Swallowsrest

Easter 5 – 2010

John 13:31-35

Marian Free

May God who is love give us love in our hearts and in our community. Amen.

“When he had gone out.” This is a strange place to begin a reading. Who has gone out and why? What is the context of this short reading? What has led up to Jesus’ triumphant statement: “Now has the Son of Man been glorified and God has been glorified in him”? Where is Jesus going and why can’t the disciples go with him? How does any of this relate to the command to love?

Chapters 13 to 17 in John’s gospel comprise what is known as Jesus’ Farewell Discourse. Set in the context of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples, these chapters record Jesus’ final teaching to his followers – teaching which is intended to prepare the disciples for Jesus’ departure and at the same time to establish some sort of grounding for the community which will be formed in his name. This teaching is presented to Jesus’ inner circle. It is not meant for the general public but is specific to those who will lead the community when Jesus has departed.

Within the New Testament context, these chapters are unique to John’s gospel. The other three provide a description of the meal, but do not include any teaching or final instructions. However, a final discourse is consistent with other Jewish literature in the time between the second century BCE and the third century CE in which are recorded the farewell speeches of a number of significant Jewish figures. Such speeches had a number of common elements – the prediction of the leader’s death and departure, predictions of attacks in the future on the leader’s followers, an exhortation to ideal behaviour, a final commission, an affirmation of and renewal of the never-ending covenant promises of God and a closing doxology. A number of these characteristics are recognizable in Jesus’ farewell speech in John’s gospel.

Today’s command to love belongs in this wider context of the gospel and concludes the introduction to the speech. The time is before the Passover, and Jesus is in Jerusalem with his disciples. They are having supper when Jesus leaves the table to wash his disciples’ feet – a service which Peter at first rejects because he does not understand. When Jesus sits down to the meal again, he explains his actions. His disciples are to model this style of servant leadership. In the new community loving service is to prevail. Not all is right however, Jesus is troubled. He knows the disciples so well, that he is aware that one of them will be unable to conform to this model of service. Judas’ treachery is exposed and he is forced to leave, which is where our reading began: “When he had gone out..”

Judas’ departure leads to a shout of triumph from Jesus: “Now is the Son of Man glorified.” The hour which Jesus has been predicting has come, Jesus will “be lifted up” in a final act of self-giving which will draw all people to himself. This is the moment he has been waiting for; this is the reason for which he came. He realizes however that the crucifixion will leave the disciples distressed and confused – they cannot go where he is going – at least not yet. Jesus’ concern for them is obvious. He addresses them as “little children” (an expression he will use again when he is on the beach the morning after the resurrection). They do not yet have the maturity or the faith to comprehend what is about to occur.

Finally, despite everything, Jesus entrusts them with the commandment which is to form the basis of the new community – the command to love one another with the same love with which he has loved them (a love, which from the context, will involve them in the self-gift which leads to death).

In the three chapters which follow, Jesus expands on this key theme of love – the Father’s love for Jesus, Jesus’ love for the Father and Jesus’ love for the disciples. It is this love which he commands them to perpetuate in their love for one another. Jesus’ expectation of and hope for the disciples is an extraordinary one given that he “knew whom he had chosen” (13:18). He knew that Judas would hand him over to the authorities; he knew that Peter would betray him; he knew that the disciples would abandon him. In full knowledge of his disciples’ ignorance, failure, misunderstanding, their lack of nerve, betrayal and denial, Jesus asserts his love in word and action and asks them to follow his example.

Love is central to the future of the community. Those who love Jesus will be loved by the Father. Jesus will reveal himself to those who love him and he and the Father will come to them. Over and over again, Jesus repeats the commandment to love one another and, using the image of the vine alerts them to the costly nature of this love: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. ¹³No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” If they so love, the disciples will be set apart from those around them. Jesus prays that the disciples “may be one, so that the world may know that he is sent by God and that God loves the disciples even as he has loved Jesus” (17:21). He prays that God’s love for himself may be in his disciples in order that they might be one even as he and the Father are one. The community formed and commissioned by Jesus’ farewell speech is to be a community united by servant leadership and by self-sacrificial love.

The love which Jesus models and teaches is the love we are called to show to one another. It is a love which reverses the expected patterns of behaviour. It is a love so radical that it cannot help but make the world sit up and take notice – ^35”By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another”. Jesus models and envisages a community in which service not competition is the model and in which self-giving love takes precedence over self-serving ambition. The community which Jesus asks his disciples to be is a community which reflects that love between the Father and Son, a love so complete that they are indistinguishable one from another.

It has been millennia since anyone said: “Look at those Christians, see how they love one another.” The question that we must ask ourselves over and over again is this: Does our love for one another set us apart from the world around us in such a radical way that people notice? If not, why not and what are we doing about it?

Easter 3 – 2010

John 21:1-19

Marian Free

In the name of God who in Jesus demonstrates that God’s love is never withdrawn. Amen.

At the end of chapter 20 in John we read: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” These words seem to indicate that the gospel has reached its conclusion. There are many scholars who believe that the original gospel ended at this point. This view is supported by other evidence which is found in chapter 21 For example, the use of language is different in this last chapter, the wrong number of resurrection appearances is recorded. Chapter 21 provides the only mention of the sons of Zebedee in the gospel.

At the same time, the chapter contains characteristics which are consistent with the authorship of the first twenty chapters. Most notable of these is the author’s use of a variety of terms to express the same thing. For example, three different Greek words are used for “fish”, Simon is asked to “tend” or “feed” “Jesus’ sheep” or his “lambs”. Much has been made of Jesus’ use of two different words for “love” – “agaph” (agape) and “filoV” (philos), however there is little significance in the language other than the author’s wish to avoid repetition. Also consistent with the author of John’s gospel is the refusal to name the Beloved Disciple.

