve, by what they accomplish, by what they own or by how many friends they have. [It is impossible for these people to conceive that there is any value in failing to achieve, in not reaching the standard they have set for themselves. ]

Suffering and failure have no place in a life focused on getting ahead – or even in a life concerned with maintaining the status quo. Every ounce of energy is focused on reaching out for more or, at the very least, holding on to what one According to this world view, growth can only be measured in physical, material terms. There is no comprehension of the sort of inner growth that comes as a result of learning from one’s mistakes or from overcoming adversities. There is no recognition of the deeper, spiritual values that are honed in the fires of experience and won through taking risks and facing difficulties head on.

This is Peter’s problem in today’s gospel. He has thrown in his lot with Jesus and while it is true that he has given up a great many things to do so, it also appears that he has no real understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus or what Jesus’ real purpose is. In his eyes, as indeed in the eyes of many, Jesus’ death at the hands of the scribes and Pharisees would signify the failure of Jesus’ mission. Everything that he, Peter, had expected and hoped for would come to an undignified end. “This must never happen to you,” he says.

Jesus’ response to Peter’s cry is the most stinging rebuke in the New Testament: “Get behind me Satan!”  Peter is firmly identified with the world and its values. He has demonstrated that despite his recognition of Jesus, he is still measuring achievement and failure by earthly standards. His focus on worldly success has blinded him to a different way of evaluating growth and accomplishment. It is impossible for Peter to understand how Jesus’ death can, in any way, be viewed from a positive point of view – to him it is utter foolishness.

It is in this context that Jesus says: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.” In order to find true contentment, to ease the sense of dissatisfaction and to quell the restlessness of our souls, we have to learn to measure our achievements according to different values. We have to let go of those things that give up value in the eyes of the world, to give up our striving for worldly success and material possessions and place ourselves completely in the hand of God- to let God determine our future.

Peter wants to remain in control, to determine Jesus’ – and therefore his own -fate. If everything stays the same, he can feel safe and secure – he can ignore the restlessness at his core and continue to believe that he is achieving what he is meant to achieve. Jesus demonstrates in both word and action, that it is only by letting go of everything that this world holds dear, that one truly lives, and that success and failure are measured differently in the kingdom.

Taking up our cross, seems an unlikely way to achieve life’s goals. In fact it turns upside down everything we know and believe about success. However, Jesus knows that without the cross, there is no resurrection, that unless one is willing to give up everything, one will achieve nothing. For this reason, Jesus is urging us to have the courage to surrender our ego and acknowledge the Creator’s greater wisdom, to risk everything in the belief that the one who made us knows us better than we can ever know ourselves, and to recognise that it is only by placing ourselves completely in God’s hands that the deepest longings of our souls will be met and the restlessness that drives our existence will find itself at peace.

Pentecost 10 2011

Romans 12:1-8

Marian Free

 in the name of God who longs for all creation to know and acknowledge him. Amen.

 Paul’s letter to the Romans is considered his finest work. In fact for centuries, scholars referred to it as Paul ‘s last will and testament. By this they meant that in this letter, Paul gathered together and summed up his theological endeavours in one final document. It was felt that, rather than writing to address the problems of a particular community – as is clearly the case in say the letters to Corinth – Paul was setting out the theology that he had honed over the extent of his missionary travels. In recent times this view has been revised.

It is now understood that Paul’s letter to the Romans addresses issues within the Roman church and is not just a theological treatise written in isolation and ignorant of the situation in Rome.

Paul was a tour de force in early christianity. While there were almost certainly other missionaries, it is only Paul who has left us with such a huge body of writing, and it was he who interpreted the story of Jesus for new believers. It was Paul who gave us the notions of grace and of justification by faith, Paul who understood and taught the idea that the cross reversed the way in which we viewed the world and God. It was Paul who had the courage to grapple with the problem of how to include non-Jews in a faith that had developed out of Judaism. In fact, without Paul, Christianity and our understanding of it would have been remarkably poorer. Thanks to Paul and the letters that he wrote, we have a much  fuller understanding of a the beginnings of our faith and the struggles that made it what it is.

Paul had an experience of the risen Christ that turned his life around. He changed from someone who had persecuted those who believed in Jesus to being a passionate believer.

His passion led him to spread the word – in Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, Philippi. his visits to these communities were not long – eighteen months at best. That meant that when he moved on to another place, there were likely to be questions and misinterpretations of what he had said. Often these were sufficient to cause serious strife for the new communities. Paul wrote his letters to inform, correct and even chide those whom he had left behind. He almost certainly had no idea of his letters being included in our scriptures and being read and studied some 2000 years later!

