Past Sermons

30 May 2010
16 May 2010
9 May 2010
2 May 2010
25 April 2010
18 April 2010
11 April 2010
Easter 2010
28 March 2010
21 March 2010
14 March 2010
7 March 2010
21 February 2010

Trinity Sunday 30th May 2010

Believe it or not we are now half-way through the church's year, and almost half-way through the "secular" year. The church's year begins usually at the end of November, or at the beginning of December, with "Advent Sunday", and we then proceed through the Advent and Christmas and Epiphany seasons, and then it is time for Lent, and then Easter and then Pentecost -- and that takes us all about 6 months. During those seasons we consider some of the great themes of the Christian story -- the birth of Christ, the temptations of Christ, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the coming of the Holy Spirit, the second coming of Christ, and so on.

And then, today, a pivot point arrives, a transition point ,which traditionally is called "Trinity Sunday" -- and from now on we have what are called the "Ordinary Sundays" or the Sundays after Trinity, or the Sundays after Pentecost.

Trinity Sunday -- this pivot point in the church's year -- is a time when the church asks us to consider not so much a bible passage, or a story about Jesus, but rather a doctrine, a theological teaching -- and that is not an easy task. We are asked to consider the teaching that God is to be believed as "One in Three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

For vicars, Trinity Sunday is usually a time when we try to get a visiting preacher. Well, I've got a visiting preacher today in my parish -- but part of the deal was that the 3 parishes of Croydon, Kilsyth-Montrose and Mooroolbark would all get visiting preachers -- by the preachers visiting each other's churches ! So, we don't get off the hook.

Speaking about the Trinity is a hard subject and someone has said that in the church we are always dealing with more than we can cope with. But we have to try. And I take the view that when I am called to preach on the Doctrine of the Trinity I have to ask "well, what is the Trinity 'like' ? To what can we compare it ?

Again, that anonymous "someone" once said that the Trinity is like the old piano at home. Nobody ever played it but noone would dare throw it out !

So, where can I begin ? I believe that the Trinity -- to say that God is Father, is Son, is Holy Spirit -- is a bit like a map. What is a map ? It is a representation of something that is real, which then helps and enables people who come along later to have some idea of where they are, where they are going, based on the experience of people who have been there before. It is always handy to have a map, or at least good street directions, in a town that you have never been to before -- to equip you to cope with whatever may turn up, to cope with the obstacles that might be there, to find out easier ways to get from A to B. Someone has been there before, and they describe their experience, or they lay it out, using symbols and marks and concepts, so that others can then chart their course and , hopefully, not make the same mistakes over and over again.

The map itself is not the reality, it is but a representation of the reality... of the landscape.... based on people's experience of the reality.

Christian people throughout the ages have experienced God as the Creator, the Father of all ... they have experienced God in Person of Jesus Christ ... they have experienced God in the Holy Spirit. They sum up their experience, they depict it, in this "three in one" idea. It's the way they communicate their experience to the generations to come.

You might also like to think of the Trinity as if it were a kind of flag. What is a flag ? It is a symbol of a nation, or of a state ... or of sporting team. It is not the reality itself. It is a symbol, but you take that symbol seriously. Some countries make it a criminal offence to burn their national flag -- or to desecrate it in other ways. I'm not sure that we have that legislation here in Australia -- but nevertheless the flag is expected to be taken seriously. People have fought under it. It is a special symbol. It is saluted. It is the symbol under which we march into the future-- because that symbol has been developed as a result of historical events, historical experiences. The most revered flags in the world are those that have a real story attached to them, which contain within themselves signs of the experiences of the community which developed the flag. The Union Jack has within its patterns the story of the coming together of separate kingdoms, and all the blood that was spilt, and words that were spoken, in that era of history. The "Stars and Stripes" flag of the USA evokes the story of the formation of that nation. Our own Australian flag has its own elements, merging the British heritage with the Southern Cross , with the big 7-pointed "Federation" Star -- a symbolic way of simply summing up the experiences that formed this nation throughout the 19th century, but also connects with the experiences of those who fought under it in wartime, and those who miss seeing it when they are overseas and are glad to see it again when they return home.

We "salute this 'Trinity' flag" as a way of saying that we honour how the Doctrine of th Trinity has led our predecessors in the faith, how it has helped them articulate and explain what God has meant to them -- and we hope that their experience of God in the past will help us in our relationships with God in the future.

So what are the experiences of Christians that have led them to this flag, this map, this picture image which says, so bluntly, "God is Three and God is One" ?

The experience of Christians in the past -- and I hope our experience too -- is that, yes, God is " a higher power" ... that, yes, God is "Father", God is the Creator of the Universe, the Great Architect of the Universe, that God is the source of all being -- in whom we live and move .. yes, all of that.

But the experience of Christians is that God is more than that, because also Christians experience God in a very special way when they encounter Jesus Christ. They .... we ... see in this man Jesus -- and in His birth, and life, and teachings, and parables, and miracles, and in the stories of His encounters with people, and in His sufferings and death and resurrection ....in all these events, which we read about in the New Testament, Christians experience the very presence of God-in-the-flesh. They ...we... come to the conclusion that He was not just a "good man", or even just a "great prophet" , or a great moral teacher -- but from experiencing Him, in the Scriptures -- and in the sacrament of Holy Communion -- the conclusion reached is that, yes, in Him we see what God is like.

But the experience of Christians is that God is even more than that, too, because there is also the Holy Spirit, that divine energy, that warmth, that divine light, that power which does not come from within ourselves, but which we know is there and can see evidence of, from time to time, and which enables the Christian community to continue, and to be sustained.

But even saying all that never does full justice to what God is, or who God is. I read someone else's Trinity Sunday sermon once and the preacher* said that a human being trying to describe God is like an oyster trying to describe a ballerina. Think about that one ! We just don't have the equipment necessary to understand a mystery so beyond our limitations.

Yes, the Trinity is a mystery that we can only approach with great reverence and humility.

Later on in that sermon, the preacher quoted from an American author**:

"Some days God comes as a judge, walking through our lives wearing white gloves and exposing all the messes we have made. Other days God comes as a shepherd, fending off our enemies and feeding us by hand. Some days God comes as a whirlwind who blows all our certainties away. Other days God comes as a brooding hen who hides us in the shelter of her wings. Some days God comes as a dazzling monarch and other days as a silent servant. If we were to name all the ways God comes to us, the list would go on forever: God the teacher, the challenger, the helper, the stranger, God the lover, the adversary, the yes, the no ... The other mystery is that God is one. There cannot be a fierce God and a loving one, a God of the Old Testament and another of the New. When we experience God in contradictory ways, that is our problem, not God's. We cannot solve it by driving wedges into the divine self. All we can do is decide whether or not to open ourselves up to a God whose freedom and imagination boggle our minds".

I finish with another picture image, not a map, not a flag -- but a ladder leaning up against a wall. There is an old superstition that you would all know, and it is that you should never walk under a ladder which is leaning up against a wall. A ladder, leaning up against as wall, makes a triangle. If you walk under the ladder you are walking into the triangle. The scholars tells us that way back in the days of early Christianity, Christians started using the triangle as yet another symbol of the Trinity .... it is one, but it has three faces. And the quaint superstition developed to say that one must not break this unity, by breaking into the triangle, by walking under the ladder -- because when you are inside a triangle you can only see two of its sides at once, and you are not getting "the full picture".

I'll leave you with that riddle, that conundrum, to work with, if it helps! Don't worry if it doesn't help.

Trinity Sunday is a reminder that God is beyond our complete understanding ... God is a mystery .... we can only attempt to comprehend Him by the imagry, the symbolism, the language of the Trinity. But we cannot manage God, or fully imagine God. God is bigger than any idea we have about Him.

Let the last word come from the 16th century Anglican scholar, Richard Hooker:

"Our soundest knowledge is to know that we know God not as indeed He is and our safest eloquence concerning Him is our silence".

* The Rev'd Lowell E. Grisham, Rector, St Paul's, Fayetteville, USA, 15 June 2003

**Barbara BrownTaylor, "Home by Another Way", p.153-4

7th Sunday in Easter 16th May 2010

Sunday after Ascension... Week of Prayer for Christian Unity

Acts 16...Rev. 22 ..... John 17

Sometimes something happens in your life, and you look back on it & say "Well, that was a mixed blessing". It was something that happened that felt like it was good at the time, but, in retrospect, one can see problems that arose.