Not only is it difficult to determine whether or not the chapter belongs to the gospel, but there are also a number of puzzles in it to which we may never have an answer. For example: Where does Jesus get the fish which he is cooking? Why is the exact number – 153 – of fish mentioned? Perhaps most puzzling is why the disciples – who not only have seen the risen Jesus, but who have received the Holy Spirit and been commissioned for ministry – return to their previous way of life?

Whether or not chapter is original to the gospel it does contain many elements of the Jesus’ tradition and is beautifully crafted with allusions to events in the rest of the gospel for example the bread and fish of the account of the feeding of the five thousand. Further more, it helps the readers to understand Peter’s rehabilitation.

The chapter consists of five parts. First of all the author sets the scene – seven disciples are by the Sea of Tiberias. Next comes a short account of a miraculous catch of fish (a miracle with which we are familiar from other gospels). This section includes the recognition of Jesus. When the boat reaches shore Jesus invites the disciples to share a meal. Finally, after the meal Jesus has a conversation with Simon which leads to a revelation about the Beloved Disciple.

 Within the story are a number of allusions to earlier parts of the gospel which round out the account. Peter’s enthusiastic response to the Beloved Disciple’s recognition of Jesus is reminiscent of his racing into the tomb when the other disciple had simply looked in. The miraculous catch and the precise number of fish reminds the reader that the disciples elsewhere have been called to fish for people.

However it is the reference to the charcoal fire which is most evocative. Fresh in the minds of the readers is Peter’s three-fold denial of Jesus – while he was warming himself at a charcoal fire. There is no mention here of the past, but the charcoal fire and Jesus’ threefold question and commissioning brings it clearly to mind. Here in the final section of the story and indeed of the gospel, the author makes us witnesses to Simon’s restoration and his re-commissioning as the future shepherd of Jesus’ sheep.

There is no confession, no act of repentance on Peter’s part and there is no remonstrance or offer of absolution on the part of Jesus. Jesus simply seeks to be assured that Peter loves him (Jesus) more than he loves the other disciples. Then, without any demand but that of love, Jesus re-instates Peter as the one who will take his place as the shepherd of the sheep.

From a human perspective, this is an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do. We know that when Jesus needed Simon the most, Simon turned his back. He demonstrated that when the going gets tough, he gets going. He publicly let Jesus down, made out that he didn’t even know him and abandoned Jesus to his fate. It would not be unreasonable for Jesus to express disappointment or disapproval. In fact, we would not be in the least surprised if Jesus were angry with Simon. We might think that Jesus would ask for an explanation of Simon’s behaviour, but the past is not even mentioned. On the other hand, it is only reasonable to expect an articulation of shame and guilt from Peter or a request for forgiveness, yet neither are forthcoming. Without having to do anything except affirm his love, Peter is restored not only as Jesus’ friend, but as the leader of the community which will be formed in Jesus’ name.

Simon’s behaviour is equally extraordinary. Instead of skulking guiltily behind the other disciples – filled with guilt and shame, as soon as he knows it is Jesus on the shore Simon leaps into the water to be the first to reach him. It is as if nothing had happened between them. Somehow Simon knew what Judas did not – that Jesus’ love for him was unconditional, that it would survive his betrayal. Simon didn’t need to take his own life in despair, because he knew that despite his abandonment of Jesus and Jesus’ disappointment, Jesus would not abandon him.

This does not mean that he gets off scot free. He has let Jesus down and Jesus needs to be sure that he will not fail him again. So Jesus seeks an assurance of Simon’s love. Three times he asks him: “Do you love me?” Three times Simon has to respond that yes he does. Only then is Jesus satisfied that Simon is ready to submit himself completely to the will of God and to go wherever that call may lead him, even if that means death. Simon has learnt, through his failures what it is that is most important to him. 

In this lifetime, we will let God down and we will let ourselves down, but we can learn from Peter that God’s love is never withdrawn and that if we trust in that love and learn from our failures, not only will we be fully restored, but as we submit ourselves completely to God’s love, we will find that God will use even us for good.

Easter 2 – 2010

John 20:19-31

Marian Free

In the name of God who accepts our frailty, respects our desire for proof and blesses us with faith. Amen.

In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Church’s history. Included in the apology was the trial of Galileo. Galileo, who changed how we see the world, was at the time, pilloried, charged with heresy and placed under house arrest for a large part of his life.  From a twentieth century perspective, the church’s treatment of Galileo seemed to be unnecessarily harsh – especially as Galileo’s theories were not even new.

Earlier in the 16^th century Copernicus had used mathematics to develop a theory that the sun was the centre of our galaxy and that the earth and all other planets revolved around the sun. This view completely contradicted a view held for 14 centuries that the earth was the centre of the universe and that all else revolved around it. Copernicus did not publish his work, but news of his theory began to circulate after his death.

Galileo began his teaching career expounding this earlier view, but based on his own observations soon became convinced of Copernicus’ research and incorporated these theories into his lectures. The church was not particularly perturbed by the theory, or by science as a whole. The problem for the church was that Galileo’s theory could not be conclusively proven. Furthermore, the theory contradicted scripture – After all, didn’t Joshua make the sun stand still and the Psalmist say that the earth was set firmly in its place?

Even though Galileo was a devout and committed Catholic and a brilliant physicist, but he could not confine himself to the limits of the time. As well as spreading his new theory as if it were proven, he attempted to demonstrate how scripture should be interpreted so that there was no contradiction between his theory and the bible. In so doing, he entered the territory of scriptural interpretation and theology – areas reserved for the church. The church of the time was not un-scientific. It was a church of the age, a church of reason not of guesswork. Galileo broke the rule by presenting theory as fact.

Theory vs fact, imagination vs confirmation, fantasy vs reality, fact vs fiction, faith vs doubt. To accuse the church of Galileo’s age of being unscientific is to misrepresent the facts. It was not afraid of knowledge, but it was concerned that knowledge be backed by reason.