Broadly speaking there were two major issues. In Corinth and Thessalonica, the believers had either not understood Paul’s teaching or had misunderstood it. In both communities there was confusion about the resurrection and in particular – what happens to those who die before Jesus comes again? The letters also reveal that there were tensions within the community that were causing divisions, competition among members and so on. Paul’s wonderful exposition on love in first Corinthians is, in it’s original context, Paul’s censure of the unloving Corinthians who were competing with each other, taking each other to court and engaging in immoral behaviour.

The second major issue that Paul’s letter address is the problem of creating a new community (albeit one that grew out of and had strong links with Judaism) that included both Jew and non – Jew. this was a matter of some sensitivity. Jews had strict law of ritual cleanliness and equally strict food laws. this made it impossible for them to associate with those who did not adhere to these rules. In particular, it meant that Jews were not allowed to eat with Gentiles – a grave difficulty when the central act of worship included a meal. Another  difficulty for a faith that grew out of Judaism was that of circumcision. In order to become a Jew a male had to be circumcised- a step that few were willing to take.

The difficulty for the early church was that there were many Gentiles who had come to believe in Jesus and who, as a result wanted to join in worship with others. In both  Romans and Galatians we see something of how this played out in reality. (Of course, in re-constructing the situation, we are relying on our best guess as we have only the information in the letters to go on.)

It appears that the community in Galatia were being troubled by those who were teaching a message different from that of Paul. Whether it was the pagans trying to convince the believers to give up their new found faith (because it required circumcision) or Judaisers who were arguing that the converts had to first become Jews (be circumcised) in order to be Christ followers, the community of faith was wavering. In fact it appears that they were in danger of abandoning their faith altogether, In response Paul says some very negative things about the Jewish law and it’s ability to save.

When Paul decides to write to Rome – a community which he did not found, and which knows him only by repute – he is aware that what he has written to the Galatians is known in Rome. The believers in Rome seem to have the idea that Paul has rejected his Jewish heritage. As a result, they are asking questions about the faithfulness of God. Can God be trusted if God has abandoned the Jews – God’s chosen people? What guarantee is there that God won’t change God’s mind again?

The letter to the Romans deals with this issue – God’s faithfulness to GOD’s promises. Paul has to demonstrate that the inclusion of the Gentiles was always part of God’s plan and that even now, the Jews who do not believe in Christ have not been cast aside. He does this in a number of ways. First of all he argues that all people are equal before God because all have sinned. Then he argues that the way to salvation is – and always was – faith. Finally, he points to God’s right to choose the make-up of God’s chosen people.

Our understanding of our faith is based in part on the way in which the early believers grappled with and applied the teachings of Jesus – whom they had come to believe was the Son of God. Years before the Gospel writers made an attempt to record the life and teaching of Jesus, Paul struggled to make sense of this new belief system and how it applied to Jew and Gentile alike. We owe him a great debt and if we make the effort to read and study what he has to say our lives and our faith will be greatly enriched.

Pentecost 9 – 2011

Matthew 15:21-28

Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us into a relationship that is robust and true. Amen.

Over the past year, I have reflected on the fact that most of us are too timid when it comes to our conversations with God. Timid as to what we ask for, timid as to the way in which we ask, timid as to our expectations. Timidity is not a biblical characteristic. Consider the example of Abraham. Not only did Abraham question whether or not God was able to provide him with an heir (even though God continually re-iterated God’s promise), Abraham also had the nerve to argue with God about God’s decision to destroy Sodom.

The conversation in Genesis is instructive – Abraham basically wears God down. When God tells Abraham of his plans to destroy Sodom, Abraham says to God: “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” God replies: “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.” Abraham then asks God: “What if there are 45?” and so on until God agrees not to destroy Sodom if ten righteous people can be found there (Gen 18:17-33).

Moses also, was not afraid to let God know what he thought. Despite the fact that God brought the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, the people constantly complained about their lot, failed to trust in God and worst of all, made for themselves an idol to worship instead of God. Over and over again, Moses stood between the Israelites and God – who threatened dire consequences for the Israelite’s bad behaviour. What is more Moses had the effrontery to point out to God that God would loose respect in the face of the nations if God destroyed God’s chosen people and as a result God would relent and either not punish or limit the consequences of Israel’s actions.