In the life of a family that might happen. "A mixed blessing". In the life of an institution. In the life of the Christian Church.

The Christian church has had a long hisotry, 2000 years or so, and some things have happened to it, over the centuries, which I would consider to be "mixed blessings".

The one that I am particularly thinking of this morning is that in the 15th century, after the invention of printing, people started to talk about the Bible as if it were one book, one holy book. God's holy book. They even started to call the Bible "God's written word", or even "God's word" -- the book itself was called that -- because the Bible came to be thought of, more and more, after the invention of printing, as if it were just one book.

Well, the Bible is "one book" only in the way it is presented today. It is bound into one publication; it is published as one book. But it was not always thus.

The fact that, in the 16th century, the bible started to be published, bound into one book, was, in in my opinion, a mixed blessing. To be sure, by having many copies of the bible printed , more people could see what was in it -- but what was lost was the realisation that, in fact, the bible is not one book but it is a collection of different books, books of different sizes, different styles, different purposes -- but all stuck together into one publication.

Prior to the invention of printing, it was more likely that people would refer to "the scriptures" -- PLURAL -- and that term, "the scriptures" , does more justice to what we are talking about here. It is the term which I prefer : "the scriptures", rather than "the bible".

This week is the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. However, one of the struggles which has caused Christian DISunity over the years has been all about how to use and how to interpret the "bible" ... sorry, the "scriptures". That has been a cause of great argument and confusion. Whenever I hear someone says "The Bible says...this or that." my hackles rise, and I want to interject, "Which part of bible says this or that ? Which part of the scriptures... says this or that?"

The bible, the scriptures, are a collection of books, of writings, and the church in its traditions and liturgies is well aware of this, even if people in the pew are not.

Our "scriptures" are not the same sort of thing as the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. Each of those documents purports to be written by one person : the Koran, so it is claimed, is the "word of God", written down, by one man, the Prophet Mahommed. In the case of the Book of Mormon, it claims to be the words of God written down by the prophet Joseph Smith.

By contrast, the bible -- the scriptures -- have different authors, from different time periods, written in different styles, for different purposes, and God comes into it in a substantially different way, because our scriptures are to be read, not so much by individuals, sitting alone in their own room ... no, rather, our scriptures are to be read in a particular context: the context of a worshipping community. They are documents which belong in the midst of a community of people, and that is how God uses them.

Let me illustrate this by pointing out what has happened already in our service this morning. We have already heard 4 segments of the scriptures, in the course of our service today. 4 very different segments. 4 very different types of literature.

Let us start with the psalm. We read out, this morning, Psalm 97. It is from the Old Testament, and we understand that those words which we read out today would originally have been a kind of hymn or poem or chant which the Jews would say or sing in the Jerusalem Temple, to celebrate the kingship of God. It was an exclamation of praise, with reference in it to what the Jews believed about God in their history. The Jews believed that they should remember God's action whenever they came together to worship God. Many of the psalms are that type of literature. That is why we share the psalms with the Jews.

Many psalms lend themselves to musical settings, and in fact, some of our favourite hymns are actually based on the psalms, from the scriptures, or they have phrases in them which come directly from the psalms. I am thinking, for example, of the hymn "The Lord's My Shepherd" -- which comes from Psalm 23. "O God our help in ages past", comes from Psalm 90.

So that is one type of literature that is there in the scriptures: the psalms. They are like poems, songs, chants. Some of them are prayers that a community might say together. The book of Psalms is one of the "books" of our bible, our scriptures.

We come then to the time of Jesus, and this morning I read out another section of the "scriptures", and it consisted of some words from one of the 4 gospels. Each gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is a document in its own right -- it is a book in its own right -- and today our church tradition says to us "please read out a section of St John's gospel, chapter 17". So I did.

And what was read out purports to be the words of Jesus, uttered on the night before He died. Now, I am going to let you into a little secret: I believe that it is highly unlikely that those words are a verbatim transcript of what Jesus actually said that night. It is a bit hard to believe that someone was there, in that room, with a tape recorder that night, or that one of the 12 apostles could take down shorthand.

No, it is much more likely that the words read out this morning, from John chapter 17, were an after the event recollection of the sort of thing Jesus said, or what Jesus might have said: about Himself, about His unity with God, about the unity of Christian believers, and how Christian unity should mirror the unity that is there between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit.

Read that passage through yourself and you will agree that it is somewhat dense, complicated, convoluted.....it is a meditation on a deep subject; it is special type of literature, worthy of study and deep thought. Very different from the psalm.

And very different from the 3rd reading which we had today, which was from the Acts of the Apostles. Remember that story: about Paul & Silas, and the slave girl who was following them around, and about how Paul and Silas ended up in prison becase they were witnessing to Jesus, in public, and that was not allowed. And there was then an earthquake and their chains fell off, and the prison guard ... became a Christian.

It is a ripping yarn. It is a legend. It is a bright, stunning, exciting story ... it is a type of literature vastly different from the Gospel of John reading which we heard this morning; different again from the psalm. It is a tale, a legend, about great heroes of the faith, about the power of God. You hear that story, and its strange elemetns -- the slave girl identifying Paul and Silas a slaves of the Most High God... the prison guard asking "What should I do to be saved?" And was he asking to be saved from being punished because his prisoners were escaping ? Or was he asking about being "saved" in an eternal sense ? It is legend, it is a tale, a ripping yarn, from which you might draw all sorts of inspirational messages.

That is the sort of literature that is in there in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. It has its own style, it's own purpose.

And then, finally, we had a 4th "slice" from the scriptures this morning, you remember, and these were some verses from the last "book" of the bible. No. I shouldn't call the Book of Revelation the last book in the bible, I should call it the book which people have traditionally placed at the end of their collection of books of the scriptures... & what we heard in that reading today was part of a dream, a vision. A man, whose name we think was John, had a dream one day about his faith, about Jesus, about where history was heading. And like any dream it was mishmash of images and memories from the past; images and memories from the previous day; images and memories from what he had read, from things which had come into his imagination from who knows where. Our dreams are generally like that, aren't they -- but this John had the presence of mind to, when he woke up, to write it all down, not necessarily knowing what it all meant.

You look at those 10 verses we read this morning, from the Book of Revelation, & you find all sorts of images and concepts, including at least 7 images and phrases which come from Old Testament stories for example.

His dream, his vision, was written down, & over the decades, & over the centuries, Christians have found every now and then something in those words which throws some light on current events, or throws some light on some part of the faith. But as literature, that 4th slice we had today, is vastly diferent from the other 3 readings.

Yes, the bible, the scriptures, is not -- are not -- "one book". The fact that it is published in one volume is therefore something of a mixed blessing. So, in that sense, we Christians are not, as is sometimes said, "people of the book:". Rather, we are "people of the Spirit".

So why do we have the scriptures? Because our responsbility is to read them, in the context of our faith community, to wrestle with what they might be saying to us in the context of our community -- to allow God's Holy Spirit to say to us, in the silence of our own hearts, and in the forums our parish and diocese ...to allow the Holy Spirit to say to us,"well now, you go and do this or that...you go and believe this or that".

Indeed , as we sometimes say, at the end of a scripture reading, "O God, may your word live in us, and bear much fruit to your glory".

6th Sunday in Easter 9 May 2010

Acts 16:9-15; John 14:23-29

Believe it or not we are still in the "Easter" season -- that season of 40 days after the commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus. It was during those 40 days that He appeared to His disciples. Then, on next Thursday we commemorate the Ascension, when He was seen no longer. So the Easter season continues. Tell that to the supermarkets -- who believe that the Easter season starts in January, when they start selling Easter eggs and "Easter" buns !

For the Christian, Easter means Hope; it means that God can act in unexpected and unprecedented ways, and that we should expect that, and pray for that. The symbol of this, the sign of this, is, of course, the Resurrection of Jesus. What an unprecedented event that was ! Unbelievable, unexpected, although there had been hints that it was going to happen in what He had said privately to His disciples -- but they didn't quite understand what He meant at the time. Only later did the penny drop.

So, as Christians we live in hope. What this means in practice is that whenever we are confronted with a "brick wall" in our prayers, in our desires, we must always never give up hope. We are always to believe that God can do something new.