The early disciples have a lot in common with the church of the 16^th century. They were people of reason and fact. Even an unscientific age knew that the dead did not rise. They needed proof before they could believe. Their faith did not come all at once. In fact they took some convincing. To them empty tomb was just that – an empty tomb. On its own it was not sufficient to convince the disciples that Jesus had risen. Neither were the words of the angels proof enough. And reports that the women had seen Jesus were not sufficient to convince them.

Initially all the disciples were uncomprehending. For them it was impossible that the man whom they saw crucified could be anything but dead. They needed evidence. They needed to see and touch for themselves before they believed. Why then does John separate out Thomas for special mention? Thomas asks for no more than the others have sought and received. The women have seen, and the disciples have seen. Thomas would like to see and feel. Why then is he censured?

In order to understand the account of Thomas we have to understand when and why John was writing. John’s is the last of the gospels to be written and it is written at a time when there are no longer any eye-witnesses to the earthly Jesus or to the resurrection. He is writing for those who have not, and probably will not, see the risen Christ. The generation for whom he writes believe according to what they have heard. Whereas Luke is concerned to prove that the risen Jesus was a physical reality and not merely a vision, John is concerned to emphasise that the resurrection does not require palpable proof and that faith alone is sufficient.

Both Luke and John record Jesus’ appearance behind locked doors on the day of the resurrection. Only John records a second appearance. According to John, Thomas, absent on the first occasion, cannot believe the accounts of the disciples (just as they could not believe Mary Magdalene). He is adamant that he requires concrete proof. Jesus second appearance allows John to make the point that those who believe without seeing are in no way inferior to those who have seen. He is thus able to affirm the faith of those for whom he is writing. He quotes Jesus is as saying: ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.’ John’s readers then are among the blessed. They are the true Christians – they believe without ever having seen the earthly or the risen Jesus. They are the Christians of the future, the model of all those who are yet to come. Faith does not belong to the first generation, but to every succeeding generation.

Today’s physicists are less dogmatic and certain than Galileo. They recognise that we do not and may not have answers to all the questions of the universe and that theories are just that – ideas about the nature of things. They are more willing to live without absolute certainty. Every age sees the world through a different lens. The age of miracle and superstition gave way to the age of science and reason. Now an age of certainty is giving way to a willingness to live with uncertainty.

If Jesus was really displeased with Thomas he would not have returned, nor would he have invited him to touch his hands and his side. The story is important not because of its censure of Thomas, but because it affirms the faith of all who have not seen.

We count ourselves among blessed, because we have not seen and yet we believe.

Easter Day – 2010

Luke 24:1-11

Marian Free

In the name of God who opens our eyes to a new reality in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

C.S. Lewis, author of the much loved children’s books the Chronicles of Narnia, as well as numerous books on popular theology, was for much of his life a committed atheist. His journey to the Christian faith came about through a search for joy. He discovers in a round about way that his objectifying of joy makes it allusive and always beyond his reach, or at least, when he reaches it, it is not what he is looking for. “All his waitings and watchings for joy, all his vain hopes to find some mental content on which he could lay his finger and say: “this is it” had been a futile attempt.

Having lost any faith in his early teens, and having lost interest in Christianity, Lewis did not look for joy in faith. Faith catches him almost unawares, and when it does he stops looking, in part, because it has lost the importance he once attached to it.[1]

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

There are many who spend their lives searching because they are dissatisfied with the world as they know it. For many of them the search takes them on a wild goose chase which has little chance of bringing them the peace of mind which they seek. Their lives are littered with “if only’s”. If only I had a better job, if only my wife/husband understood me, if only my house were bigger, my children smarter, if only my parents had done this or that, if only my boss recognised my talents. The search never comes to a conclusion because they will never find satisfaction in external circumstances, but will only be happy and at peace if they can comes to terms with who and what they are. The search fails because they are looking for the wrong things in the wrong places.

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

Despite the fact that Jesus has spent three years with his closest friends they still have not understood what he is about. Despite Jesus’ teaching and example, they have not understood that he is opening the way to a new form of reality, that he is breaking down the barriers between heaven and earth and trying to establish a whole new way of being. His followers, limited by their human understanding do not comprehend when he challenges the earthly notions of power and competition and replaces them with service and mutuality. They have not fully grasped the implications of unconditional love and forgiveness. Jesus has tried to encourage them to live by different standards and be guided by different principles than those of this world. He lives and demonstrates kingdom values.

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

Worst of all Jesus’ disciples haven’t really grasped who he is and what his purpose is. To them the crucifixion is the end – not only of Jesus’ life but of all the hopes and dreams they had built around him. So on the day after the Sabbath, the women go to the tomb to anoint his lifeless body. He is dead and they are grief-stricken, confused and perhaps even disappointed, but they will still do what is necessary and say their last “good-byes”.

Despite all that Jesus has said and done, they expect to find him there in the tomb – the life drained out of him. He is not there. In fact, he was never going to be there. They are searching for the wrong thing, in the wrong place.

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

Having not understood in the first place, the women and, in turn the disciples, are still operating according to earthly values and expectations. It takes some time, and according to Luke, further explanation before they really grasp the full implication of all that has happened. The crucifixion did not represent the failure of Jesus’ mission and the resurrection confirmed and affirmed all that Jesus had said and done.

In his life, his death and now his resurrection, Jesus has opened the door to a new way of living, a new reality and a new way of seeing the world. He has exposed the limitations of human thinking and the frailty of human behaviour. Now the resurrection explodes all of our notions of what is real and challenges our narrow frames of reference – if death is not the end, then anything is possible. Most importantly, the resurrection breaks through the barrier between this world and the next making it possible for us to live both in this world and in the world to come, free from the strivings and disappointments of this existence.