For example, when the people complain that it would be better for them to have stayed in Egypt than to die in the wilderness, God threatens: “I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you (Moses) a nation greater and mightier than they.” However, Moses stands in the breach and says to God” “The Egyptians will hear of it, and they will tell the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that you, O LORD, are in the midst of this people. Now if you kill this people all at one time, then the nations who have heard about you will say, ‘It is because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land he swore to give them that he has slaughtered them in the wilderness.’ And now, therefore, let the power of the LORD be great.” (Numbers 14:1-20). In effect, Moses has the nerve to tell God that God’s reputation as a great God will be nullified if he carries out his threat to destroy Israel!

It seems then, that our forebears did not have a problem with tackling God head-on, being honest about how they felt and challenging God about what God planned to do. As a result, on occasion, God does indeed change his mind.

All of this brings us to today’s gospel and the Canaanite woman. Her daughter is tormented by a demon, so she seeks out Jesus and asks for his help. However, it doesn’t look hopeful – Jesus’ reaction is to ignore the woman and his disciples urge him to send her away. That alone seems cruel and heartless, but what comes next is worse. When Jesus finally responds he says: “I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel,” – the woman and her daughter are simply not his responsibility. The desperate woman falls to her knees and pleads: “Lord, help me.’ Even then Jesus is not moved: “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” The barrier between the Jews and the Gentiles is firmly fixed, and Jesus can see no reason to break it. The woman does not belong to the people of Israel therefore she is not his concern. Furthermore, if Jesus helps her, he is taking something away from those he came to save.

Many of us would be cowed and put off by Jesus’ harsh reaction. We would loose our confidence and slink off to where we came from. This woman, however, is persistent. She loves and values her daughter and nothing is going to deter her. Even though Jesus bluntly refuses her request and compares her to a dog, she will not be stopped. She challenges Jesus and his world-view, taking his description of outsiders and using it to her advantage: “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master’s table.” In her own eyes, even though she does not belong to the people of Israel, she is worthy of Jesus’ attention. Just as dogs lick up the crumbs that fall from the table, so the outsiders – the Gentiles – may benefit from Jesus’ presence in the world, even if they receive only the crumbs it will be enough.

The woman’s determination and confidence pay off. Jesus is persuaded by her argument and agrees to heal her daughter. Not only is the woman’s request granted, but she has changed Jesus’ mind. According to this account, the whole history of humankind is changed in this transaction, the people of Israel no longer has exclusive hold on God and Jesus’ mission “to the lost sheep of Israel” has been extended to include all people. The outsider has become one of the insiders, the one who was ignored and turned away has made her point to the Saviour of the world, the one who was considered of no account, has proven her worth and received her wish.

I wonder how many of us would have persisted in the face of such resistance. I wonder whether in the face of difficulty or unanswered prayer do we simply think: “It’s too hard”, “God doesn’t want to help.” I wonder whether we too often quietly and meekly put our requests aside and accept silence as rebuke, or as the “will of God.”

I do not know, any more than you, why some prayers seem to be heard and others seem to be lost in the void, but in the light of the stories of Abraham, Moses and the unnamed Canaanite women, I ask myself: Do we really engage with God when we are angry confused or disappointed? Or do we ask too little, set our expectations too low or give up too soon?

Pentecost 8 – 2011

Liturgical Revision

Marian Free

 In the name of God who makes all things new. Amen.

Last week after the service, someone commented to me that while he enjoyed the Holy Communion from the 1662 Prayer Book he missed the flexibility of our modern prayers that allow for the inclusion of the sick and the departed. He also admitted that he missed the Greeting of Peace. When I replied that I was sure that the Peace Greeting would have been quite contentious when it was first introduced, he agreed, telling me how cautiously it was received in this Parish. As was the case in many churches in this Diocese, if not elsewhere, the Greeting of Peace was met with resentment and suspicion by many parishioners. At St Augustine’s. Forty years later most of us take it for granted and, like my friend, miss it when it is not used.

The Anglican Reformers demonstrated great wisdom when they wrote number 34 of the 39 Articles. It reads in part: ”It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like: for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word”. Those who wrote this had the foresight to recognise that across the Empire and across the centuries, there would be a need to change and adapt the Prayer Book such that it was culturally appropriate and relevant to its time.

Despite this freedom, it took a long time for there to be any real change to the Prayer Book for at least two centuries. One could attend an Anglican Church anywhere in the Commonwealth and expect to use the Book of Common Prayer. However, that didn’t mean that liturgy and its practice remained static from 1662 until the last century – unofficial changes in ritual and  practice were common, but rarely were they of such magnitude as to make the liturgy unrecognisable[1].