I am sure we all know what I mean when I say that we often come up against a brick wall from time to time in our prayers and hopes. On this Mothers Day, we might mouth lovely sentimental thoughts about family life, but we all know that quite often there are tensions in family life, in our relationships with other members of our families. We might pray for a specific outcome, we might hope for it, but we just find ourselves confronted with a brick wall. I am sure also we know that there can be brick walls in other aspects of our lives --perhaps to do with our jobs, our careers, our plans. We really want something -- we really believe even that God would want it for us too .... but we just come up against a brick wall.

I believe that the implication of the Easter message is that the brick wall is never the end of the matter. That it may well be that God has a new way of looking at our situation which we haven't as yet perceived. It may be that God is going to show us how to place a ladder up against that brick wall and climb over the top of it . It may be that God is going to show us a way around the wall. It may be that God really wants us not to head in the direction of that wall at all, but to turn at a right angle and head off in another direction. That is what I mean when I say that God can have a new way for us... that something unprecedented, unexpected may be in the offing. We are called to hope for that.

I believe that 2 of our readings today amplify this message.

We start with the gospel reading. It purports to be part of a conversation between Our Lord and His disciples, not long before His death. The disciples come to understand that Jesus is to die. He has been with them for 3 years or so. They have witnessed His deeds, His miracles, they have heard His words, His teachings, His parables. They have seen the way He lives and the way He treats people. They want Him to stay with them forever. But they come to see that, unfortunately, He is going to leave them. Their hopes are dashed. In that sense then, they have come up against a brick wall.

But then He tells them that something unprecedented, something unexpected will happen to them -- which will demolish that brick wall.... or at least remove its effect, and they are challenged to believe Him when He says this. Jesus tells them that after His death and resurrection they will not be left bereft. God will remain with them in a new, special way that they had not experienced before: He calls this the Holy Spirit. Jesus says that God's Holy Spirit will remain with them, standing beside them, as it were, like an Advocate in court; that the Holy Spirit will recall for them the things which Jesus had said, will recall for them the way Jesus had lived, will make sense of the signs & miracles which Jesus had done.

A brick wall no longer. There was hope for the future. Something new was to happen. In due course they came to understand this in a dramatic way, on the Day of Pentecost.

In one of our other readings today we see some more examples of brick walls being there, and God then showing ways to climb over those walls, or to go around them, or to head off in a different direction and not be confronted by the wall any longer.

I am referring to that story of St Paul and His work in the those first few decades of the Christian era. Now, remember what we heard a few weeks ago: how Saint Paul became an apostle for Jesus in a dramatic way, at a point in time, on the road to Damascus. He then became an ambassador for Christ in the regions to the north of the Holy Land, in areas which were part of what we now call Syria and Lebanon & Turkey. However, after some years and months of his travels around Asia Minor -- around what we now call Turkey -- Paul came up against a brick wall. He came up against problems... there were frustrations which developed which served to make him unable to move ahead with his mission, which was to reach out to the Jewish communities, convincing them that Jesus is the Messiah. After some months and years of his work in Asia Minor, Paul came up against a brick wall, you might say, in his travels, in his mission. What to do ?

And then, one night, he has a dream, and in his dream he sees and hears one of the people from the Christian communities in Macedonia, and this man is calling to him, in the dream, saying to Paul, "Come over and help us".

We need to think of the geography here: Macedonia is not in Turkey, it is not in Asia Minor. Macedonia is in the region to the north of Greece. To get to Macedonia from Asia Minor, from Turkey, means a sea voyage across the Aegean Sea. So Paul is being called, in his dream, to make a major journey. He responds. He believes now that it is God's will that he does not confront the brick wall he is finding in Asia Minor, but that he does a left-turn, (you might say) and cross the sea to a new territory. So he goes to Macedonia.

Now that move is a very significant point in Christian history. Turkey....all those places Paul has been in, as an ambassador for Jesus Christ, all those cities and towns ... Turkey is in Asia. But now, this great Christian apostle crosses over from the continent of Asia to the continent of Europe. This therefore is the first record we have of the leadership of the Christian Church moving into Europe. Ever since then Christianity has spread throughout Europe, and indeed we could say that Europe then became the heart of Christian civilisation for centuries. Europe became, in due time, the springboard from which Christianity spread to most of the rest of the world, including Australia -- and so it is that we hear today of the first recorded incident of an apostle of Christ, one of the leadership of the church, crossing over from Asia to Europe.

And Paul goes to meet the Macedonian Christian believers, in the city of Philippi. Presumably these people were Jews who had settled in that region, and who had become believers.

Now what we need to know about Philippi was that it was, yes, a city in Macedonia, in what we would now call northern Greece, but it was a city which had become a colony of Rome, so although there were Greeks and Macedonians and Jews living there, the Romans were in charge. It appears also that part of this Roman domination meant that Jewish people living there, in that city, as merchants and traders and skilled artisans ... that Jewish people were not allowed to have a synagogue. The Christian believers, at that time, who were Jews by race, would have normally met in the Jewish synagogue on Saturdays -- with their fellow Jews -- and they would have witnessed to their faith in that place. But there was no synagogue there. For them, this frustration, this issue was therefore a brick wall. They had no place to worship in the way they were accustomed ... no place to witness to their understanding of who Jesus was.

But God had provided for them a new way, a way around the brick wall -- and it was to provide them with a safe place, beside the river, in Philippi, a place where they could gather to worship. And so it was that Paul met the Macedonian Christians there -- "down by the riverside". It is interesting that that little phrase, many years later, became the theme of a Negro spiritual ... "down by the riverside"... the place of prayer where this small Christian community, this first European Christian community, gathered for worship, and where they first met one of the leaders of the Christian church.

And there was another brick wall which these Macedonian Christians faced in their community life, and, again, God provided a solution for them. Apparently... (and this is an interesting little detail in the story) .... apparently these Macedonian Christians -- who Paul had been called on by God to help -- were either all women, or mainly women. It is not the first time in history where women have been the backbone of a Christian community, but here is an example of where that was the case. How appropriate for Mothers' Day ! It is a small detail in the story, but what we need to remember is that, in the cultures of that day, most women were without power in the community; generally, women had to be subservient to their husbands and fathers, and if they were widows they were usually quite destitute.

How brave those first Macedonian women Christians must have been, then, to practise their faith, in that place so far away from where Christianity had started... that place where the Roman colonisers made it difficult for them to have a building to worship in. But if those constraints were another brick wall, God had provided a way around that wall ... or a ladder over it ... because we read that there was in that town, an influential woman called Lydia who came to their rescue. This Lydia may well have been a Roman, because Lydia was a Roman name. What we do know about her was that she was a merchant in her own right -- very unusual for a woman in that society. Probably she was a very rich widow, with slaves no doubt. And God provided that she -- with her influence, her wealth, her importance in the community -- that she became intrigued by the Christian message, and was able to offer hospitality and charity to Paul and thereby to boost the Christian influence in Philippi, to strengthen the embrionic church there, so that God's purposes could proceed.

The brick wall of no place to worship ? God provides the place by the riverside. The brick wall of no influential male leadership ? God provides this significant woman, Lydia -- and how even more significant, in church history, that Christianity's beginnings in Europe owe so much to a woman, in her own right, a woman who was not defined by who her husband or father was !

Some examples therefore of brick walls not being obstacles to God's will being done.

I go back to that Easter message: if there is a brick wall in our lives, let us be open to the possibility of God showing us a way to scale that wall ... or a way to go around it ... or a way to turn away from it and head in a more productive direction. Unbelievable... unprecedented ... unexpected ... but therein lies our hope.

5th Sunday in Easter 2nd May April 2010 Patronal Festival

Gen. 28:10-19; Romans 12:1-21; Matthew 7:21-29

In our first bible reading this morning we heard the story of Jacob's dream, Jacob's ladder. There he was, dreaming -- and waking up in what he believed was an awesome place, the house of God, the gate of heaven. That reading, from Genesis 28, is often read at the dedication of a church building, or -- such as today -- at a festival day when we honour and remember this church's history and ministry. The house of God, the gate of heaven.

As I child I heard that story of Jacob's dream, Jacob's ladder, and I was always rather puzzled by the fact that it says that Jacob took one of the stones of that place and used it for his pillow. I would have thought that that would have been a bit uncomfortable. A stone as a pillow ? Surely you need need something a bit softer than a stone. At the end of the story it says that he took that stone, & built a pillar -- not a pillow -- on top of it to mark the site where he had had the dream. That site became the shrine of Bethel, an important place in the story of the Old Testament, signifiying where God meets Man.