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

The resurrection challenges us to consider where our true values lie, in what we place our hopes and what brings us true contentment. Do we seek happiness in material things or worldly success which are ultimately transitory and unsatisfying, or do we seek the deep peace and joy which come from a relationship with the living God? Are we looking for short term gains, or long term solutions to life’s complexities? Are we firmly rooted in this world, or are we already participating in the benefits of the next?

Jesus reveals to us a different way of being. He demonstrates that it is possible to live in a way which recognises that the barriers between heaven and earth have been broken down. He shows us what it is to live according to the values of the kingdom and through his crucifixion and resurrection; he shatters our fear of death.

Why seek the living among the dead, why strive for things which do not satisfy? The resurrection is guarantee of life – resurrection life in the future and resurrection life in the present – peace, joy and contentment. In Jesus the dead have been raised, and in him we find that we have all that we need.

Easter Vigil – 2010

Matthew

Marian Free

In the name of God who in Jesus brings us from death to life, from darkness into light. Amen.

That baptism has always been associated with the great events of Easter is made evident in Paul’s letter to the Romans. “³Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” The prayers in our baptism service ask that the one baptized: “may be so buried with Christ in baptism that the new nature may be raised up in them. May the fruit of your Spirit grow and flourish in them” and we bless the water with the words: “sanctify this water so that those who are to be baptized in it may be made one with Christ in his death and resurrection.”

In baptism we enter a new form of existence. It represents a movement from the material world into the spiritual realm, a movement away from sin (separation from God), to union with God. In baptism we die to the law and invite the Holy Spirit to direct and regulate all that we do – at least in theory.

In actual fact, I wonder how many of us have moved into the spiritual realm. How many of us have truly died to this world so that we may begin the process of living in the next? How many of us are so confident in the Holy Spirit that we are able to rely entirely on her to determine our behaviour and our decisions? It is easy enough, I think, to believe that because of our baptism we are assured of the resurrection to eternal life. It is less easy to believe that we are set free to live that life now. It is relatively easy to accept the resurrection as an historic event, but much harder to accept that the resurrection opens for us a new reality, a new way of living.

As Paul makes clear, the resurrection is so much more than an historical event. Through our baptism we share not only in Christ’s death, but in his resurrection. Dying and rising are an integral part of our Christian journey. In his death and resurrection, Jesus defeated the law, sin and death. In our baptism we are called to participate in that victory – to live in such a way that law, sin and death have no hold on us, to give ourselves wholly to God so that our lives may be transformed and that we might live life to the full.

Dying to sin means dying to those aspects of human nature which lead us to focus on ourselves and our own needs rather than relying on God to meet our every need. Instead of placing our trust in God, we place our trust in power and material possessions, and we compete with others to demonstrate our prowess. Instead of seeking the values of the kingdom, we are seduced by the values of the world.

Dying to the law means dying to the sort of independence which assumes that we are capable of knowing how God wants us to behave. Instead of relying on the Spirit, we establish our own codes of behaviour, these in turn, take the place of reliance on the Holy Spirit and instead of bringing us closer to God, take us further away.

Dying to death means dying to those things which prevent us from being truly alive. Instead of living life to the full, we can get stuck in grief, frustration and anger. Instead of rejoicing in the life which God has given us we can find ourselves allowing our circumstances to determine our attitude to life. Being bound by negativity, sorrow or disappointment prevents our growing into the newness of life received through our baptism.

The difficulty that we have lies in distinguishing the spiritual from the material. Ironically, it is often our attempts to be “good” which are more likely to draw us away from the spiritual world than our being “bad”. When we are bad, we usually know that we are bad. It is much harder to discern when our being “good” is actually driving us away from God. A focus on being “good” can become a form of self-absorption – it can lead to a complacency about our relationship with God. For example, we can become so concerned with our prayer life that we are no longer listening to God, so intent on doing good, that we have no time for a relationship with God, so resigned about “carrying our cross” that we forget that the cross is meant to lead to resurrection. We may be blind to the fact that our spiritual exercises become and end in themselves rather than opening a way to God. We may fail to recognise that the ways in which we regulate our lives might in fact be a way of our taking control rather than relying on God. We may not realize that we have become so absorbed in our troubles that instead of we are in the grip of a certain kind of death.

Walking in newness of life is the promise of our baptism, the promise of the resurrection. We are called out of darkness into light, from the realm of this world into the spiritual dimension that is God’s world. Christ has set us free – to claim that freedom we need to live to God, to consciously and conscientiously determine to live in the spiritual world, to die to all that binds us to the present and focusing solely on God allow our lives to be determined by the Spirit.

In that perfect freedom, we will discover that we are truly alive and we will know for ourselves the power of the resurrection.

Lent 5

John 12:1-12

Marian Free

In the name of God whose wanton extravagance draws out our own. Amen.

A son takes half his father’s property, spends it all in a very short time and returns home to work as a servant. Instead of berating him, his father runs out to meet him and immediately re-instates him with all the privileges of being a son. So we heard last week in the story of the prodigal son.

Such gestures of extravagant love are re-iterated throughout the Old and New Testaments in both story and action. Over and over again, God threatens dire consequences if Israel does not repent, and over and over again, God relents and refuses to carry out the threats. From the very beginning, God’s extravagant love is evident. Creation does not consist of the bare necessities for existence, but is filled with beauty and wonder. From the tiniest bird to the largest whale God doesn’t stint or limit God’s creative genius. Later, God’s extravagant love is shown to Abraham when he promises not only that the old man will become a father, but that his offspring will be as many as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the beach. In today’s reading from Isaiah God promises the seemingly impossible – rivers in the desert – and so the list goes on.

In the New Testament, this theme of abundant generosity is continued in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus feeds 5,000 people and there is more than enough to go around. Jesus changes water into wine not just ordinary wine, but the very best wine.  Jesus didn’t limit his love to those who deserved it, but spread his love liberally to all people – even to tax collectors, prostitutes and so on. Jesus’ parables continue this theme – the shepherd who is so concerned with one sheep that he leaves the others to fend for themselves, the mustard seed which grows profusely and the grain which produces abundantly. The theme of abundant love is difficult to miss.

