Standing Firm. Exodus 16: 2–15; Philippians 1: 27–30; Matthew 10: 1–16. Is gravity pu? The threats facing the church loomed large in the first few centuries. The Philippian Christians were not exempt from threat living in this model Roman city many miles from Rome. Roman citizens had established Philippi. When some of the citizens of Philippi accepted Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour they faced threat and danger. Threats to one’s faith have always existed. Hostility to Christians comes in two forms: direct opposition accompanied by persecution; and, the Church losing its focus and becoming like the culture of the day. When Moses, Aaron and Miriam led the slaves to freedom they soon faced a threat to their freedom. After a few weeks the freed slaves went deeper into the desert areas of the Sinai Peninsular. Their food supply was depleted. They became hungry. They began to complain to Moses. Back in Egypt, the breadbasket of the known world, there was plenty of food even for slaves. The slaves feared for their lives. They were angry. They wondered if they would survive. This was not the freedom they envisaged. They wanted to return to slavery. They faced a threat to their physical and spiritual existence. Physically they faced starvation and spiritually they might lose their freedom. It is hard for us to imagine what it is like to be under threat because of one’s faith, beliefs and values. We would hardly see ourselves under threat. Today many Christians in the Middle East, Africa and Asia face threat and death while we in the Western world have enjoyed many centuries of freedom. In fact the Church has been the cornerstone of society. During the medieval period the Church formed the centre for worship, education, hospitality, justice and medical care. Many of us grew up in a period where the Church was the centre for the community. We organised so many activities for the groups of the church and especially the youngsters. Games and sports, entertainment and education were organised and run by the Church. You came to the church’s building to worship but also for your social engagement. I want to focus the threats we face in our country and society today. I don’t want to focus on today’s persecuted Church. However we should make ourselves aware of our sisters and brothers in Christ who are being persecuted. It would be good for someone to take up a watchtower role so that we can be informed and pray accordingly. It would be good if someone in the membership took the responsibility to keep us posted as to what is happening to other Christians in the world. These are the threats to our existence as Christians that I see. Our faith is under threat and I am not speaking about the alarmist anti same-sex marriage campaign that suggests our religious freedom is at risk. I conferenced with some of these anti lobbyists and their argument that religious freedom is at risk is very shallow. It is more coloured by their rejection of same-sex marriage than anything else. I can accept their decision to vote no, but I reject the rhetoric that the religious freedom will be lost. Looking again at the information I am at a loss to know what freedoms I will loose. When they cite examples they usually come out of the USA. I am yet to be convinced. The threat to the Church in Australia comes largely from within the Church. The threat we face is our apathy, our insularity and our confusion about tolerance. The notion of tolerance that our culture espouses encourages us to be vague and imprecise about the faith. We talk about being tolerant of others. We want them to feel comfortable with us. It all sounds so right and Christian. But when tolerance leads to a lowering of our standards and a dismantling of our beliefs then tolerance is no longer tolerance. It is capitulation. Let me offer a simple illustration. You have friends come to your house. You know they are not Christian, but you are. You say grace at your table. So when they come what do you do? Do you decide to include them by not saying grace? I recall a minister who said in our ministers’ association that when they took a multicultural service they did not mention Christ Jesus. That is not tolerance. That is capitulation. We say grace always when we eat together. We say grace at our table regardless of whether our friends are Christian or not. They accept that and when we eat with them we don’t expect grace to be said. Our tolerance is respectful of the others, not capitulation of our beliefs and values for the sake of the other. Holding to our beliefs and values graciously and respectfully is integrity. Integrity is rewarded with respect – mutual respect. I came across the tragic action of a Swedish Lutheran Bishop, Eva Brunne, who called for the removal of Crosses on Church buildings so Muslims would not be offended. That is not inclusivity. That is not tolerance. That is capitulation to the prevailing secular climate that wants everything to be non-religious and religion to be practised behind closed doors. One is not tolerant because you have a notion that we are all the same. One is tolerant precisely because one has a different set of beliefs and values and allows and respects others who are different. Likewise inclusivity is the same. I include others of other beliefs and values and offer respect precisely because of our difference. And I am happy to do so, but I do not jettison my beliefs and values. Tolerance exists where there is difference not where everything is seen as the same. If tolerance silences us about our faith it is not tolerance. Apathy is another threat. Apathy is the lack of enthusiasm, interest or concern. Apathy comes from the Greek language and means ‘without feeling or suffering’.