The idea of stones and rocks also features in our gospel reading today. You have just heard that famous parable, read in two languages: the man who built his house on the rock, and the one who built his house on the sand. Some of you might be taken back in your memory to your Sunday School days when you learnt the song "Build on the rock".

That parable is about a construction, an edifice, a building, a house made out of (no doubt) wood and bricks and stone.... built on foundations, as a building has to be ... and located on a particular site. There were the 2 different sites on which the houses were built.

Well, today, on this Patronal Festival, we might start our thinking about this building of St John's Church. We see its edifice.... bricks (lots of them) ... wood (lots of wood ... I don't think I've ever served in a church with so much wood, with so much heavy wooden furniture -- try shifting one of the pews single-handed!) and of course, as this building was built in the mid 1950's, it uses other building materials as well -- concrete, and steel, for example -- materials that probably were not around when Jesus told that parable.

And this church building of St John's also, of course, has foundations, built into this sloping ground here in Croydon -- and it is built on a particular site, a good site, really, which makes us very noticeable to the Croydon community.

But, of course, that parable was not about church buildings -- and we know anyway that a church is not summed up by its buildings and its facilities. A church is a collection of people, people who are called to be something special in a community and called to do something special in a community. Who we are and what we do really defines us as St John's church, more than does this particular edifice in which we are sitting today.

Thinking about who we are and what we do led me to suggest that today we try to identify these many facets of our life together, by choosing symbols, and these symbols will be presented and displayed in front of the altar in a few moments. They speak about the Worship which we offer to God in this place, week by week, day by day. They speak about the Teaching that is given here, in different ways. They speak about the Care and Outreach that takes place from our parishioners, and from others who come into our buildings for various caring and outreach puproses. And it is particularly significant to have, in our service this morning, representatives of some of the very significant teaching and caring and outreach activities that take place from St John's premises: I am speaking of course of St John's Kindergarten ... the The Dining Room ... the Community Meals offered from here on nights of the week ... AA. And we also welcome our Anglican attachment to Anglicare and the Brotherhood of St Laurence in this community.

The symbols which you will see in a few moments reflect all of that -- and they reflect the Administration that is needed to keep all this activity going. People sometimes forget the important backroom activity that has to go on. There needs to be organisation; there needs to be communication, letters, emails, phone calls, meetings, decisions made, and so on.

But all of this -- all of that -- is what I might call the "edifice" of the church. It is what you see on the outside. It what appears. It is what is visible. The worship, the teaching, the care, the outreach, the administration --- that is the edifice, the construction, of this church.

However today's parable challenges us to look beyond the outward edifice, the outward activities. Those two houses, mentioned in that parable, could well have been very well-built houses ... very comfortable ... very effective ... very nice and beautiful. They each could have appeared as being very successful in what they set out to do. -- but what the parable is really talking about, of course, is the foundations on which each of those two houses were built.

You don't easily see the foundations of a house, but they are vital to the long-term, and medium-term survival and effectiveness of the building.

So I am led this morning to ask us to consider: what are the foundations which underlie all that takes place here at St John's ? What is behind what we do, and are ? What is the "why" of what we do, and are ? The people who come in here on a Sunday morning and who experience our worship may not necessarily ask that question. The people who come onto our premises for the wonderful caring and outreach activity that takes place here week by week may not necessarily ask that question. Butwe should ask those questions: What is the "why" of what we do, and are ?

Do we do what we do, and are we who we are, just from good intentions -- are good intentions, simply, the foundations ? Perhaps "what we have always done" are our foundations, and we just keep doing the same thing and being the same sort of people ? . Perhaps "what we think is right", are the underlying reasons we do things. Perhaps "responding to the needs of our community" is our sole base line, our sole reason for being here, our foundations.

I believe we need to ask these questions. What is behind what we do, and are ? What is the "why" of what we do, and are ? A Patronal Festival is a good opportunity for that.

But actually the parable goes further than just the foundations. The parable's ultimate focus is the comparison between the two sites into which the foundations are sunk -- for those two houses -- and on which, then, those two edifices are built. In that parable we are not thinking about good and bad construction practices of the 2 houses, or even good and bad sinking of foundations. What its point is is to look at the wise and foolish choices of the sites.

The foolish man no doubt had an excellent builder, all the right techniques. And no doubt that builder knew how to sink foundations. But the choice of the site was the problem: the house was built on shifting sands. Along came the rain and floods and the wind, and the house didn't stand a chance. Compare that with the man who chose, as his site, the rock. "The rain fell, the floods came, the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall".

So the point of the parable is to say that our lives need to be built, our decisions need to be made, our church needs to organise itself and function, from the "right building site" -- and that is the rock which is Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ's words, His character, His life. It is possible for "church people" to get so familiar with Jesus' words and character and life ... and yet still they build an edifice, a church community, on the shifting sands of other ideas and standards.

We heard, in our second reading this morning, St Paul's reflections on what the Christian life is to be like, what it is to be based on. On not being conformed to this world; on living in the light of God's grace; of appreciating the different gifts and functions which different people have. What the Christian life is to be like ? It is to be based on generosity, on cheerfullness, on being patient in suffering... and so on ... not being overcome by evil, but overcoming evil with good. All those characteristics which we see in the words, the charcter, the life of Christ.

A celebration like today is a call back, not just to the foundations, but to the very site on which those foundations are established.

My prayer for us here at St John the Divine, here in Croydon, is that we will go into the future anchoring ourselves in that rock, on that rock. And may our endeavours be blessed.

25th April 2010 Anzac Day

(4th Sunday in Easter)

Acts 9:36-43; Rev. 7:9-17; John 10:22-30

What does "the dawn" mean to you ? That special time of day just before the sun rises. For me, an image of "the dawn" is that of me waking up and reaching out in the dark to switch on the light, the bedside light ... and often I have to feel around before I can locate the light switch.

Today, throughout Australia -- and NZ -- thousands of people have been up well before dawn to go to Anzac Day Dawn Services, held at shrines, at cenotaphs, at war memorials, in all the towns and cities. Today, thousands of people, at dawn, will have had what well may have been one of their few "religious" experiences of the year.

There is no doubt that Anzac Day, and all that surrounds it, has a mystical, religious, even supernatural dimension to it -- for many people. Many people who will say that it's a real struggle to come to church early on a Sunday morning will have few qualms about getting up and going to an Anzac Day Dawn Service. That is an interesting paradox about Australia, which is supposed to be one of the least religious countries in the whole world.

Why is this so ? And why does it appear that Anzac Day -- and Dawn services in particular -- seem to to have been increasing in support over the last 20 to 30 years, not least among young people ? Add to this the amazing number of people, particularly young people, who want to go to Galipoli for the Anzac Day dawn ceremonies there.

Some say that it's all because of the heavy promotion of Anzac Day, and Australia's war history, by the Federal Governments over the past few decades. I disagree. I believe that governments have been following a trend, not creating it.

This morning I am going to try and give some kind of Christian reflection on all this, and I go back to my initial image of dawn: that of reaching out in the dark, grasping around, for light. I do believe that the reason that Anzac Day resonates so much with Australians today is because they are seeking, they are grasping, for meaning -- for spiritual meaning -- they are grasping for "light", and this is maybe one of the few times of the year when they can do it legitimately, without fear of being mocked and ridiculed, without fear of being thought "religious", with the all the negative overtones which that word has in Australian culture.

People are reaching in the dark to make sense of what's really there, and to connect this in with Australian culture, Australian values and experience.

I would suggest to you that the personal stories associated with Anzac Day -- the stories of courage, of commitment, of heroism ... the stories which relate to people we know, or have heard about, from our own families ... that these stories are much more important than the historical facts, the political history of why the first Anzac Day happened.; that these stories are much more important than the geo-political goings-on which led to the First World War, and the Second World War, and indeed the other wars in which Australia has been involved.

If you ask the average person, at an Anzac Day Dawn service, to explain to you WHY Australian troops invaded the Turkish mainland on 25th April 1915, I am sure that 90% of people could not give you a clear and accurate answer -- an answer that does justice to the historical situation of the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire, and the German and British Empires of those times ... the need to capture Constantinople, etc etc. If you ask the average person to explain to you about the causes of the Second World War, and about its conduct ... even to explain the significance, in the war, of the Kokoda Track , for example... I am sure that many, if not most, could not give you a satisfactory explanation.