Add to this the Incarnation and the crucifixion – not for those who were good, but for those who were far from good – then we see the fullest picture of a love that is poured out without measure on a largely undeserving world.

Sadly, God’s bountiful provision is, too often, taken for granted. Though times are changing we barely give a thought to how well the earth sustains and provides for us all, let alone thank God for his bounty. Even if we do appreciate all that God has done for us, our English reserve ensures that we do not express our gratitude with extravagant gestures or demonstrative outpourings of love.

Even the bible, there are very few instances of a grateful response to God’s love – only the Psalms and a few other songs of praise. More often than not, the response is one of complaint: ‘Why did God bring us out of Egypt to die in the desert?” “Why is Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners?” “What about us, we have left everything and followed?” “Can we sit on your right hand and your left?”

The grateful extravagance of the woman who anointed Jesus stands in stark contrast to the attitude of entitlement or diffidence which takes God’s love for granted.

This story occurs in all gospels though in very different forms. According to Luke, Jesus is eating at the home of Simon the Pharisee whereas in Matthew and Mark Simon is identified as “the leper”. John’s setting is a meal with Lazarus, Martha and Mary – friends with whom Jesus often stays.  Luke situates the story in Galilee and the others place it near Jerusalem. In Matthew and Mark the woman anoints Jesus’ head. In Luke and John, Jesus’ feet are anointed and wiped with the woman’s hair.

The response of the observers is similar. Luke’s Simon is shocked that Jesus is allowing a sinful woman to touch him and the crowd, the disciples or Judas are astounded at the waste. In every instance Jesus comes to the woman’s defense. Simon the Pharisee is told a story about two debtors to illustrate the woman’s grateful response and in the other gospels, Jesus commends the woman who, he says is preparing him for burial.

Nard was a very expensive ointment; it came from the rhizome of a plant growing in the foothills of the Himalayas. It was so rare and so treasured that Horace offered to send Virgil a whole barrel of his best wine in exchange for a phial of nard. We are told that that its name stood for an evocation of the perfume of the lost Garden of Eden. According to the gospel records a pound of nard was worth 300 denarii, that is about a year’s pay for a laborer – in our terms something like $30 – 40,000. And Mary simply pours it over Jesus’ feet! No wonder the onlookers were surprised, shocked and even incensed, it extraordinary to think that someone would throw away a year’s salary on a single action which will have no lasting benefit. Where someone like Mary would even get something that valuable is not explained.

The woman, whether it is Mary or the unnamed woman of the other accounts, is utterly indifferent to the cost of the ointment. Her love for and gratitude to Jesus can be shown no other way. In her determination to demonstrate that love and gratitude Mary shows no regard as to what others might think and she appears to have no concern regarding the social or financial cost of her action. Mary’s selfless generosity is illustrative of the response of many who have known themselves truly loved, blessed and enriched by God. Knowing herself loved and blessed without limit, Mary responds with the same wild abandon with which God loves her – giving extravagantly and without a care.

In the story of the prodigal son, the older brother puts himself out of the reach of his father’s love. His selfish resentment and his foolish pride will not allow God’s love to penetrate his defenses. Mary has no defenses just a love for and a trust in Jesus’ love for her. Knowing herself loved, Mary cannot help but love in return.

Mary is the model of one who allows herself to be gathered under Jesus’ wings, who allows the father to welcome her back. She has no false pride, or sense of dignity to create a barrier between herself and God. She is completely free and open to receive the love that God offers to her and having experienced the fullness and the boundlessness of the love is compelled to respond with an unrestrained, unselfconscious generosity of her own.

We can learn from Mary that we need not fear intimacy with God. If we allow God’s love to penetrate our inmost being, we will know ourselves loved simply for who we are. When we know ourselves truly loved all else will fade into insignificance. We will want to bathe in that love and to pour out our selves for the one whose love for us knows no bounds.

Lent 4 – 2010

Luke 15:11-32

Marian Free

In the name of God who asks only that we accept God’s love. Amen.

Today’s parable, which for centuries has been affectionately known as the prodigal son, and more recently as the “forgiving Father”, is really the story of two sons and their relationship with their loving father. It is not a matter of a good son and a bad son, but of both sons failing in different ways to respect their father and of both at different times rejecting the love their father has for them. Both sons behave badly, both sons are lost to and alienated from their father and both sons demonstrate a failure to properly understand the father-son relationship, one by walking away from it and the other by never embracing it. The one who leaves has turned his back on the love and protection of his father and the one who stays allows his resentment to alienate himself from that love and protection and so is as distant as if he had left. In a surprise ending, we discover that of the two sons, it is the one who stayed at home who turns out to be irredeemably lost.

At the beginning of this section of the gospel, Luke tells us that: “all the tax-collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. ²And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.’ Those who are the outsiders are those who “hear” what Jesus is saying and those who should be open to hearing are deaf to Jesus’ teaching as a consequence of their sense of self-importance and self-righteousness.

Today’s parable is the last of three parables about the lost which are Jesus’ attempt to open the minds of the Pharisees to the unconditional nature of God’s love. The story of a father’s love for two very different sons demonstrates not only that the father’s love is extended to both sons regardless of their behaviour, but also that the acceptance or rejection of that love can has serious and eternal consequences.

The story begins with the younger son who is greedy and thoughtless. Instead of shouldering the responsibility of helping to manage the farm, he demands his share of the property and abandons his father and brother to do all the work. However his wealth doesn’t bring the happiness and independence he seeks. Instead he finds himself not only engaged in a humiliating and degrading task, but also starving. It is only when he reaches the depths of despair that he comes to himself. He remembers that even the lowest slave in his father’s household has more than enough to eat. His hunger is sufficient for him to swallow his pride and to return home with a well rehearsed speech. He knows enough of his father’s generosity to suppose that he will be heard and probably received. In fact, his readiness to address his father as “father” is itself an indication that he believes that the relationship has not been completely severed by his going away.