It had been the intention of the Reformation to increase the frequency of Holy Communion. From the time of Queen Elizabeth I until the late nineteenth century, the weekly fare for Anglicans consisted of Matins, the Litany and Holy Communion (or at least ante-Communion). This resulted in a “marathon of prayer, scripture and praise”[2] that could last for up to two and a half hours. A s a consequence many had left before the Eucharist had even begun, thus defeating the purpose of increasing the numbers at Holy Communion.

By the 1800’s there were calls for the separation of the three services – a practice that was already becoming customary. A Convocation was called which encouraged the shortening of the services and an increased participation by the laity. The Act of 1872 allowed for the separation of the three services and for greater freedom with regard to the materials in the Prayer Book. However, the greatest impetus for change came in 1908 when the Lambeth Conference established principles for liturgical reform. It was this that drove the revisions throughout the world during the 1900’s.

In 1928 a revision of the prayer book was defeated in the House of Commons. However the Bishops decided to allow its use provided the practice was consistent with that book or the Book of Common Prayer. For much of the latter part of the twentieth century, the Eucharist as a stand-alone service was the primary form of worship in most Australian churches and over time, even this was shortened by the omission of the exhortations.

While Cranmer and the Reformers looked to the bible as their source for liturgical reform, the reformers of the 20^th century looked to the practice of the early church which they modified to suit the current habits of thought and language. Among other changes, the recent reformers reinstituted the offertory – not as an offering of Christ to God, but as the offering of bread and wine as tokens of our own offering, our own ministry. They also brought back the greeting of peace we find in Paul’s letters and from some of the earliest liturgies. The penitential element of the services was reduced and the full recitation of the Ten Commandments was replaced with the two great commandments. An Old Testament lesson and a Psalm were added to the readings, to make up for the loss of the regular use of Morning Prayer.

Another major difference of the most recent service books is that they give the people a voice, not only in saying the liturgy, but also in leading parts of the services – reading the scriptures and leading the intercessions.  Our modern Prayer Books also offer much greater variety than that of our forebears – for example the opportunity to compile our own intercessions and to choose one of five forms of Thanksgiving Prayer.

Over the centuries since the Book of Common Prayer was compiled, language and our use of it has changed dramatically. Who today for example would understand that “let” means hindered or prevented? How many young people would understand that “manifold” is not simply something related to a car’s engine? We no longer use the word “divers” and the word “property” is used more for real estate than it is for the nature of things. The last fifty years have also seen developments in theology that need to be recognised in our liturgy. For example, referring to God constantly as Father or Almighty overlooks the many, many qualities of God that are acknowledged in our scriptures and the fact those who have been abused by their fathers do not find Father a useful expression for God.

There will always be a tension between holding on to the language and forms of liturgy that we have come to love, and finding ways to speak afresh to new generations. As we move into increasingly changing times and into an era in which fewer come to church, it will be important to understand and be true to our history, while at the same time finding ways that enable yet another generation to engage in worship that expresses in words and actions the praise that they long to offer from their hearts.

Pentecost 7 – 2011

The Book of Common Prayer

(We will be using the Book of Common Prayer in our worship today. If you are reading this, you might like first to read the Service for Holy Communion published in 1662. It can be found on a number of web sites if you do not own a copy.)

Marian Free

In the name of God to whom and before whom we bring ourselves in grateful praise. Amen.

One of the things that you will notice about today’s liturgy is the penitential element, and the threats of dire consequences for anyone who dares to receive communion unworthily. This element is quite different from the liturgies of the first centuries which did not even include confession and our modern services which place the stress on forgiveness. The emphasis on sin and the consequences thereof is an innovation introduced during the Middle Ages. During this time the church became obsessed with both private and public confession and the Eucharist became increasingly penitential.

The obsession with sin meant that the Eucharist became more morbid, thanksgiving and proclamation gave way to subjective prayer – which tended to concentrate on the unworthiness of the participants. The people were increasingly distanced from God – who needed to placated and propiated. To this end there developed a theology that in the Eucharist Jesus was once again sacrificed for us – as if there was something missing from the crucifixion such that to secure God’s favour Jesus had to be crucified again and again and again.

At the same time accessory actions (incense, washing and so) were included in the service and increasing layers of symbolism were added. The introduction of ablutions in this period represented a deepening respect for the elements that led to the reverencing of the consecrated bread and the wine as if they were Jesus himself. The lay people became increasingly excluded from the Eucharist (especially the wine) out of fear that any might be spilled and Christ in some way injured or suffer disrespect.