Synod Going Forward 2 Corinthians 5: 16 – 21; Matthew 28: 16 – 20 The Synod of Victorian & Tasmania gathered this past week for five days. 300 clergy and laity of the Church gathered under the rubric Following Christ, which signals a renewed direction in which the Church desires to go. A synod is not a block of offices with administrators ensconced therein, but a body of leaders of a church gathered to discuss matters pertaining to the Church as a whole. The Synod is members of the Church gathered to reflect on where the Church has come from and where it is going. As Uniting Church people we have our own peculiarities. One such peculiarity is our consensus decision making. We work very hard to arrive at consensus rather than push through decisions based on majority votes. That means the process is slow, at times tedious, but we get to respectfully hear each other and reach an agreement. This Synod gathered under the rubric, Following Christ. Over the past few years our Church has recognised the need to review its structures and focus its response to the mission God gave to the Church through Christ Jesus. Also we gathered conscious of the issues that face our community and society about same-sex marriage and the 1st Peoples’ (the Aboriginal people) desire to be recognised within the constitution. Also the Synod gathers to worship, hear the Word preached, study the bible and reflect theologically. Our theological reflector, Dr Margaret Campbell, reminded us that our decisions need to be consistent with the Triune God we worship as God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. Our Bible studies reminded us of God’s grace and call. A number of speakers reminded us of the centrality of Christ. The document, “Introducing the Vision and Mission Principles”, published by the Synod’s Major Strategic Review underpinned our deliberations. The churches in the VicTas Synod are requested to study this document and let the principles of mission direct our conversations and action. The document’s thesis is, Following Christ, walking together as First and Second Peoples, seeking community, compassion and justice for all creation. Those leading the Synod’s conversation and theological reflections referred constantly to the theme of Following Christ. As we reflected on what it means to follow Christ as First and Second Peoples we were reminded that our Aboriginal sisters and brothers value the land differently. The 1st Peoples believe the land owns them. The 2nd Peoples believe they own land. When I was reminded of their perspective two things sprang to mind. First that the ancient followers of God had a concept that they never owned their land outright, but that it was given to them for their well-being. They divided land amongst the 12 tribes of Israel and the families within those tribes. Their task was to farm the land and provide well-being for all. So they were told they could not take everything from the land. They had to leave some for the poor, alien and widows and orphans. Secondly, it reminded me how land informs culture. The gentle green hills of Wales have formed a people with a lilt in their voices and a song in their hearts. I thought of the Dutch and their stubbornness mirrored in the mythic story of the lad who put his finger in the Dyke wall to stop the water coming in. Any people who must struggle against the sea to protect their low lying land must have strong determination. I thought of this hot arid land that has built a culture about mateship and ‘if it works don’t fix it’. We cannot follow Christ without listening to the traditional owners and new settlers. We cannot follow Christ without listening to the marginalised and the empowered. And we listen to be reconciled to each other. Following Christ is the key to understanding the mission of God. Central to our faith is Christ Jesus. We were reminded in our Corinthian reading that Jesus came to reconcile us to God and gives us a ministry of reconciliation. The most important thing we do is to be reconciled to God and others, and to be reconcilers Following Christ means we are to embrace the diversity of this God created world. The Uniting Church takes seriously the diverse and multi-cultural county we live in. Therefore the Uniting Church embraces diversity. I am reminded that the first Christian churches were very diverse stretching across an empire of peoples brought together by military strength and economic success of Rome, but they had differences that led to conflict at times. That diversity was only sustained by a unity in Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ was central to all things and so differences had to be experienced through the lens of Christ Jesus. We broke into small groups for 90 minutes to discuss the relationship of Aboriginal peoples and the peoples who have arrived in the past 200 years. The issue at stake is how a dominant people who conquered the Aboriginal peoples of this land might signal this in our Nation’s Constitution and our political practice. Opinions differed as to what precisely should be done and the task remains an important work in progress. Following Christ means walking with others with compassion and justice. An easily reached consensus was achieved around a resolution calling our Federal & State Governments to establish “Medically Supervised Injecting Centres” to save lives of addicts who inadvertently overdose. It was noted that the national annual overdose death rate was higher than the road toll. Over 500 overdose deaths occurred in Victoria in 2016. It is a matter of compassion and concern for those who follow Christ to care for these people. Following Christ also means we must look at our Synod’s structures. Long discussions took place over resolutions designed to streamline our key committees of the Synod. These decisions will also increase and sharpen the level of accountability in the Church. For example the Synod Standing Committee

Getting in the Groove’ Romans 13: 8 – 14; Matthew 18: 15 – 20 The two lectionary readings from Matthew and Romans both address human relationships. Human relationships are critical to understanding the will of God. The Christian understanding of life is exactly about a triangular set of relationships: our relationship to God, to others and ourselves. The Ten Commandments and the common advice in these passages are about relating to each other in a loving way that brings about well-being. That is the message. They both address how God’s will is done through the practice of love. As Paul aptly writes; Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. [Rom 13:10] Or as Jesus said to the Jewish lawyer, “On these two commandments – loving God and our neighbour – hang all the law and the prophets” [Mt 22:40; cf. Mk 12: 31]. Think of that: all the OT is summed by these two commandments. I am not going to expound these texts today but rather ask you to look differently at practising the commandment to love. So often the notion of loving comes as a commandment. Commandments are never easy to fulfil. Today let us hear the commandment as a golden principle of life that we live by. And let us come to it from a different perspective. The novel, The Music Lesson, by Victor L Wooten, the world’s greatest bass player, has an exchange between Victor and Michael, his skateboarding, hoodie-wearing Native American music teacher. When Victor wanted to learn a Miles Davis piece, Michael started playing and invited Victor to join in. Victor asked, ‘What key are you in?’ Michael replied, ‘Play”. ‘What key?’ “Play.” ‘Well, tell me, then; when should I find the right notes?’ ‘You shouldn’t’, said Michael. ‘I shouldn’t.’ ‘No! Not at first anyway. There is something more important you should find first.’ ‘And, what is that?’ said Victor. ‘The groove ‘ replied Michael. I don’t know what musicians would say about this, but Leonard Sweet, in his book The Well-Played Life, quotes it and goes on to talk about being in the groove. ‘Being in the groove’ is a slang term referring to being in a routine that flows easily: to get into a comfortable pace doing something. It is to find the rhythm and stay there. Athletes might talk about running in this way when they find a comfortable pace and their running flows. They relax and run and not surprisingly they can speed up or just maintain the pace for a longer time. There are times when I am sailing and the boat is just humming – it’s in the groove. You can feel it. The tiller extension is so light. I’m holding it loosely between two fingers. The boat is flat and the sail looks good. The boat is moving through the water. You just have that sense that the boat is ‘sweet’. It’s in the groove. There is a spiritual lesson for us in being in the groove. That is, we’re just relaxed, in control but not controlling. There seems to be no effort required. You’re just doing it. Like Michael saying to Victor Wooten – ‘let yourself be part of the music’. Just let yourself be part of God’s life-pattern. That’s the key. Don’t keep struggling or striving. Don’t look for excuses or reasons. Just do it –love. This truth emerges in the ministry of Jesus. Scripture speaks of Jesus’ power and authority. Now power and authority can be a problem. When it is unbalanced or misused it can be harmful. Jesus showed remarkable balance between his power and his authority. Jesus never showcased his power when exercising authority. Time and again we read of Jesus healing someone and then telling them not to tell anyone. When the 5000 were fed all they knew was that they were fed. He told his disciples to feed them. He didn’t explain how or why. That was Jesus’ authority. Neither they nor the 5000 saw Jesus’ power. They responded to his authority and experienced his power almost unknowingly. That is Jesus being in the groove: that balance between authority and power. Getting the right balance between power and authority is important because power is frightening while authority is assuring. That is the Jesus groove. He got the balance right and he was in tune with the rhythm of life. Being in the groove is not about perfection or rightness. It is something more beautiful than either perfection or rightness. Being in the groove is possibly closer to a piece of art than an explanation of truth. Being in the groove is integrating and bringing harmony. Being in the groove is not about rightness, or moral correctness, perfect judgement, but about balance, beauty and integrity. John Ruskin, the Victorian art critic and prominent social thinker, writes in the preface to a history of Venice in his book St Mark’s Rest. “Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts – the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others; but of the three, the only quite trustworthy one is the last.” [The Works of John Ruskin, Vol 24] It is interesting to see art rather than a history or an explanation as being closer to what is true. I take true as meaning something that uncovers the real harmony, beauty and quality of life. I can understand what ‘being in the groove’ means for music, for sailing, running and even for motor racing, and I am beginning to understand what it means for our spirituality. I had a frustrating day in the last weekend of July this year. I went to Winton Race Track with my little sports car. I had a few sessions on the track travelling at speed. I wasn’t very consistent or successful until the final session. After a little

Take up your Cross Exodus 3: 1 – 15; Matthew 16: 21 – 28 “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?” [Mt 16: 24-26] I don’t know how we hear these words of Jesus recorded in Matthew and Mark. We have transformed the notion of a ‘cross’ from being a symbol of cruel execution to a symbol of Christianity. In that process the cross has become a piece of jewellery, a symbol of valour or figuratively speaking something we must endure. We speak of someone having a ‘cross to bear’. When Jesus said, ‘take up your cross’ he wasn’t thinking of a badge, a piece of jewellery or a medal of valour. He was thinking of the cruel Roman implement of execution reserved for the enemies of Rome. I don’t know how the disciples heard this call to ‘take up one’s cross’, but I do know they were prepared to suffer and die for their faith in Christ Jesus. What was it that inspired them to join a group that had a high death factor? Their leader was cruelly put to death and one of the first followers, Stephen, was stoned to death. Stephen died with the words of his Lord on his lips – words of forgiveness to his persecutors. Paul who witnessed and managed Stephen’s death later became a Christian. Paul the Christian apostle was jailed, whipped and finally executed for his faith in Christ Jesus. Many Christian experienced the same, as many do today. Why be a Christian? When I became a Christian at 17 years and 11 months Christ Jesus meant everything to me. Belief in Jesus changed my life from ordinariness to meaningfulness. My perspective changed and I felt life was so much better with Jesus. Then I received a call to be a minister – a preacher. It frightened me. I felt so inadequate to take on such a role. It took three months to work through this ‘call to ministry’ and say ‘yes’ to God. One of the most memorable conversations at that time was with my minister. My mother and I attended the local Methodist Church where he was the minister. My connections with Methodism were convenient. In answering the call to ministry I felt led to the Methodist Church rather than the Anglican. Therefore I went to this minister. I knew him to be a good man who had stood against the political doctrine of racial segregation in South Africa called Apartheid. He had suffered some criticism for his stance. He was not popular. I went into his office and told my story. He looked at me, paused and then said; “Peter, if you can possibly avoid being a minister do so. However it is a wonderful work.” It is an interesting way to respond to someone called to the ministry. These days we get all excited when someone expresses an interest. However, ministry is never easy, whether ordained or un-ordained ministry. Ministry means you are God’s servant first. This is a real