His faith in his father is amply rewarded. Before he reaches home, his father runs to embrace him and before his speech is completed, his father has extravagantly welcomed him back into the fold. The robe, the ring and the sandals are all indications that his place as son was never lost.

The older brother has a very different story. He has stayed at home, but we gather from his reaction that he has not stayed willingly or happily. In fact, he despite having remained with his father, he has no real concept of his father’s love for him. It appears that he has stayed not out of love but out of a sense of obligation and a hope that his good behaviour will eventually earn him a reward. His language indicates that for all these years he has seen the relationship in terms of that between a slave and a master, rather than that of father and son: “For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command.” He obviously thinks that his father’s love is dependent on what he does rather than a natural result of their relationship.

Because he has never understood the true nature of the relationship or grasped the extent of his father’s generosity, this son has failed to recognise the constant state of privilege in which he lived, his equal status with the father. He has worked reluctantly and never taken advantage of his position as equal. It is not just the immediate situation which draws forth such a hostile response, but years of festering resentment. Even when his father comes out to comfort him, his anger will not be appeased.

The father doesn’t play favourites, but treats both sons in the same way. When he sees the younger son coming home, he has compassion and runs to meet him. He doesn’t berate him for his bad behaviour, but simply welcomes him home. When he senses the hurt and anger of the older son, he goes out to plead with him. Again, he doesn’t accuse the older son of ungraciousness, but tries make him part of the celebration.

The older son, however, having never understood or taken advantage of the benefits that were his, cannot bear that his brother has gained those benefits without doing anything to deserve them. Instead of allowing himself to be loved, he wants that love withheld from his brother.

Interestingly, it is the son who goes astray who best understands the strength of the bond between father and son and who has recognised the nature of the father’s generosity. The older who has stayed has never appreciated just how much he was loved, and because he has not understood, he has not seen that he was his father’s equal with all the privileges that entailed. The younger son is willing to swallow his pride and to accept love that he has done nothing to deserve. The older son stands on his dignity and demands love as a reward instead of receiving it as a gift.

The grumbling Pharisees are like the older son. Despite having never left the shelter of God’s love, they have utterly failed to understand God’s ongoing, unstinting love for them. Instead of rejoicing in their place as God’s chosen and wanting to share that love they have created boundaries and conditions which lock people out. The sad irony is, that those who have been locked out are those who now understand, whereas those who have always belonged are, as a result of their sense of self-righteousness, unable to find a way in.

God’s love is a constant. It is never withdrawn even from the most miscreant of God’s children. The difference between those who are saved and those who are not, is not their good or bad behaviour, but their willingness to recognise their need for God’s love and their readiness to sacrifice their pride and independence to accept that love.

Lent 3

Luke 13:31-35

Marian Free

In the name of God who invites us to invite him in. Amen.

The study which we at Hamilton are using this Lent and for the Bible Studies during the year is titled: “The Hospitality of God”. Its author, Brendan Byrne argues that a central theme running through the Gospel of Luke is that of hospitality. His evidence for this is the number of significant occasions on which Jesus is a guest in the home of someone or present at a meal. For example, his visits to the homes of Simon and Zacchaeus, and the dinner with the Pharisee which follows today’s gospel reading. Jesus hosts the Passover meal and joins two disciples when they stop for the evening at Emmaus. It is not just the meal which is important, but the fact that on these occasions, much of Jesus’ teaching takes place.

Luke is doing much more than simple reporting. The theme of hospitality provides an over-arching purpose. In the person of Jesus, God has entered the world as a visitor. This raises the questions: “How will Jesus/God be received?” and “What sort of hospitality will Israel and the rest of the world offer to this divine visitor?” Interestingly, the theme has a flip-side. Those who offer hospitality to Jesus find themselves invited into the hospitality of God. The one who comes as a guest is revealed as the host.

This guest/host reversal is demonstrated in the account of Jesus’ meeting with Zacchaeus the tax-collector. This man, who was generally avoided and reviled because of his profession finds himself in the unlikely position of offering hospitality to Jesus. At the same time, Zacchaeus who was marginalized and rejected, discovers that he has become the recipient of hospitality or welcome. By choosing to visit Zacchaeus’ home, Jesus demonstrates an acceptance and inclusion, bringing the one who was excluded back into the fold. By saying: “He too is a son of Abraham”, Jesus indicates that Zacchaeus is a member of the people of God.

According to Luke, when someone welcomes Jesus they find themselves welcomed in return and drawn into the hospitality of God – no matter who they are.

Of course, even an untrained eye could observe that there is a great deal of inhospitality in Luke’s gospel. The Pharisees in particular, appear to want to shut Jesus out. Not only are they unable to welcome Jesus, but their failure to welcome him means that they effectively turn their back on the hospitality of God.

More subtle than the rejection of God’s hospitality by the Pharisees is the failure of Israel. The dilemma which faced the Christian community at the end of the first century was the puzzling and confusing fact that while a great many Gentiles had accepted the gospel and joined the community, those to whom the gospel was promised, had not only not accepted it, but had turned their backs on it. How was this to be understood? The issue facing the community was: “tCould God’s promises be believed, if those whom God had chosen appeared now to be the unchosen? Luke is at pains to provide an assurance that God’s promises can be trusted. He does this by demonstrating the failure of God’s people to offer hospitality.

All of which brings us to today’s gospel in which we see that the visitor (who is rejected), becomes the host (whose hospitality is rejected) which demonstrates that the promise is fulfilled, but that those to whom God extends the invitation refuse the invitation. There are four parts to the account – the rejection by the Pharisees, the anticipated rejection by Jerusalem, Jesus’ invitation and its rejection and the summing up.