There were a number of factors that led up to the Reformation – political agendas, corruption within the church, the selling of indulgences, an obsession with (and adoration of) saints, an increase in ritual practices and an emphasis on sacramentalism to the exclusion of the scriptures. A quick glance at the thirty nine articles tells us that the Reformation in England was a reaction against such practices. This reaction is very much reflected in the form of the liturgy that we are using this morning.

Of particular concern at the time was the desire to make scripture the foundation of all that was done liturgically and sacramentally. The sixth article reads that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith.’ For this reason the number of sacraments was reduced to seven with baptism and Eucharist given primacy as the only two of the sacraments that could be traced back to Jesus. Ritual was reduced to a bare minimum. There were even arguments as to whether or not to use the sign of the cross in baptism and whether or not to kneel to receive communion.

While the Anglican Reformers affirmed that in the Eucharist participants received the Body and Blood of Christ they made it quite clear (in article 28) that it was taken in a heavenly and spiritual manner and that the bread and wine did not change in substance. They also stated in no uncertain terms that the “Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

Kneeling to receive communion was so contentious that a rubric had to be written particularly to address this problem. It was decided that kneeling be allowed, however: “It is hereby declared, that (by kneeling) no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. “

One of the tragedies of the Reformation was that the reformers did not recover original praise of the liturgies of the first six centuries. Instead of basing their liturgical revisions on the earliest texts, they took as their starting point the liturgies of the Middle Ages, bringing with them all their penitential flavour and sense of unworthiness. However, a major contribution was to make the liturgy accessible to the people. The Eucharist was said in the language of the day, the Bible was translated into English and both the bread and wine of communion were restored to the people. Henry VIII went so far as to insist that the creed and the ten commandments be written on the walls of Parish churches, and that the Bible be placed (open) in a situation in which anyone could read it.

The 1549 Prayer Book was based on the Sarum rite – the form of liturgy developed and used at Salisbury Cathedral. In 1542 this rite had been widely adopted for use – even by Canterbury Cathedral. Cranmer’s first revision of the Sarum rite was deliberately ambiguous to ensure that it met the needs of both the Catholics and the Reformers. However, in 1552 Cranmer moved to take out any ambiguity. For Cranmer the goal in writing the liturgy was to base the theology of the Eucharist on the person and work of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, Christ’s presence in the sacraments and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Cranmer dealt with those things he judged to be in conflict with biblical theology. Ideas of sacrifice, transubstantiation, reservation, the confessional, the invocation of saints and prayers for the departed were all reformed or totally removed.

Cranmer was particularly concerned to ensure that the Eucharistic prayer contained no sense of sacrifice – as you are about to hear – ‘you gave your only Son Jesus Christ, to suffer death on the cross for our redemption: who made there by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world’. It could not be clearer. Everything that was necessary for the removal of sin happened once for all on the cross. There was nothing missing in Jesus’ death that needed to be repeated, no lack that required Jesus to be sacrificed again and again at the Eucharist.

The final version of the service was published in 1662 and is still the official form of worship for the Anglican Church throughout the world. Our use of language has changed as has our theology, but it is difficult to argue with the beauty of the words and the depth of faith which lies behind them.

Pentecost 6 -2011

A history of liturgy

Marian Free

In the name of God, who draws us into God’s presence through scripture, sacrament, prayer and praise. Amen.

 One of the extraordinary aspects of our Sunday liturgy is how much it has in common with the earliest liturgical practice of the church. There are two reasons for this, one is that what we know as the ministry of the word developed from the practice in the synagogue and another is that from the beginning, the believing community used words that Jesus himself had given them at the last supper. A combination of the service of the word and the words of institution formed a pattern that we use for the Eucharist to this day.

The gospels record Jesus’ association with the synagogue. In today’s gospel, after Jesus finishes teaching the crowds he heads for the synagogue to teach the people. In Luke’s gospel we have a brief account of Jesus’ teaching – he stood up to read, was given the scroll, read from Isaiah, then sat down and began to teach. From this we can deduce that Synagogue worship included, among other things a reading from scripture and an exposition on the same.

Worship in synagogues arose during the exile of the Jews to Babylon. The temple had been destroyed and was no longer able to be a focus of or place in which to worship. The Israelites, in exile, far from Jerusalem, had to find a way to worship God and to maintain their national identity. A solution was to meet together in small groups, to read and expound on scripture and to praise God. During this period standardized forms of prayers were produced so that people could pray publicly and communally whereas prior to this time people had prayed individually and privately.