challenge. It is a challenge in a society, which opposes Christianity and intentionally persecutes Christians. Today the Church is viable in countries that actively imprison and persecute Christians. This week I received an email about Ebrahim Firouzi of Iran. He is on a hunger strike in protest at the Government’s persecution of Christians. He has been moved to a secure section of the Rajaei Shahr Prison in Karaj with a number of other Christians charge with crimes against the State of Iran because of their faith. They have removed from him his Bible and all other Christian resources. In our society Christians have some form of recognition. We’re not persecuted. However we face the not so subtle pressure to conform to our culture’s values of acquisition, materialism, pleasure-seeking and self-interest. Remember the teaching of Jesus about not serving two leaders at the same time [Mt 6:24]. That’s straightforward common sense. Yet we try and serve both our culture and our Church. Jesus gave us the two parables of the Priceless Pearl and the Hidden Treasure, which respectively illustrate that the great treasure of the Kingdom of God comes to us when we sell all to gain it, or give up all to secure it [Mt 13: 44-46]. When I entered the ministry I knew that ‘Apartheid’ was wrong. I had heard about the persecution and rejection of clergy who stood up for the rights and dignity of black people. I knew that in doing so there was a cost. I tried to warn my loved ones, but I don’t think they understood at all. During my time in South Africa part of my ministry was committed to building relations with black and mixed race congregations. I joined a Christian organisation that fostered such relationships. I related to banned black people, one of whom had been imprisoned on Robin Island. I recognised that my actions and connections meant I would be on the Special Branch Police Force’s list of suspicious persons. I recall my four Society Stewards meeting with me and asking me politely not to say or do too much as they were concerned for me. I believe they were sympathetic and genuinely concerned for me, but they were not willing to challenge the status quo. My actions were relatively mild and focussed on building relationships, understanding and respect. But I always felt uncomfortable around police and with the public. This challenge ‘to take up one’s cross’, still echoes in the Church today. It comes up regularly in the liturgical calendar. What does Jesus’ statement mean for us in our world where we are

Marriage Yesterday and Today. Matthew 22: 23 -33; 1 Timothy 3: 1 – 13 Is gr.. A bishop must be above reproach and the husband of one wife. [1 Tim 3:2] A curious saying isn’t it? When I first came across this text I read it from my experience of the time. To me it was an affirmation of marriage as I knew it: one man and one woman come together in a loving relationship and commit to live with each other for better or worse. I did not hear it with any critical faculties, but as an affirmation of marriage as we understood it 47 years ago. I never asked why was it necessary for Timothy to say this? But then I was young with so much to learn about the Bible and Christian history. Today I want to address the issue of same sex-marriage. I want to approach it from the perspective of the concept of marriage then and now. I want to share something of my journey with regard to homosexuality and the concept of marriage. There was a time that I thought the term ‘marriage’ described only the coming together of a man and a woman to form that unit of family. Such was my thinking that I could not think how it could apply to Gays. In fact for the first thirty-five years of my life I lived in regions that treated homosexuality as a criminal offence! How in the world could I contemplate same-sex marriage when I was still wrestling with the concept of decriminalising homosexuality? Of course my experience of life and society’s changing attitude has caused serious reflection on the matter. If homosexuality appalled me, homosexuals did not. I knew some and I have a family member as one. They’re just people like me who have a different sexual orientation. And I know they no more chose to be homosexual than I chose to be heterosexual. Think about that too. Did you choose to be a heterosexual? In recent times I have thought about same-sex marriage. It hasn’t been an easy choice, because I was still working through this notion that the term ‘marriage’ only had one meaning. One of the things I did – this is the way I work out things – was to define marriage. I looked at dictionaries and came to see that the term is used in some industries to describe the joining of things in a state of permanency. I was a little surprised to see that the metal industry used the term to describe the joining of sections of metal. Of course that makes sense. The inherent sense of marriage is bringing together two elements into one. Why not use it to describe the joining of different metals joined into one? A couple of years ago I attended a conference on the Freedom of Religion. In practice it was all about protecting Christian marriage from being undermined by same-sex marriage. The argumentation was not all that convincing. A lot of ignorance of both language and Bible arose. During the conversation I happened to mention to a young lawyer heading up the anti-same-sex marriage lobby that the word ‘marriage’ also was used to describe the joining of metals. She was visibly taken back. This very intelligent young person – possibly in her early 40s – took this as something entirely new. You see the conference had been arguing that marriage only meant one thing: the union of a man and a woman to form a family. I guess if you hold that marriage only defines the mating of a man and a woman then it logically cannot apply to anything else, even metal work! Some define marriage as being about the getting of children. Now I am not trying to get you to support same-sex marriage. That is your decision. However I want to share my understanding that the concept of marriage has always been adjusted to the social historical context. We were brought up to understand and believe that marriage simply meant that a man and woman enter equally into a permanent relationship to form a family and most probably raise children. I am confident that we would agree with that. We in fact may be working with those same sole elements in our definition of marriage of male, female, equal persons, entering a sexual relation for the formation of a family. Because we are Christians we should start with the Bible. So I am going to take look at the Biblical experience of marriage and in the Western world. Naturally this looking at the concept of marriage does not include homosexuals for the obvious reason they were persona non grata. Let us begin with Abraham and Sarah. We take them to be ‘married’ – husband and wife. When they couldn’t have children they decided to use the method appropriate to their culture. Sarah’s handmaiden became a surrogate mother for Abraham and Sarah. Abraham impregnated Hagar, her servant, and she most likely gave birth to Ishmael across Sarah’s thighs. This action symbolised that the child was Abraham’s and Sarah’s. Sarah’s handmaiden was their servant. They owned her. Her child was theirs. If God chastised them it was because Abraham and Sarah had failed to trust God for an heir, not because Abraham, according to our values, had committed adultery. Turn the pages of history over to Abraham’s grandson Jacob. God named Jacob, Israel, which means he has striven with God and prevailed [Gen 32: 28]. Israel had 12 sons who Israel fathered through his two wives, Leah and Rachel, and their handmaidens, Bilhah and Zilpah. [Gen 29-30] The 12 tribes of Israel descended from these 12 sons. In the ancient world it was not uncommon for a man to have more than one wife. By the way polygamy, as we call it, is never condemned in the Bible. The rules about marriage were inevitably tied up with property in ancient Israel. Marriage was not