This is because empires come and go. Governments come and go. But people, and their stories, their experiences, their relationships, are what matter. Despite what we commemorate on Anzac Day, Australia's relationships today with Japan ... and with Turkey ... are probably much better than they ever have been. Despite the horrors of the Nazi era, the nation of Germany today is probably one of the best citizens in the world community.

In other words, the historical facts, the external circumstances, are less important than people's reactions, and experiences ... their personal ordeals, their personal recollections and the stories which they transmit down through their families.

I see today's gospel throwing some light on all this: what we heard about this morning in the gospel was how Jesus appears in Jerusalem on a winter's day, and it is a day when the Jewish people are celebrating a special festival: the Dedication of their Temple. They are commemorating an event which had occurred about 160 years earlier, when a foreign army had been defeated, and when the Temple -- which those foreigners had desecrated -- was reconsecrated...it was dedicated again. And in Our Lord's dialogue with the people that day, he turns the conversation away from a consideration of the physical Temple ... and its history ... and of what happened in the past ... He turns the conversation around to Himself as being, in a special sense, the "new" Temple. If the real Temple, the building, had been thought of as the "meeting place of God and Man", then He, Jesus, was the new meeting place of God and Man. And as He continues this conversation He finds that this is exactly what people are wanting to debate, are wanting to be engaged in, are wanting to talk about.

Despite the historical overlay -- the commemoration day of the Dedication of the Temple, and so on -- what these people are really grasping for is not so much a remembrance of a past event, but more a sense of meaning and purpose about where they can meet God today ... NOW .. in their personal lives. Past armies, past tribal conflicts and invasions, past military causes are less important than the personal reaching-out for meaning and purpose.

I am reminded of that last verse of the old hymn "The day thou gavest, Lord, is ended" -- where the last verse says "So be it, Lord; your throne shall never, like earth's proud empires, pass away; your kingdom stands, and grows for ever, till all your creatures own your sway".

The personal stories are what's important, not so much the historical facts. And also, in this "religious" dimension of Anzac Day, we see people yearning for more of what they have discerned from the war experiences of Australian service personnel. They are yearning for a renewal of those good ol' Aussie values of compassion for the underdog ... the "fair go" .... community and sharing ... "mateship" across all barriers .. .which people would say was there in the trenches at Galipoli, and on the Western Front in France, and in the Pacific War in the 1940's ... and they would wish, as they grasp out in the pre-dawn darkness (as it were), for more of that spirit today. Those who have gathered at Dawn services this morning ,and who will in other ways commemorate Anzac Day, will, I am sure, in this paradoxical "religious" way, be yearning ... possibly even praying ... for an Australia where these Anzac qualities & characteristics can be reclaimed: compassion for the underdog ... the "fair go" ... community and sharing .... "mateship".

People know that these are the things that really matter, these are the qualities which endure -- despite all the theory in the world, despite all the government policies.

I see today's story about the Apostle Peter throwing some light on this. It was a little story, remember, about Peter, in the days after the Resurrection of Christ, walking into a domestic situation where there is much sadness and sorrow, but also a situation indicative of the inequalities of that society. This lady, Dorcas, has died. She was someone who had supported the destitute in her community, the widows. The society of that day left widows to fend for themselves. Peter came into that house that day, confronted with a sorry situation which was part of the injustice of that community. He was not there, in that house that day, to preach, to convert, to convince. He was not there to give theories and doctrines. He was not there to announce church policies. What really mattered to those people that day was God working through Peter to do what Jesus would have done and to bring hope into that situation.

We look at what then happened as a miracle, with Peter apparently raising Dorcas from the dead-- and we take that as a sign of the new era which Christ inaugurated. It is what we yearn for, and pray for. It is what, I suggest, the Anzac crowds would also yearn for and pray for -- without perhaps admitting that that's what they're doing.... reaching out in the dark, for light, for meaning, for purpose, for hope.

And then our third reading ths morning was from the vision of heaven of St JohnThe Divine, as recorded in the Book of Revelation. Again, there are some resonances with what we might call the "spirituality" of Anzac Day.. We have, in the Book of Revelation, this vision of those who have suffered for the right; those who have refused to submit to tyranny, and who have held out for something better which encompasses the welfare of all people and indeed the whole creation; those who have with integrity refused to accept injustice & been willing to pay the price for it. We have in this vision the promise of ultimate vindication for them.

The original Anzacs, and those others who have gone to war for Australia , were not saints -- far from it. Their motives were mixed. Their behaviour, in time of battle, may not have been 100% heroic. But the fact that people are prepared to honour and remember them, with the dignity and solemnity of Anzac ceremonies, is yet another sign, I believe, of this yearning within all of us .... this reaching out in the pre-dawn darkness, as it were ... for a world that is better than the present one -- a world of the truth, the light which the Christian message contains.

It seems to me that perhaps it is not a coincidence that, in the economy of God, our national celebration of Anzac Day always falls within the Easter season, within the 40 days of Easter. Our celebrations today are a cry for that hope which, we believe, Jesus Christ offers.

18th April 2010

(3rd Sunday in Easter)

Acts 9

The woes and worries of the Roman Catholic Church are very much in the news at the moment -- what with the sexual abuse scandals ... the role the present Pope, Benedict, has played, allegedly, in "covering up" some of the horrible events that have happened ...and so on. Much of what has happened has been put down to the fact that the "Christian church" in general, and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, is an "institution" which has its own values and ways of doing things -- which may sometimes conflict with society -- and which tends to act, from time to time, to protect its "turf", to hush up behaviours which it is ashamed of, to "cover its tracks" -- all in the interests of the survival of that institution.

People often ask "Well, what would Jesus think of the church today?" -- not just the RC church, but any of our churches. People will then glibly say, "the church has departed from what Jesus intended".

When that kind of comment is made I believe it indicates a certain ignorance of the way history happens, of the way an organisation of people develops over time, and of how difficult it is to "start from scratch" to replicate something that began many centuries ago.

The Christian Church has a history, and we cannot pretend otherwise. It all started with a band of disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. They were with Him in His earthly life. They saw Him die. Many of them saw Him alive, after His resurrection -- they observed His actual presence with them for 40 days -- and then they saw Him, in the flesh, as it were, no longer, but they were convinced that He was still with them in a special way.

This band of people stuck together, as an illegal community of believers, and they started in Jerusalem and in other parts of the area we now call the Holy Land. And then a number of events, beyond their control, took place, and the characteristics of this band of believers then started to change and adapt and develop. "The church" -- which was them -- started to change and adapt and develop to new circumstances.

One of the first of these crucial events is what we heard about in our 1st reading today: the event which we call "the conversion of St Paul", on the road to Damascus. It is believed that this event happened about 3 or so years after the Resurrection of Jesus.

This man, Saul, to give him his Jewish name, was someone who was totally opposed to what these first Christians were proclaiming. He believed that they were dangerous people, who were infecting the other Jews around them with wrong beliefs. This Saul believed that these "Christians" were infiltrating the Jewish synagogues. They needed to be stamped out. He believed their influence had extended even to the city of Damsacus, which was 140 miles from Jerusalem, and so he sought permission to go to Damascus and round them up and bring them back, in chains, for trial in Jerusalem.

Well, you heard what happened. An incredible experience happened to him on the road to Damascus, and this Saul became a Christian. His story then continued, and it is written up in the book we call the Acts of the Apostles,. and because most of his subsequent work was done in the Greek-speaking regions, around the Mediterranean Sea, he started to be called by the Greek version of his name, which was "Paul".

And as the history of the Christian communities developed, this "Paul" became just as important as Peter and those others of the original disciples, the ones who had actually been with Jesus in His earthly life. Paul had not been with Jesus in His earthly life. Paul had not been there at the Crucifixion. Paul had not seen the empty tomb, like Peter and the others, but what happened to him was the the Risen Jesus still appeared to him, in some sort of vision -- and that mysterious experience changed him for ever. His life changed completely.

We value this story of Paul's "conversion" because it reminds us that new events will take place -- after the death and resurrection of Jesus -- and these events will influence the way the Christian community develops. New events will influence the way the church develops. So if people might today ask "What does Jesus think of the RC church today... or the Anglican church of today?", they might just as well ask "what would Jesus have thought of the church which was developing under the leadership of Paul, some decades after the earthly life of Jesus?".

In the account of Paul's conversion we hear the Risen Christ asking Paul, in the vision, "Why are you persecuting me?" -- the Risen Christ does not ask him, "Why are you persecuting the Christians?" -- No, it's a case of the Risen Jesus identifying Himself with His followers, who are His continuing Body.