In the first instance we meet the Pharisees, who appear to be warning Jesus not to continue. If this seems out of character, it is because it is. The Pharisees’ general antagonism towards Jesus should warn us that something else is happening here. In fact, it would seem that it is their intention not to warn Jesus but to prevent him from going to Jerusalem. (Herod’s attitude towards Jesus is generally benign.) The Pharisees seem to understand the significance of Jesus’ going to Jerusalem and they want to persuade him not to go for one of two reasons. If he can be tricked into not entering Jerusalem, they will be able to claim that he is not a true prophet. Alternatively, if they can keep him away, he will not be able to fulfill his destiny.

Real or imagined, the threat that Herod wants to kill him, will not prevent Jesus from fulfilling his mission – in the meantime he will continue to cast out demons and cure the sick. The Pharisees’ antipathy towards Jesus is an indication that they have refused to accept his hospitality.

Secondly, we are made aware that Jerusalem itself will not be hospitable – it has a reputation for killing or stoning its prophets (though in fact, it is primarily Jeremiah who has such a bad experience). Jesus knows beforehand what awaits him there but nothing can stop his present trajectory.

Thirdly, we hear of Jesus’ offered hospitality and its rejection. “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings and you were not willing!)  The visitor reveals himself as host. He has extended an invitation which has been turned down. He has opened his arms to embrace the people and they would not enter that embrace. There is nothing more that he can do.

Finally, the quote from Psalm 118 has one of two purposes. It could refer to a time when Jerusalem will welcome Jesus. Alternatively it could allude to a later part of the Psalm “the stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone”. Their failure to recognise and welcome Jesus was, according to Luke, anticipated.

None of this is to suggest that Luke is anti-Semitic. He, with others of his generation is simply trying to grasp why it is that the Gentiles have apparently inherited the promises of Israel’s God and whether God can be trusted if the promises to Israel appear not been fulfilled.

All this gives us pause for thought. What sort of welcome do we give Jesus and having welcomed him are we prepared to move over and allow Jesus to become the host? Are we willing to be gathered under his wings or do we resolutely refuse to admit our need for his embrace?

In Jesus, God has visited the world. As part of that world what hospitality do we offer and are we willing to accept the hospitality offered by God?

Lent 2 – 2010
Luke 13:1-9
Marian Free

In the name of God who desires that we turn our lives around. Amen.

Blood mixed with sacrifices, falling towers and a non fruiting fig tree. At first glance these sayings don’t appear to belong together. The first section, in response to a question, is full of violence and implied judgement and punishment. The second expresses compassion and the possibility of a second chance.

Unless you repent, you will perish as they did. Though Jesus explicitly denies it, our minds we assume that the Galileans were killed by Herod as a punishment for sin and that the tower fell on the eighteen because they had failed to repent. The logical conclusion is that if we fail to repent that we too will experience a similar gruesome fate. Further, the two stories create a picture of a cruel and exacting God who will willfully destroy us if we fail to comply with his will.

The second section of today’s gospel is quite different. Firstly, it is a parable, and secondly it leads to a different conclusion about the nature of God.  A fig tree fails to fruit and the landowner’s response is to uproot (kill) the tree. Thanks to the gardener’s intervention the fig is given another chance to prove itself. Although the parable doesn’t excuse the fig’s shortcomings, it does indicate that it, and therefore us, will be given a second chance. This account is much more compatible with the image of a kind, compassionate and forgiving God.

While the two parts of today’s gospel seem to be making opposing points, a careful study will show that in fact, Luke has placed them together because they reinforce one of Luke’s key themes: “Today is the day of salvation.”

If we look more closely we will see that in the first saying Jesus is not depicting a cruel and vengeful God. In fact, he is not talking about God at all, but about the vagaries of existence which mean that none of us know what the future holds or when our end might come. Jesus is quite explicit –the Galileans were not punished because they were sinful, neither were the eighteen crushed by the tower because of their faults. On the contrary, Jesus insists, in both cases those who were killed were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their sin is no greater than that of anyone else. The issue is not whether or not they have sinned – all have sinned. The issue is whether or not they have repented – that is turned to God. Jesus implies that they have not repented (turned to God) which means that they face an eternity without God – in Jesus’ language, they perish. The consequence of not turning to God is not so much punishment in the present, or punishment for eternity, but rather a complete end, or an endlessness that is devoid of God.

The message of these two events – Herod’s slaying of the Galileans and the fall of the tower is that NOW is the time to turn one’s life around, because no one knows whether they will have the time to do it tomorrow.

When we understand the first part of today’s gospel, the meaning of the second short story becomes clearer and we can see that the two parts are closely related in Luke’s mind. According to the parable, the landowner has been expecting fruit from his tree for three years and still there is none. He is disappointed and angry, but he accepts the recommendation from the gardener to give the tree one more year. The tree might fruit yet. Importantly, the reprieve is not open-ended; it has a time limit – after twelve months the fig will be cut down. Using a different illustration Jesus makes the same point as he did in the first part. Time is limited. now is the time to turn one’s life around. God may be compassionate and forgiving, but our time is finite and we are asked to accept God’s love and forgiveness now and not to put it off till another day.

Contrary to our initial reading of the passage, we now see that both sayings emphasise the fact that in terms of salvation, sin is NOT the primary factor determining what happens in this life or even in the next. Towers fall on the less sinful as well as on the more sinful. Sinfulness is a characteristic of our human nature. Sin is what identifies as being different from God. Sinfulness is what separates us from God. It is the recognition of our sinfulness which is important, the recognition of our sinfulness and turning towards God which makes the difference between perishing and not perishing.

There is a sense of urgency in all this. Time is short and the time to turn to God is always NOW.