What’s Jesus saying? Romans 11: 1 – 2, 28 -32; Matthew 15: (10-20) 21 – 28 If ever we needed perspective we need it today when we read this story of Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman. Both Matthew and Mark in their accounts of the Gospel record it. It is a troubling story. Taken literally it is appalling, especially to our sensitivities regarding racism. The 19th and 20th Centuries brought home to the Western world the shocking nature of racism. The anti-slavery movement, the Ku Klux Clan, the Nazi Holocaust, Apartheid and the Pol Pot killing fields stand out as prime examples of the awfulness of racism. And here we have Jesus implying that this woman who comes for help is a dog! I tell you many people read this text and put it down. Ministers too pass it by. It is a story that demands we look at both the historical and literary context to get any perspective on it. Firstly, the reason Jesus gives provides us with an important clue to his attitude. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Secondly, what Jesus says to the woman needs to be unpacked in the light of the culture and the very words he uses. We always lose something in translation and here we lose something important. We need to catch his tone of voice. But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” [Mt 15:24-26] What if it read like this; He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the puppies.” What difference does the word ‘puppies’ instead of ‘dogs’ make to the meaning? Let’s recall what is happening. Matthew and Mark tell us that there is conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders about what is clean and unclean. Jesus said early in his ministry that you couldn’t put new wine into old wineskins because the new wine might burst the old skins. But that is exactly what the religious leaders and conservative people wanted. The Jewish leaders wanted to contain Jesus’ message within the structures of Judaism. People have always wanted to contain the teachings of God within their culture. We like to be in control. The Jewish leaders wanted Jesus and his disciples to conform to the Jewish laws of cleanliness, but they didn’t. Hence Jesus is saying that what really makes us unclean is not the food or drink that enter our mouths, but the words and the thoughts that come out of our mouths. From this situation of conflict Jesus moves off into a Gentile region. The move into a Gentile region is strange for two reasons. Firstly the Jews regarded the Gentiles as unclean and generally referred to the Gentiles as dogs. (Remember when ‘aussies’ called certain people ‘wogs’!) By moving into a Gentile region Jesus is risking becoming unclean. (That may seem strange to us but that is what they understood.) So what is he doing there? The other thing that is striking is that Jesus makes it clear to the woman that he has come first to Israel. Israel is the people who are the chosen instruments of God’s plan of salvation. Israel is the recipient and holder of the promises of God. Paul makes the same point in Romans. Friends what would we think if Jesus came to earth again and he chose to go to those outside the Church first. Surely we would be miffed? Surely our Lord would come to us first? By Jesus coming first to the Jews God honours those promises. So it seems Jesus is not going to minister to the Gentiles when he goes north into the Gentile region. He is not looking for a new field of ministry. The text bears this out. In Mark’s account of this story the point is made more sharply. Jesus goes to a house and wants to hide. Jesus wants a low profile in the Gentile region. We can only conclude that Jesus went to a Gentile region to get away from this conflict and reduce the looming tension between himself and the Jewish leaders. This wasn’t the time for a major confrontation between Jesus and the religious authorities. There was more to do. After Easter the ministry to the Gentiles will really begin. Now let us turn to this Syrophoenician woman. She is a person in need, but she is informed. She hears of Jesus and recognises him. In her need and understanding she comes to Jesus for help. She addresses Jesus as the ‘Son of David’ – a messianic title. So this woman is informed. She knows something of the Jewish faith. This woman has faith too. She believes in Jesus. Like the Roman centurion she comes to Jesus and leaves her child at home. She believes that Jesus can heal her child by a command. His word and command is sufficient. This is faith. Notice too her response to Jesus’ use of the Jewish colloquialism that Gentiles are dogs. Notice too that Jesus does not call her a dog but speaks generally. The woman doesn’t take offence. She rather cleverly reminds Jesus that dogs do lick up the crumbs or anything that falls off the table. (We all know that!) Now if we could read Greek we would notice that the reference to dogs is in the diminutive. That is, it should read ‘puppies’. The way Jesus had used this Jewish colloquial saying is softened by the use of diminutive. Both Matthew and Mark use the term ‘little dog’ or puppies. The woman uses the same term. The image then is the domestic scene of our children around the table and our pets near. That is, both children and pets are loved, but differently loved. And Jesus says; “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take