We still maintain that belief when we say, at the Greeting of Peace, "we" are the Body of Christ. We, Christians today, are the hands and feet and mouth of Jesus to our own world. People look at us and they see something of Jesus, in us, whether we know it or not.

Later, in Paul's writings, some of which are preserved for us in what we call the New Testament, we see that Paul talks about the Christian communities as being "in Christ". And we still use that language today.

Another thing we learn from today's story, about Paul on the road to Damascus, is that God's favour towards a person, God's choosing of a person, owes nothing to that person's own efforts. Our spiritual rescue by God, our being marked out by God -- to do and to be something in His purposes -- does not depend on how "good" we are or how "good" we have been. This Saul -- later called Paul -- had been an enemy of Christ, in the worst possible way. And yet he was called, drawn out, chosen, humbled and given a completely new and unexpected role to play in the subsequent history of Christianity.

In fact, the words of the Risen Christ say that Paul is to be an "instrument", chosen for a particular task. I gather that the original word used here refers to an ordinary utensil, like something one would use in a kitchen. Paul is to be a saucepan .... a kettle .... a humble pot or pan .. in the service of God. Not the "best china", at all. How humbling this must have been for him to have heard it put like that.

And furthermore, the message from the Risen Christ is that Paul will not escape suffering, in his service of Jesus.

Yes, we value this story, of Paul's conversion, because it reminds us that the history of the church over the centuries has many stories like this, and that is what changes and develops the institution of the church. It is what adapts the church to different cultures.

Individuals hear, in some way, a personal call from the Risen Christ. They hear their name called. It may not be a dramatic voice from the skies. It may come in a quiet, unassuming way. It may come when they are reading something, or talking to someone else, or just meditating. And that person then finds their life changed -- they are humbled, they are channelled into a task that they would never have expected to perform, and there may be suffering involved.

We hear this story and we ask ourselves: how have we been called by the Risen Christ ? What is our task, for Him ? In what way are we to be an "instrument", a humble instrument in His purposes ?

Whether we like it or not we are part of the Institution of "the church". That church is made up of people, influenced by history. Good people and bad people. People who have made good decisions and bad decisions. People who have a need for repentance for mistakes made. People who do not live in a society in any way like Palestine of 2000 years ago -- and it's foolish for them to try to pretend to live in that sort of society.

And yet Christ is still alive and can still be with them.

Low Sunday 11th April 2010

(2nd Sunday in Easter Season)

John 20:19-31

I heard a story about a man who joined a church congregation at about Christmas time. I'm not sure whether he had been brought up in the church, and was returning after some years away; I'm not sure whether he was a "lapsed Christian"; or maybe he was someone who had never ever been part of a church before -- but he joined a congregation, started coming to church at about Christmas time, and as January proceeded he started hearing about the forthcoming season of Lent and he picked up the idea (maybe from something of what the vicar was saying, or something he'd read in the parish bulletin) -- he picked up the idea that during Lent there would be the opportunity to do some extra "religious things" and, thereby, to grow in his faith. And this man thought that this is what he should do.

So, during Lent, he developed for himself a sort of a Lenten rule of life. He certainly came to church every Sunday, and at other times. He read bits of the bible. He prayed. And as he proceeded through the 40 days of Lent he was encouraged, through what was happening at church, to grow closer to Jesus Christ, and to look forward with anticipation to the events of Holy Week and eventually Easter itself. He joined in the Palm Sunday procession. He came to the Maundy Thursday ceremonies -- and was very moved by the intimacy and the forboding gloom of that service, with the washing of the feet, and the commemoration of the Last Supper, and the darkening of the church, the overnight vigil.

Good Friday was a very moving experience also for him, as he joined the congregation in participating in the events of that day. And then Easter morning was fantastic -- the lights, the bells, the singing, the joy......the resurrection of Christ! He had never experienced a 6-weeks like that ever before ! As he went home after church on Easter Day he felt a different person, something profoundly transformative had taken place in his life.

But then, during Easter week, he fell into a hole. He hit "real life" again with a thump. It wasn't so much depression as confusion, and flatness. He tried to think things through....but the energy had gone. He even thought to himself, "what have I done, joining up with this congregation, confining myself to their "in house" goings on during the last 6 weeks of Lent and Holy Week". He felt he had painted himself into a corner, in a sense. He had immersed himself so much in all this religious stuff. And then was even an element of fear within him about saying anything to anyone about his feelings, an element of fear about stepping out into his real life.

What troubled him most was that he even felt that if this "Jesus business" was true,,, if this Jesus' resurrection had really happened, that it should impact on him in a wonderful but sustained way. But nothing was happening. Here he was, it was Easter Tuesday, it was Easter Wednesday, and he was in a hole -- and by the time he got to the end of Easter week, to yesterday, as it were, he was in a pretty confused state about all this. And he only just had the strength & the willpower to get himself together to come to church on the Sunday after Easter Day (that's today).

And he heard that gospel being read which we heard just a few minutes ago.

You & I would be forgiven if we were to be like that man. Ash Wednesday ... Lent ... Palm Sunday ... Holy Week ... Good Friday ... Easter Day.... and now ? So what ! Here we are, stuck, in a huddle, in a building, with other "believers" ... (but are they "believers" or not, or is it all a big hoax?). And afraid ? Maybe afraid, because we're not sure what the next step is.

The message of today's gospel is "Yes, it is a bit like that, isn't it? But.... be prepared. Jesus comes into the midst of it all."

There they are. The disciples, huddled together. Afraid of what might be the implications of what's been happening. And one of them, particularly -- that's Thomas -- he has some very serious doubts. Maybe Jesus had just died -- well, they saw Him die -- and that was that. Rising again ? Some sense of new empowerment for them ? No, where's the evidence ?

And then the Lord came into their midst. The doors were locked, but He appeared.

It was really Him. The same body, but different in some way. But the scars of the crucifixion were there, plain to see. "I have risen from the dead", we can imagine Him saying. Come and touch the body !

Not only that, but He gave them a greeting of Peace. Now when Jesus says "Peace be with you" it's a lot more than a handshake. It's alot more than a "How are you?. It's alot more than a minute of small talk. "Peace be with you", in the language of that day, was referring to a sense of wholeness, and completeness, and trust, and hope, and a deep immersion in God's love and God's purposes. Would that our greeting of peace on Sundays might have that same overwhelming completeness.

He comes, into their midst, into their huddle, into their fear, their anxiety, into their doubts ... it's really Him. He gives them His "Peace" and ....He breathes His breath into their lives in a new and special way. They are now to be sent out, sent out of that locked room, out into the world which they were anxious about, and unsure as to what effect they would have.

And more than that. They are to go out in to that world forgiving the sins of others, or not forgiving the sins of others. They are to go out with that new choice, that new power and responsibility....to forgive, or to not forgive the sins of others.

I talked on Good Friday, you might remember, about how Jesus "takes away the sins of the world". Some of us, during Lent, made letters of the alphabet out of newspaper cuttings of stories which told of the "sins of the world" ... greed, crime, war, nastiness of various kinds ... and those of you who were here at the Easter Dawn service might remember that we burned those papers in the Easter "new Fire", as a sign of Jesus "taking away the sins of the world".

But now, on this 8th day after the Resurrection, we hear from Him how we are to now share with Him -- with His breath within us, as it were -- we are to share in "taking away the sins of the world" by our lives, our words, our thoughts, our attitudes towards others.

There has got to be something in us now that will take the sting out of the sins of the world. And we have the awesome responsibility to do that, AND the ability to not do it if we choose not to.

Whether we like it or not, after Easter Day we do go back into everyday life, into our lives of family, and work, and social networks, and of being neighbours. We go back into our lives of being citizens of a local community, of a nation, of a global world. But we go back into that world with an awesome responsibility to take the sting out of the sins of that world, by our actions, by our preparedness to forgive, to have that breath of the Lord in us in what we do and say and are.

Yes, Ash Wednesday, Lent, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Day are all very well -- and I trust and hope that we have been profoundly moved in those 6 weeks. But, in a way, those 6 weeks which we have now completed, are essentially an "in house" operation. We have been through all that, and the world outside could have been quite oblivious to it. Let's remember that for most people, they might have heard of Pancake Day and Ash Wednesday. They might have heard of "Lent" in terms of "giving up chocolate" or something pretty trivial like that. They might have had hot cross buns, and thought momentarily of Good Friday. They certainly had Easter Eggs, and maybe thought a little about the the resurrection. But now the proof is going to be in the pudding. And we are the pudding -- if I can mix all my metaphors.