For those who were a long way from home, these meetings served the role of bringing their memories to life and of reminding them who they were. They recalled what God had done for them by the reading of scripture, they sang Psalms and offered praise to God, they responded to the scripture through a reflection or sermon, and they prayed together. In this way, the Jewish people could re-live the whole history of their relationship with God and look forward to a time when they would be restored to their homeland.

When the Jews returned from exile, they were able to rebuild the temple, but the habit of worshipping locally and regularly in the synagogue was sufficiently implanted that the irregular festivals at the Temple no longer provided a satisfactory alternative and so synagogue worship continued alongside worship in the Temple.

Given that Jesus was a Jew and that the earliest believers were also Jewish it is not surprising that the first community continued to worship in the synagogues. Nor is it surprising, that when the first believers were expelled from the synagogue,  they took with them the form of worship with which they were familiar –  readings from scripture (which increasingly included Paul’s letters and then the gospels, psalms, a sermon and intercessions. Over time, the Old Testament reading was omitted and a greeting was added. In the fifth and sixth century the service was elaborated to include an introit, kyries, Gloria and collect, giving us a form that is immediately recognizable today.

We know that the first Christians continued to meet in the synagogues. We know too that they also met on the first day of the week and that then (or at some other time) they met to share a meal and to break bread as Jesus had commanded them (1 Cor 11:23-26).  This form of worship also took shape very early. While we do not know the form used by the New Testament Church, the second century document The Didache provides words of Thanksgiving for the bread and the wine and a prayer for after communion. It also gives an instruction in relation to meeting on the Lord’s day to break bread and offer thanksgiving after the confession of sin.

Also writing in the second century, Justin Martyr records: “On finishing the prayers we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and mixed wine are brought to the president of the brethren and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length that we have been deemed worthy to receive these things from him … When the president has given thanks and the whole congregation has assent [with an “amen”], those whom we call deacons give to each of those present a portion of the consecrated bread and wine and water, and they take it to the absent.”

At this time, there were of course no books, so with the exception of the formulas such as the words of institution the language of the Eucharist was fluid. The church therefore required someone who could faithfully represent Christian beliefs and keep the faithful from heresy. It was the Bishop who presided, and who in the absence of written and/or standardized texts said the Thanksgiving which could record the whole history of salvation from creation to the cross!  (Hence Justin’s comment about the thanksgiving being of some length.)The prayer was (and still is) both proclamation and creed and contains within it a sense of absolution. For this reason there was no need for a separate creedal statement, or confession and absolution.

The form of the Eucharistic prayer is still recognizable today. It consisted of the Sursum Corda (Lift up your hearts), the Sanctus (Holy, holy, holy), the Thanksgiving, the Words of Institution (On the night he was betrayed..), Anamnesis (bringing to mind), the Oblation or offering, the epiclesis (invoking of the Holy Spirit), intercessions and the doxology (Blessing, and honor etc). A major difference from our service today is the inclusion of the intercessions within the Eucharistic prayer.

From at least the 6^th century, if not the second century, the two services – the service of the word and the Eucharist were bound together in the form that we know it today. Given the changes that we have experienced over the last forty years, it is remarkable to consider that the form of worship that we use Sunday by Sunday, is much the same as that used 2,000 years ago. It calls to mind the word of Dom Gregory Dix written in 1945: Was ever another command so obeyed? For century after century, spreading slowly to every continent and country and among every race on earth, this action has been done, in every conceivable human circumstance, for every conceivable human need from infancy and before it to old age and after it, from the pinnacles of earthly greatness to the refuge of fugitives in the caves and dens of the earth. Men have found no better thing than this to do for kings at their crowning and for criminals going to the scaffold; for armies in triumph or for a bride and bridegroom in a little country church; for the proclamation of a dogma or for a good crop of wheat; for the wisdom of the Parliament of a mighty nation or for a sick old woman afraid to die; for a schoolboy sitting an examination or for Columbus setting out to discover America; for the famine of whole provinces or for the soul of a dead lover; – one could fill many pages with the reasons why men have done this, and not tell a hundredth part of them. And best of all, week by week, and month by month, on a hundred thousand successive Sundays, faithfully, unfailingly, across all the parishes of Christendom, the pastors have done just this to MAKE the PLEBS SANCTA DEI – the holy common people of God.
(The Shape of the Liturgy, Dacre Press, A& C Black, 1945, 744.)

Pentecost 5 2011

Matthew 13:24-43

Marian Free

 In the name of God who alone knows right from wrong and good from evil, and who alone can see and judge the hearts of humankind. Amen.