According to Luke’s time scale, NOW is the time of salvation, not the time of judgement. To you and I this time of salvation can seem like an eternity. It has been two thousand years – what difference can another day, another year make? It is hard to grasp the sense of urgency besides which it is impossible and even unhealthy to live in a permanent state of expectation about our own death. That is not the point. Whether it is two thousand years or two seconds the point Jesus is making is the unexpected and unpredictable nature of the end. For this reason, it is important to always be ready because the time is always now. The gardener might buy us more time, time is still finite and a decision needs to be made before it is too late. We need to choose to turn towards God or to continue on our way to a godless eternity.

By pairing the two stories in his gospel, Luke confronts the misconception that our sinfulness is punished by unexpected acts of terror.  We will not be punished by having towers fall on us or despotic leaders kill us – those are random acts that could happen to anyone – sinful or not. At the same time, while we do not need to live in constant fear, we cannot afford to be complacent the time of salvation is limited and we must make the best use of that time to turn to God – it is possible to be rooted out of the garden. There is a then a sense of urgency. Turn to God, because we do not know what might happen tomorrow. Turn to God because the day of salvation will come to an end.

Towers, assassinations, fig trees – there is too much at stake to put off till tomorrow what God is asking of us today.

Just what is it that separates us from God and is this Lent the time to put that right?

Lent 1 – 2010
Luke 4:1-15
Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us to persevere to the end. Amen.

There are no quick fixes in this life. If you want to become a concert pianist, you must practice and practice until you get the pieces just right. If you want to become an Olympic swimmer, you must give up your social life and your sleep and train everyday until you reach a speed at which you make the grade. If you want to paint, sew, ride a bike, play an instrument, you have to do the hard yards, you have to experience the disappointment of the initial failures, and slow progress until at last you have mastered the technique and achieved some sort of competence.

Many things have their own time and trying to speed the process can lead to difficulties down the road. Grief for example needs time to be worked through. Being stoic and pushing the sadness aside may seem useful at the time, but it may only delay the effect. The grief may find other, less healthy ways to work itself out. Cheating on an exam may get good results in the short term, but it defeats the purpose of becoming competent in a subject and eventually the one who cheated will be discovered to be a fraud.

In today’s gospel the devil offers Jesus a number of short cuts – miracles, absolute power and getting God do it all. At first glance they all make sense – which is why they are tempting. What better way to get everyone in the world to believe in you than performing a few miracles? Turning stones into bread would certainly get people’s attention. The problem is that those who believed would not believe in Jesus because he was Jesus, but only for what they could get from him. When the miracles came to an end so would their faith. Jesus would have to keep on performing miracles to keep their attention.

Absolute power appears to be another good idea. If Jesus ruled the world, then surely he could make people believe in him. The whole enterprise would take much less time, if only he could force people into doing what he wanted. Again, this method has its limitations. Belief that is the result of force is not really belief at all. Given freedom to choose, those forced to believe might choose to turn their backs on him.

That leaves the last temptation – throwing yourself off a cliff and waiting for God to catch you. In other words, give all the responsibility back to God, after all, God could do the job much more efficiently and quickly. However, this too would fail. For it is only through the human Jesus, that humanity can be restored to its proper relationship with God. Knowing all this, Jesus says: “no” to the easy options which the devil presents.

Jesus knows that his role (even though he is God’s Son) is to fully experience the human condition, to take on the pain and suffering of the world, to demonstrate that perfect obedience is possible and to thereby undo the damage that willful disobedience has caused to the relationship between human beings and God.  It is the whole story not half the story which will lead to salvation for all.
Taking a short cut, even with all the pizzazz and the power which the devil offers might have a positive effect in the short term, but it will lead to a completely different end result. In fact, it will lead to no result at all because the difficult question of humankind’s disobedience will not have been answered and God will have been relegated to a being a source of miracles, a safety net, or a despot to be outwardly obeyed, but inwardly ignored. What appears to be a quick fix is actually leaves us with the status quo.

Throughout his life, Jesus indicates that he is not interested in quick fixes. He has taken on a task and he will see it through to its painful, disgraceful and ugly end. When John suggests that he doesn’t need to be baptized, Jesus insists that it is the proper thing to do. When it would be easy not to antagonize the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus refuses to compromise what he believes to be true. When Peter suggests that Jesus should not face the cross, Jesus accuses Peter of being Satan. When Jesus prays in Gethsemane, he ultimately decides to accept the difficult way ahead. When Peter later draws his sword, Jesus rebukes him and when passers-by suggest that he should save himself, Jesus ignores them.

To heed the devil and take the easy way out would be to cheapen what Jesus is trying to achieve. Already he knows that there is no magic formula, just hard slog – to preach the message of God’s love and forgiveness, to challenge the complacency of the religious leaders,  to demonstrate complete trust in God, and ultimately, to accept rejection and to be forsaken by all. Jesus knows that he can only defeat sin, if he refuses to give in to sin. He can only defeat death, if he faces death head on and comes out the other side. Jesus knows that the only way to the resurrection is through the crucifixion and that the only way to achieve salvation for humankind is to see the journey through to its bitter end.

So, even though he is famished, Jesus refuses to focus on material things. Even though he has the power to rule the world, Jesus chooses to be a servant and even though he has the choice to call on God to save him from his fate, Jesus refuses to be lured into accepting an easier alternative. While it might appear that Jesus begins his ministry from a position of weakness by refusing to use the resources available to him, his early defeat of the devil indicates his strength. At the end, he will again refuse the temptation to take the easy way out and by so doing he will finally deprive the devil of his power.

Lent is a time for us to test our resolve. Over the next forty days we have an opportunity to see whether we are more attracted to material things than to spiritual things, whether we are more concerned with seek power and status for ourselves or to recognising God’s power in our lives, and whether we are more interested in treating God as a magic talisman or in entering a mature and authentic relationship with God which will lead to our ultimate transformation.

This Lent let us ask ourselves, are we looking for a quick and easy fix, or is our relationship with God one that will overcome any obstacles to deepen and grow until we at last face the final hurdle and share in the resurrection which Christ has won for us?