Well, maybe not immediately. Because we now have another 5 weeks or so of the Easter season to mull over all this, because it is alot to mull over and alot to take on.

And then, when the Day of Pentecost comes, that's when we are really kicked out, from the holy huddle, into the world, energised by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Easter 2010

This is the story of the three gardens. You have heard about the 3 wise men. You have heard about the 3 bears. You have heard about the 3 tenors. This is the story of the 3 gardens.

Firstly, the Garden of Eden. That mythical, idyllic paradise where God intended the human race to dwell. "God created in His own image, male and female" to live in harmony with the whole creation. They were to live in the Garden of Eden, to be stewards of God's created order -- to be (as it were) God's deputies, God's viceroys.

The focal point of that first garden, the Garden of Eden, was, you remember, a tree, that stood in the middle of the garden. God instructed Adam and Eve not to eat of that tree -- but Adam and Eve disobeyed God. They were tempted. They succumbed ... they wanted the knowledge of good and evil, & they thought that that knowledge was located there, in that tree, and that they could get it -- they could become "like God", by eating its fruit. They were wanting to locate the source of moral behaviour outside and apart from God, who was not confined to that one tree, but was to be found in all places. Man and woman could not hide from Him.

From that Garden, Eden, the human race was expelled -- so says the story from Genesis. The human race had chosen -- t still chooses -- not to belong there. The human race chose -- it still chooses -- to be slave to those forces that lead us away from God.

And it is very interesting that from then on, in the bible, very little is said about gardens, but alot is said about other things ... as we hear of how the Garden of Eden incident grieved God so much that He acted in history to bring mankind back ot Himself, back to that state of harmony & balance that Eden signified.

The 2nd garden is the Garden of Gethsemane. And in between Eden and Gethsemane we have the whole sweep of salvation history (of which we were given but a glimpse in the readings in the dark earlier this morning).

"Salvation history": to repair the damage done in Eden, God reaffirms His covenant with the human race (you remember the story of Noah and the rainbow) ... God chooses a man (Abraham), a tribe, a nation, to be His instruments, His agents ... God delivers them from slavery (Moses, and so on) .... and when humanity still doesn't come back to Him, God promises the world something new: a new heart, a renewed Spirit .. until finally Jesus comes, lives His life, and just as He is on the verge of fulfilling God's rescue mission to the world, Jesus pauses in ... a Garden.

Our Lord, in the Garden of Gethsemane, finally takes hold of His destiny in a protracted period of anguish, prayer, wrestling with God's will.

Where is the focal point in the Garden of Gethsemane ? The focal point in the Garden of Eden was the Tree. There is no central tree in the Garden of Gethsemane -- there are lots of olive trees, and I gather that the name "Gethsemane" means something to do with the place where olive oil comes from. But there is no central tree there. The tree that is relevant to that second garden was actually a dead tree on a small hillside just over the other side of the valley. Just over the other side ofthe valley was a place called Golgotha, or Calvary. It was probably a former quarry and rubbish dump, where executions now were taking place -- and there were two pieces of a dead tree, over there, that had been hastily fixed together to form a ... cross.

And that's what the last few days have been all about: to rectify what went wrong in the first Garden, the deal is clinched in the 2nd garden, the Garden of Gethesemane, and our Lord goes to His death.

And after His death He is laid to rest in the 3rd Garden -- a little garden area not far from Calvary, a property owned by a rich man, Joseph of Arimathea, and in that garden, that 3rd garden, there was a tomb.

On Easter morning, the friends of Jesus come to that third garden. They come at different times. They find the tomb empty. They come in different states of despair, frustration, anger, confusion, sadness, shock -- and one of them, the least likely one, Mary Magdalene, claims that she sees Jesus alive. Initially she doesn't recognise Him, but then she does. That Graden is the first place where the Risen Christ grasps the imagination of a disciple. And she hurries off to tell the world.

I put it to you this morning that we are each like plants in the Easter garden: Christ's friends, attendant on His resurrection, and witnesses (like Mary Magdalene) to His resurrection.

Just think about plants in a garden. Firstly, each one is an individual. Each plant may be from the same family as another, the same species, but each one has it own particular characteristics. Which reminds us that an essential part of Christianity is to recognise the worth of each individual person, as a unique child of God. It is why Christians should stand up for human rights in our world ... & that is relevant at the moment with the recent trial in China, and with the ongoing issue to do with boat people and refugees. The worth of each individual person: that is why we Christians should be in the forefront of campaigning for human dignity, against the forces that would seek to destroy human life and forces that would seek to make us all the same ... the pressures of the peer group on young people for example.

In God's eyes we each are unique.

I found myself mulling over that thought the other day when some of us were making palm crosses. Each one of those palm crosses was very different from every other one. Likewise every person is unique. And then on Thursday night, during the prayer vigil in the chapel we had a number of candles lit, ad spaced around the area, and they were all different from each other, too. They may have looked the same initially, but each one had its own distinctive flame and its own way of burning.

But back to plants in a garden ... each plant's individuality is not the end of the story. Each individual is to fit in to a harmonious, complete totality. Growth of a plant is necessary, and we must grow in our faith. But it is not to be an undirected or misdirected growth. For a garden to be a unity it has to be a disciplined growth, for the good of the whole. The good gardener knows about nutrition for the plants ... knows about keeping pests and diseases away ... knows about weeding, and pruning, and complementing one plant, one flower, one shrub with another.

So .. individuality, yes, but in a context of totality. We, as the plants in God's Easter garden, must not be averse to His correcting of us; His pruning of us; His training and leading us in ways perhaps we don't feel are comfortable or even natural; His getting rid from around us of those influences, those habotys, which will prevent us from growing into what He, the gardener, really wants.

The focal point in the Garden of Eden was that Tree in the middle of the garden. The focal point in the Garden of Gethsemane was that dead tree on the other side of the vally -- the cross. But where is the centre of the Easter Garden ? Not a tree this time, but something that you would not normally find in a regular garden. The centre of the Garden, in which we are the plants, is an Empty Tomb. Not a statue to worship. Not a book to worship. Not an architecturally designed building to worship. No even an historical person to worship ... not a resuscitated corpse.

The centre is the Empty Tomb, which is the blunt sign, the brazen outrageous sign that Death is finished with; that Death has been conquered; that out of the worst of circumstances there is hope.

Jesus Christ is risen today ! Alleluia !

Palm Sunday 2010 Luke 19: 40

From Luke 19, which we heard at the start of the service/procession: "as Jesus rode along ... the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully ... & some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, 'Teacher, order your disciples to stop'. Jesus answered, 'I tell you, if these disciples were silent, the very stones would shout out'".

Which "stones" is Jesus talking about ? "The stones will shout out".

Jerusalem & its surrounding district is a very stony place. It is not a Garden City, by any stretch of the imagination. Jerusalem, and its surrounds, is a very stony, rocky place. You have probably noticed that in the TV news footage we see virtually every night about trouble in the Holy Land: it is dry, brown/grey, rocky, stony. It is not your usual holiday destination. There are rocks and stones everywhere. And what do the Palestinians, in their frustration, throw at the Israelis, when they are not shooting guns or using explosvies ? They throw stones at them.

A rocky, stony place. Stone everywhere you look. When new buildings are put up in Jerusalem today , the authorities (so I gather) insist that the buildings be faced with Jerusalem stone, even though other building materials may be used as a basis.

Remember that Jerusalem as a city was not built as an agricultural centre, or as a port, or as a trade crossroads. No, it was built as a fortress city, centuries before Jesus, because it was in a central location for all the tribes of the Holy Land -- and it had a good and reliable underground water supply -- and it could be defended from attack. It was not built as a beauty spot, or a nice place to be. Jerusalerm is a not a "beautiful place".

And stone ... was an important part of that city's history. Its buildings had to be made from the local stone. There were quarries everywhere. Apparently, the area which later was to become known as Calvary, where Jesus died, outside the city walls, was originally part of a sort of a quarry area, which had degenerated into a rubbish dump -- as sometimes happens with old quarries.

Yes, stone was part and parcel of what Jerusalem was all about.