Some time ago there was a particularly gruesome movie called 16mm. The plot goes something like this. On the death of her husband, a woman finds a 16mm film in his safe. The film in question is a “snuff” film – a film of someone being killed. Not only is the wife disturbed by the find, she feels that it is important to see that justice is done for the victim in the film. To that end she employs someone to investigate. As the investigator uncovers the story of the young woman and enters the murky and unsavoury world of the filmmaker, he becomes more and more distressed and obsessed with bringing the perpetrator to justice. When the investigator finally catches up with the movie-maker his anger is so intense that he beats the man to death and hides the crime by setting fire to the movie set. The audience is led to assume that this form of summary justice will go largely undetected and therefore unpunished. The viewer has sympathy for the investigator and his action, but at the same time is conscious that the one who was in the right has now placed himself in the wrong.

Earlier this year, members of the United States Army stormed the home of Osama bin Laden, shot him dead and disposed of his body at sea. The news was greeted with jubilation across the world. The Australian newspaper stated: “Today, the US basks in righteous triumph.” However, there were some who questioned the “rightness” or otherwise of this action and asked whether a better course of action would have been to arrest bin Laden and to bring him to trial. The community was divided. There were those who felt that bin Laden’s death was justified as an act of war and others who believed that true justice demands its day in court.

These stories, one fictional and one true, illustrate the difficulty of making moral and or righteous judgements. They serve to remind us that the line between good and evil is not always clear. There is no question that someone who murders people should be brought to justice, but should that justice be administered outside the law? No one would question that the man who made “snuff” films deserved to be punished. The question is what should the punishment be and who should administer it? And what about the investigator – should he be arrested and tried for murder or should he be lauded for killing someone who profits from the death of others?

Is murder not really murder if the one killed is a particularly distasteful or dangerous person? Few in the Western world would have mourned the death of bin Laden. However, did the extent of his crimes justify his being killed in his home before his wife, or should he, like Ratko Mladic, have been arrested and tried before facing capital punishment? How will history judge those who made the decisions to carry out the attack – as saviours or murderers?

The answers to such questions are not always clear or simple, nor do we always find consensus. “Thou shalt not murder” seems to be a straight forward commandment – killing another person is obviously wrong. However, the commandment doesn’t apply to soldiers in a war zone and even our legal system accepts that killing another person is not always murder. A person can be convicted of first degree murder, second degree murder or manslaughter, depending on the level of pre-meditation behind the deed, whether or not it was an accident and so on. Today, victims of domestic violence are often acquitted of murder of a violent spouse. The distinction between good and evil is not clear- cut. “Thou shalt not murder” is obviously open to interpretation.

Zizaniov or darnell– the weed planted by the enemy in today’s parable – looks almost indistinguishable from wheat. There was a real risk that had the householder allowed the slaves to weed the crop, much of the wheat would have been destroyed in the process. For that reason, it was much better to wait until harvest time when the plants could be more easily recognised and therefore separated from each other.

Clearly the point of today’s parable is judgement. However, the central point is not that that the good are rewarded and the not so good are punished. The point is that the good and the bad are often difficult to distinguish. Furthermore, it is not our task but God’s to make the distinction and that at a time of God’s choosing.

Jesus is warning us against the presumption that we are able to see with God’s eyes, or that we have the wisdom to judge rightly. This is a point that he makes elsewhere. When determining right from wrong, most of us have a tendency to use a broad brush and to overlook our own faults. For this reason Jesus shocks us by saying that calling our brother or sister a “fool” is the same as committing murder, that looking at someone with lust in our eyes is the same as committing adultery and so on.

When we judge others, we put ourselves in the place of God and make the assumption that we are able to distinguish clearly between good and evil, right and wrong. Jesus confronts such arrogance and in a variety of ways illustrates the difficulties and dangers that we face when we try to put ourselves in the place of God as judge and jury of our peers.

In human terms, we need to devise laws and to develop ways to administer and interpret the same. To ensure that society runs smoothly and that the majority are safe and free, we need to establish and enforce boundaries and to define acceptable behaviour.  We know however that the law is only as good as those who legislate it and those who apply it – it is good, but it is not perfect.

Only God is perfect and that means that when it comes to eternity, only God can determine who shall inherit the kingdom. Until then, we have to live with the tension of knowing that good and bad are growing together both in the community as a whole, but also in ourselves. We have to accept too, that only God can see the secrets of our hearts and only God can determine what must be weeded out and what can remain forever.