Sight, Perspective & Focus Romans 8:12 – 25; Matthew 13: 24 – 30, 36 – 43 Last Monday night at the Taizé service I entered the time of silent meditation. I closed my eyes as usual, but my concentration wavered. I opened my eyes and focussed on the wooden cross on the floor, which has tea-light candles at its four corners. It helped me meditate. Then I focussed on the candlelight. The rays of light changed as I changed from wide-open eyes to nearly closed eyes. It was fascinating. Squinting through my eyelids the candle flames diffused into shafts of light. I lost some clarity of vision but the shafts of light were pretty. They altered in length. Then I returned to wide-open eyes focussing on the flame. It was clear and well defined. It danced. I wondered, is this a little lesson God is giving me? With eyes half closed or almost closed we see the candlelight differently. It looks pretty, but our perspective is limited. We don’t see clearly. I realised that with semi-shut eyelids the light is diffused and scattered, but with wide-open eyes the light is concentrated and CLEAR I reflected on that and on one’s life. Are the semi-closed eyes something akin to when we’re tired, troubled, anxious, overwhelmed, sad and distracted? We don’t see life too well when there’s a lot going on and we’re stressed. Our perspective on what’s happening is unclear and diffused. When we are rested, confident, less pressured by cares and concerns we both see and hear more clearly. I realised how the physical diffusion of light is symbolic of perspective on life when we’re stressed and vice versa. I thought on Monday night at Taizé, that God was giving me something for a sermon. I didn’t know then what the set text was for the week. I just knew I had two funeral services to conduct and it would be a full week. There were other important items on the agenda too. I wondered what the text was, but my third funeral the next day had occupied my thoughts and sermons and texts were far from me. Well on Tuesday evening I came to the lectionary text and there it was. The text was about sight, perspective and focus. I felt God had prepared me. Jesus’ walking on the water is a story that encompasses the experiences of sight, perspective and focus, each seem like the same thing but they are not. Sight is the physical action of seeing Perspective is seeing something in its right proportion, in relation to other things, and from a particular point of view. Focus involves concentration and establishing a clear definition. The disciples saw Jesus walking on water. We are told that they were terrified. Let’s recognise they were already ‘battered’ by waves. They were close to survival sailing. It would be something they had encountered on the water before. They would have been fearful but not paralysed by fear. Fear generates a rush of adrenaline, the heart rate quickens and the sense of flight or fight increases. Scripture tells us they cried out in fear at the sight of Jesus. They thought they were seeing a ghost. They were in danger and seeing a ghost! Did they think it was an omen of their own misfortune? Such thoughts may have rushed through their minds. Their state of mind was not easily disposed to a healthy perspective. What gave them perspective was the voice of Jesus. We read that immediately following their cry of fear Jesus spoke and said, Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.” [Mt 14:27] They only regained perspective when they heard the voice of Jesus. His familiar voice gave them perspective. We can talk about perspective in a number of ways. For example when reading a text one needs literary perspective to understand it. Literary perspective is about seeing the text in the context of the characters, the larger life situation and maybe the historical setting. Perspective is like looking through a camera lens. One can zoom in and see the small detail or zoom out to see the bigger picture. Theoretical perspective is about establishing one’s assumptions about life. Theological perspective is like that too. One can read the Bible with the firm conviction – assumption – that God is an angry God or the Bible is a book of rules, or the Bible is literally true, or the Bible is a love story. Each of these assumptions will skew what we read. The important thing is to evaluate our assumptions and broaden our outlook. When it comes to personal perspective the state of our emotions, our health and our environment all play a vital part in determining our perspective. It falls to us to manage our emotions and health. It is very hard when things about us are not quite right, when we don’t feel well, and we feel threatened. Then our perspective shifts. We imagine the worst. In the latter part of this week a personal matter struck us and I was very stressed. I stopped to pray and to practise deep breathing to try and get balance and perspective, and to a large extent it worked. Once the disciples this image of Jesus into perspective, impetuous Peter asks Jesus to call him. That was an act of utter faith in Jesus on Peter’s part. Jesus calls Peter, “Come”. Peter steps out of the boat and he too walks on water “towards Jesus” [Mt 14: 29]. Peter is focussed. His is looking at Jesus. He is walking on water. Then his focus shifts. Peter noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” [Mt 14: 30]. Jesus reaches out to Peter saying to him, “Why did you doubt?” While Peter focused on Jesus he did amazing things. When his focus wavered he sank beneath the water. This story tells us that when we control our

He had compassion for them. Romans 8:12 – 25; Matthew 13: 24 – 30, 36 – 43   The minister described the deceased as a ‘Christian Gentleman’! I sat up and I listened. The deceased, no doubt an honourable person of faith, continued to be described in these terms of social status. I was amazed. This was poor theology. The concept of ‘gentleman’ in the UK has a particular history. Over the centuries a ‘gentleman’ was the lowest ranked aristocrat. It was clear that he was not saying this is a gentleman who is a Christian. Even so it’s not a proper way to describe a Christian. The minister taking the funeral service had recently retired from the church after 30 years service. I was the new minister at the church and had happily agreed to him presiding as he knew the man. My disappointment with my retired colleagues theology was unfortunately affirmed many months later. A couple times people implied I visited everyone. One day a person said directly to me: “You visit everyone.” I shrugged my shoulders. I mean that’s what a minister does. The minister is there for everyone. S/he makes no distinction. I said, “What do you mean, I visit everyone?” The reply came that the retired minister only visited the well to do – the gentlefolk. What saddened me more is that the minister had been raised in the humblest of homes and becoming a minister enjoyed some upliftment in his social status. He became enmeshed in it. He was trapped in a system that gave status to a clergyperson. I tell this story for two reasons. Firstly, it illustrates the teaching I have been offering from this pulpit that we get caught in systems and they control us. It is the demonic power of evil. But I also tell this story because it illustrates how the church from time to time has described the Christian in very human and cultural terms. You see this minister’s theology was in that camp that saw a good Christian as a ‘good citizen’. Sometimes we have reduced the description of Christianity to our cultural norms. Good citizenship, a morality of hard work, upholding society’s values have all been ways of describing what a Christian is or should be. I sense in our denomination an implied definition of a good Christian as a person involved in justice. All I know that such definitions are not Biblical. And I also know that this kind of definition of a‘ Christian gentleman’, ‘good citizen’ and upholder of society’s values would have failed to define many of the white and black South African Christians whom I deemed to be faithful followers of Christ. Many stood against the government, were imprisoned, banned, even tortured, regarded as Communists, and if white, seen as traitors. I suppose they were revolutionaries. They followed a hallowed tradition. It goes right back to Jesus. Our Lord Jesus Christ was executed as a revolutionary. In a particular sense he was guilty of that. I don’t think one would have described Jesus of Nazareth as a ‘Christian gentleman’ or ‘good citizen’. Christ Jesus challenged societies values structures. Today I want to offer you an important defining characteristic of a Christian. I not saying it’s the only one, but it seems to be a very important defining characteristic. The significant 20th Century German theologian and activist, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, said; “We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer”. What precisely Bonhoeffer is saying I am not sure, but I do get it that the Christian life is awareness of others’ suffering. When we speak of ‘others’ I think of everything other than ourselves – every living thing. Bonhoeffer seems to be saying that the Christian life responds to the suffering in the world. That is, the Christian feels with and for those who suffer. That is, the Christian is compassionate. Compassion is synonymous with Christianity. Compassion is that feeling that arises when you are confronted by another’s suffering and desires to help them. Compassion has its roots in Greek and Latin. The Greek word ‘pathos’, to suffer, combined with the Latin preposition ‘cum’ meaning ‘with’ gives us the word compassion. Compassion means to suffer with. So in reality compassion is part and parcel of loving one’s neighbour. Compassion is what we see in Jesus. Jesus suffered with and for us. The Cross essentially symbolised the altruistic love and compassion of God for all of life. The 18th Century German writer and statesman, Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, know to us as Goethe, made many insightful statements among which he said; “Kindness is the golden chain by which society is bound together”. Substitute compassion for kindness and ask is that the ‘golden chain by which society is bound together’? It does make sense, doesn’t it? Take Charles Darwin who is seen as the author of the evolutionary theory. In the 19th Century Charles Darwin wrote on evolution in creation and humanity. The statement, ‘the survival of the fittest’ is attributed to him. It is meant to describe how evolution works. That is, it is the fittest and strongest forms of a species that survive and develop. That sounds reasonable. However Darwin did not coin that phrase but Spencer. Darwin merely was quoting Spencer. In Darwin’s book, ‘The Descent of Man’ Darwin argues that the survival of the species is due to the presence of compassion. He sees compassion and altruism evident in the animal world. Indeed there is a group today of psychologists whose research is showing that the compassionate instinct in human nature is one of the most important instincts in our survival. Maybe we need to stop and reflect on how animals will defend their owners even against stronger animals. And we might reflect how we humans care for our young. Humans are most vulnerable in their first 4 years. Compassion for the

Why doesn’t God do something? Romans 8:12 – 25; Matthew 13: 24 – 30, 36 – 43 Why doesn’t God do something? Possibly the most frequent question asked of religious leaders and teachers. The tragedies and sufferings of life generate such a question. Our sense of helplessness in the face of forces larger than life triggers the cry. Why doesn’t God do something? There are answers to this question, but we are blind to God’s answers by our anxiety and pain and the overwhelming nature of evil forces. The only answer we want to hear is that God has ‘stopped’ whatever it is that is troubling us. When we can’t rescue ourselves we expect God to step in. But God doesn’t respond in the way we want. Why? Our readings give us some clues as to why? And they give us some clues as to what God is actually doing. But first let us recognise that if God was going to rescue us from every suffering, tragedy and destructive force, God would also have to direct the rest of our lives. Then we would be puppets and lose our humanity. Humanity is defined by its freedom and choice. Humanity is characterised by responsibility and responsiveness. Let us see how our texts can help us. Jesus’ parable of the wheat and weeds is simple to understand. Good things and bad things are mixed. Be wary of separating them before the time is right in case you destroy the good with the bad. I see something else here. The parables are all about waiting. We wait for the mustard seed to grow; the leaven to raise the dough; and, the farmers wait for the harvest. Waiting is not wasted time, but time in which we prepare ourselves. Waiting helps us grow strong and wise. Waiting is an active and positive character building exercise. But we are impatient. We are far too quick to act. This parable is about letting the weeds grow with the wheat. We would wrench them out. We are like that. We have been far too ready to exercise judgement and condemnation on things. We’ve done well with doing that. We’ve decided the fate of women for centuries, have sent homosexuals to the gallows, we too quickly resort to arms and treat unwanted desperate refugees as enemies. Oh! You say I am exaggerating. Maybe so, but history speaks for itself. Jesus importantly tells us to wait. Let the judgement be God’s. Let the condemnation be God’s. Indeed why not? How can we compare our impaired judgment with God’s gracious judgment? ‘Let them mingle,’ says Jesus as the harvest is at the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire. [Mt 13: 39,41,42] It’s not the fiery furnace that is important here. It is that God will weed out sin, because God alone can identify sin. The phrase, all causes of sin and all evildoers, suggests that along with evildoers there are causes of sin. Jesus sees Sin as more than selfish and immoral people. Sin is a power. Sin causes us to sin. Sin is a power that God alone can deal with. Here is another piece of evidence that Christ died to break the power of sin and not to take our punishment. On the cross Christ destroyed sin’s power by confronting and combatting Sin with love and forgiveness. In the face of ultimate love and absolute forgiveness evil has no lasting power. Christ, for our sakes, confronted evil on the Cross and died to save us. This is the first thing God has already done for us. Sin’s power is broken. Surrender to Christ Jesus and you will experience freedom If the parable reminds us that God’s kingdom is breaking out in the world, it also reminds us that sin is still present. However Sin’s power has been dealt a mortal blow by the Cross of Christ Jesus. So how shall we live now? Paul tells us how to live responsibly in this time before God completes all things. Paul shows us how to live in this time of waiting for the harvest. Paul also recognises that the ‘weeds’ are growing amongst the ‘wheat’. He uses different images such as living in the Spirit and living according to Sin. Paul writes; So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. [Rom 8:12,13] In this passage from Romans chapter 8 we understand that we have an obligation to God; we are led by the Spirit; we are not slaves to Sin; we have assurance that we are God’s children; united with Creation; and, we will inherit God’s kingdom. The Obligation we have is captured in that single image of being debtors. It is a powerful image. We all understand what debt is and what it means. Debt obligates us to honour the repayments. Our debts have a high priority in our lives. Paul is saying that we owe God. We’re in debt to God, doubly so. God created us giving us life and God has rescued us. Like the alcoholic and drug addict in recovery we need to be radically honest about our situation and radically dependent on the solution. We need to acknowledge who and whose we are. We need to lean on God to rise above the things that drag us down and away from the good things of life. The gravitational power of Sin is countered by the gracious love of God. God has given us a duty to fulfill and with it responsibility. Spirit Led. We are faced with the choice of

Gravity versus Grace Romans 8:1- 11; Matthew 13:1 – 9, 18 – 23 Is gravity pulling you or is grace lifting you? The French philosopher, Albert Camus, described Simone Weil as “the only great spirit of our times”. Simone Weil was a significant French Jewish Christian thinker, mystic and political activist. She was born into an agnostic Jewish home. From an early age she identified with the disadvantaged and suffering. At the age of 6 she refused to eat sugar in solidarity with the troops entrenched along the Western Front in WW II. She graduated from university in France having majored in philosophy. She was seen as a French intellectual who, in her identification with the poor and workers, chose to take leave of absence from teaching to work on farms, in factories and join the Spanish Civil War on the Republican side. Although she identified with Communism, she was critical of both capitalism and socialism. And she wrote many articles on work, peace and mysticism. She became a Christian being attracted to the principle of ‘love your neighbour,’ and she was moved by the suffering of Christ. She noted that she was first touched by God when she heard a choir sing hymns in a village square and later had a moving spiritual experience in the Basilica of Saint Maria of the Angels in Assisi, where St Francis also had prayed. “When Hitler’s armies rolled into France in June 1940, she escaped to join the Free French in London, and there she died. She developed tuberculosis, which was complicated by malnourishment. In solidarity with her French nationals in occupied France she chose to eat the diet she presumed they were reduced to by the Nazis. Her literary legacy of her pilgrimage toward God and thinking was contained in scattered notes and journals. Weil concluded that two great forces ruled the universe: Gravity and Grace. Gravity causes one body to attract other bodies so that it continually enlarges by absorbing more and more of the universe into itself. Something like this same force operates in human beings, she said. We too want to expand, to acquire and to swell in significance. The desire to ‘be as gods’ after all led Adam and Eve to rebel. Emotionally, Weil, concluded, we humans operate by laws as fixed as Newton’s. Most of us remain trapped in the gravitational field of self-love and thus we ‘fill up all the fissures through which grace might pass.” [Philip Yancey, What’s so amazing about Grace? (1997) pp. 271f] Weil wrote, ‘All the natural movements of the soul are controlled by laws analogous to those of physical gravity. Grace is the only exception.’ Grace causes one body to love others and thereby enlarges others’ lives. Grace calls us to the field of service. About the same time Weil was writing another refugee from Nazi Germany, Karl Barth, made the comment that Jesus’ gift of forgiveness and grace, was to him more astonishing than Jesus’ miracles. Miracles broke the physical laws of the universe; forgiveness broke the moral rules. It is interesting to reflect, all so briefly, on two great influential persons, Barth and Weil: Weil the mystical Christian activist and French intellectual, and Barth the great German theologian of the 20th Century. For both, God’s Grace – the unconditional gift of love, forgiveness and acceptance of us – is revolutionary. Weil in her book, Gravity and Grace, compiled from her notes she had given to Gustavo Thibon, a French Catholic, articulates this struggle between Gravity’s pull of self-interest and Grace setting free the human spirit through the love and forgiveness of God. I was immediately reminded of Paul’s writing in Romans when I read about Simone Weil in Philip Yancey’s book, What’s so amazing about Grace? Paul in Romans chapters 7 and 8, speaks about the struggle between the life under the Law and life in the Spirit in chapter 8. Last week the sermon focussed on the revolutionary nature of God’s grace. Paul shows that it is through the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross that the power of sin is broken, and it is through the power of the Resurrection that we can enter the life in the Spirit. This is God’s gift to the world. It is a gracious gift that sets us free as forgiven people being restored in God’s image. I think it might be helpful to see our lives as being like a mirror. A mirror reflects light. Likewise our lives reflect what we value most and what or whom we worship. The light of our worship leaks through the cracks in the way we live life. By the cracks in our life I mean the habitual way of social intercourse. The way we communicate with each other has patterns that we have learnt from our families and they from the culture. Our macro and micro cultures help us relate to each other. Customs and habits underpin our behaviour and relationships. But what leaks through the cracks of our way of relating are the very values and things we worship. That leakage reflects what is our treasure. If ‘the self’ is our treasure we will reflect that. If God is our treasure we will reflect that too. Just in the little things we say or do our values and beliefs emerge. So the thought that our lives could be pulled by the gravitational forces of acquisition, self-interest and the importance of who we are is very real. In fact we identify with Paul’s words of being pulled by forces by which we don’t want to be pulled. Grace helps us counter the gravitational pull of the self. But the occasional experience of Grace is not sufficient. We need to nurture Grace in our lives. We need to let it grow. Jesus’ image of God’s gracious word being like the seed sown and how it grows well in some conditions and is stifled in others conditions is relevant. The parable of