Pentecost 4 2011

Matthew 13:1-23

Marian Free

Loving God, open our eyes that we might see, our ears that we might hear and our hearts that we might love you. Amen.

I said: “Isn’t …….. it ……… a ……….. love-ly ……. day?”

I’m sure we’ve all seen it, even if we haven’t done it ourselves, the way in which someone slows down their speech and raises their voice when speaking to  a person who doesn’t understand English. Apparently slowing down and shouting makes English intelligible to the person whose first language is Swahili or Portuguese! A similar scenario is played out when one person tries to belittle another who just doesn’t understand. “I ….. told ….. you …… ADD ……. the ……. salt ……. and ……… THEN ……  add ……. the ……..flour.”  Again, there appears to be a belief that speaking slowly and loudly will help the stupid person to get it right.

We have lots of ways of trying to make sure that we are understood – many of them bad. One technique is simply to repeat ourselves word for word when someone hasn’t understood the first time. It never occurs to some people that the reason they are misunderstood is that they have expressed themselves badly, or that the person whom they are addressing might understand better if it is put another way.

All kinds of things get in the way of good communication – language, culture, age (especially in our facebook, mobile phone era), hardness of hearing, the level of interest on the part of the hearer and so on.

Today’s gospel reading includes an interruption that is about hearing but not really hearing. At first glance, it would appear that by speaking in parables Jesus is deliberately trying to obscure his message so that only a select few understand and come to faith.

One way to understand this break in Jesus’ teaching is to understand that it was added later. That is, that Jesus (who is in a boat addressing the crowds, doesn’t stop mid-story to talk to a few disciples) but addresses the disciples at a later time, or that the writer of the gospel added this reflection to explain the situation of a later time.  Whether the words are from Jesus or the evangelist, the question asked by the disciples addresses an important issue – why is it that some understand and believe and that others fail to understand not only what Jesus is saying, but who and what he is? In the context of the community for whom this gospel is written, the question might be: “why is it that the Jews, those to whom Jesus came, still steadfastly refuse to believe?” “Why don’t they understand?”

In order to find an answer to these questions, the disciples ask Jesus why he speaks in parables. In response, Jesus uses a quote from Isaiah, in which Isaiah is instructed to tell the people:

‘You will indeed listen, but never understand,

and you will indeed look, but never perceive.

For this people’s heart has grown dull,

and their ears are hard of hearing,

and they have shut their eyes;

so that they might not look with their eyes,

and listen with their ears,

and understand with their heart and turn—

and I would heal them.’

In its original context this was intended as a sarcastic comment. God knew that no matter what Isaiah said, the people would not really pay attention or understand the gravity of their situation. If only they understood, they would turn to God and be healed and restored, but it will take more than Isaiah’s words to wake them from their complacency. The people were too caught up with their own concerns, too self-absorbed to hear what God was saying through the prophet. Isaiah might well have been speaking to the air – the people that he addressed would rather to continue going their own way than heed his warnings about the consequences of their behaviour.

The words of Isaiah describe a real situation. It is not that God closes the ears of the people, just that they will not listen. Their failure to see and hear relates to their own egocentricity rather than a deliberate attempt by God to blind or deafen them.

About seven centuries later Jesus experiences a similar response to his message. Among the Jews, especially among the leaders of the Jews there are many who are so complacent, so self-satisfied that they are certain that there is nothing new that this itinerant preacher has to offer them. Their eyes and ears are closed because they believe that they already know all that there is to know. Jesus could speak in parables or not speak in parables – either way they would fail to grasp what it is he is trying to say to them or its significance for their lives.

The parables are designed to awaken and surprise us, but they are not designed to confuse us or cloud our vision so that we do not see or hear Jesus.  Any failure to see or hear is caused by our own self-certainty and smugness or by a belief that there is nothing more that God can teach us. The difficulty is that if we are smug and self-satisfied we will be blind to the fact that we do not hear!

It is important then, to recognise our own human limitations, to accept that God is far beyond our human understanding, to measure our wisdom against the wisdom of God, to maintain an openness and expectancy to the Spirit and a to develop a willingness to have our assumptions challenged and our beliefs shaken. It is only by staying alert, by refusing to be complacent and accepting that we will never know all that there is to know that our hearts and minds will be free to hear what God is saying to us.

God might be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but our understanding of God should be constantly developing and growing and changing, so let us keep our eyes open, our ears alert and our minds free from stagnation, that we may indeed listen and understand, look and perceive, and understand with our heart and be healed.