And because it had been the capital of the Jewish nation, there were many public buildings there built of stone. To magnify the political aspirations of its leaders, there were palaces, courts, government buildings, and so forth. And because Jerusalem became the religious centre for the Jews, the jewel in its crown (so to speak) was the Great Jerusalem Temple -- built, of course, of stone.

Throughout the history of Jerusalem, and even today, public buildings have come and gone, they have risen and fallen. Religious edifices have come and gone, but the building material remains the same: stone.

And what in fact happened over time was that one dynasty, one king, one emperor, one potentate would build a mighty building, but then a few years later, or a few decades later, some enemy would come and demolish that building, raze it to the ground -- and then rebuild another building, to enhance his prestige, but he would use as his basic building material the rubble that was lying around. So the stone would get recycled, you might say.

So, when you look at the buildings in Jerusalem even today, you are probably looking at stone that had been used over and over again to build the various edifices that have been part of the long history of that city.

Therefore, when Jesus & the donkey are proceeding down the pathway from the Mount of Olives, to the gates of the cty of Jerusalem, and Jesus says the "stones would shout out" to welcome Him, to acclaim Him -- He is in fact referring to stones which would have witnessed much history over the centuries. The stones that might cry out would be stones from the Temple wall, stones from Herod's Palace, stones from the Palace of the Roman Governor, Pontius Plate; stones from the quarry at Calvary where He was subsequently to be put to death. They might even be stones that were not mere rubble but which had been part of some great edifice, but which had been demolished in one of that city's many wars.

The stones that might cry out, to acclaim Jesus, might be stones that had once been thrown in anger by someone, perhaps even thrown at someone with an intent to kill, to murder -- perhaps thrown at a woman caught in adultery, perhaps stones thrown at a religious heretic.

Or simply they were stones which had been trodden on millions of times, as people went about their everyday business.

It is as if these stones have now "had enough", and, as they now witness the coming of Jesus, they seek to cry out and say "Here in this man, Jesus, is the fulfilment of all our hopes. We have been thrown, and hewn, and manipulated, and carried around, and placed into foundations and formations and walls for too long! -- all in the cause of human empires, or human pride. We have had enough ! We have been used to prop up religions and religious structures, to be part of shrines and termples for too long ... we have had enough!" Yes, the stones might cry out and say: "And here now is this man who we sense to be the fulfilment of all that has gone before. Something here, someone here, riding on this donkey, is greater than all the political structures we have seen come and go. Something here is greater than all the religions we have seen come and go". (I am imagining what these stones might be wanitng to say).

Yes, as Jesus says to the Pharisees: "if you stop my disciples shouting out, these stones would shout out and they too would say "Hosanna! Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"

What I believe we need to focus on this morning -- and indeed this week -- is the world-shattering, cosmic, significance of Jesus Christ. What he is all about is something much greater than empires and political and social structures -- and their buildings made of stone. What Jesus is all about is much greater than religions -- and their buildlings, made of stone. And the stones know that !

There may be a tendency for people this week, not so much to focus on the cosmic, world-shattering dimension of Jesus Christ, but on His human suffering, on His humanity. The effect on those other humans around Him.

Yes, that is important. But His everlasting effect must not be lost sight of as well. And there is room for us to ponder on that this week. Something greater than a man's intense suffering happened this week. Something greater than the terrible cruelty and betrayal and cowardice and violence ... happened this week.

So, may we enter, , in these next few days, into the intriguing nature of Jesus Christ -- through His humanity, into His divinity, into the way in which He takes us into God, into God's very life, offering us transformation so that we no longer are trapped in the power struggles, and the empire-building, and the self-aggrandizement, of which stony buildings are the symbol.

May we enter, in these next few days, into the intriguing nature of Jesus Christ -- who offers us transformation of the "religious" part of us, so that we are no longer trapped in the peripheral, the trivial, the short-sighted world of which religious, stony, buildings and structures are so often the symbol.

When Jesus died, so the various accounts say, the sky darkened, the rocks split open. After He died He was placed in a rocky cave, a rocky tomb, sealed with a big stone. And then a few days later, that stone was rolled away.

Lent 5 John 12:1-8

Whenever we go to the cinema, to the movies, the main feature never starts at the time they say. Have you noticed that ? The film you are there to see never starts at the time advertised. It is because they fill up the first 10 minutes or so with advertisements and with what are called "trailers" or "shorts". These are excerpts from films that are to come -- that are to be shown next week. You see the "trailer" and you get some idea of what next week's movie is to be all about. The "trailer", the "short", gives the themes and something of the plot of the movie to come, and you say to yourself, "Well, I think I will like that film. I think I can see what it is all about. I'll come back and see it".

The incident we read about today in the gospel, the story of Mary anointing Jesus, contains a number of themes which we will see fleshed out, so to speak, in the next couple of weeks. The story of the anointing of Jesus' feet, by this Mary of Bethany, is a kind of "trailer" of what is to come: Holy Week ... Good Friday ... Easter. These events, which we will commemorate in the next few days, are at the heart of Christianity. We will focus on them in more detail in the days to come, but they are foreshadowed in the incident which we read about today.

So, the themes are: Jesus as a king, but a different kind of king, and a different kind of kingdom....Jesus as a man to die and to be buried .... Jesus as One to live on, with a message that is to spread to , to permeate, the whole world.

The incident, in today's gospel reading, takes place in the village of Bethany, just outside Jerusalem. In the full knowledge of the plot against His life, Our Lord approaches the city of His destiny, and at a dinner given for Him by His friends, Martha, Lazarus and Mary, this Mary does something that is quite out of the ordinary. The custom in those days, when a guest came to your house, was for the servant to wash the guest's feet, and these feet were then to be dried with a towel. If it was a very special guest, the person's head would be anointed with a small portion of sweet-smelling oil. The ladies of the house would not be the ones doing these tasks.

But what happens in today's incident is all topsy-turvy. The feet of the guest are not washed -- or , if they are, we don't hear about it. The head is not anointed, with a small portion of oil. No, the feet of the guest are anointed with a huge quantity of the most precious perfume. One of the ladies of the house does this, and lets down her hair in order to do so. That was quite a scandalous thing in its own right. It was not becoming for a lady, particularly at a formal dinner gathering like this, where there was an honoured guest, for a lady to let down her hair -- let alone wipe the feet of the guest with her hair. It was all wrong ! It was all out of kilter.

If costly perfume were going to be used, this was a sign that a royal guest was in the house, not just an ordinary guest. So, by this unusual anointing, Mary of Bethany is making a statement that this Jesus is a royal personage -- some kind of king. We will see this attitude demonstrated next Sunday, on Palm Sunday, in another context, when the crowds acknowledge Jesus as a king too.

The fact, however, that the customs are all done in the wrong way, at this dinner, indicates that, although He is some kind of "king", He's is not your usual king, whose kingdom is as usually understood. We are out of the "normal" world in this gospel passage. Jesus' "kingdom" is not in the realm of prudent, worldly-wise, shrewd, astute politics and statesmanship. It is in a realm of excesses and im-prudence. She pours all this expensive perfume, all over.... His feet !

A voice at this dinner gathering complains ! "What a waste!" And who says that ? Judas Iscariot. Judas is saying that, yes, it is OK to show one's honour to one's guest .. for Mary to show her devotion to Jesus .. but let's not go overboard ! Let us ration our love. Let us ration our affection, our devotion. Let us calculate how much our devotion to this "king" is warranted !

Jesus says, "No, leave her alone..." The Lord is going along with this outrageous, over-generous, over-the-top demonstration -- because His kingdom, His kingship, is not of this world. We are in a new era here. It is a fulfulment of what that prophet was speaking about in our first reading today: that a "new" thing has come to pass ... an exodus into a new "country", as it were ... where even the wild beasts are part of the transformation.

What kind of "king" ? What kind of "kingdom" ? It is topsy-turvy. It is counter-cultural. And there is an implication for us who are part of the church today. The challenge for the church is to ask itself whether it goes along with the values of Jesus' kingdom. The default position of the church always seems to be that we are just like any other worldly organisation, that we are just a business, that we are just there to attract members so that we can "survive". That we count the cost. That everything gets back to dollars and cents. That that is our prime "core value".

The extravagant, unexpected, overwhelming action of Mary of Bethany is an acted parable about the type of king Jesus is, and the type of kingdom he inaugurates. It is not "of this world".

Judas, of course, wears his heart on his sleeve ... he displays his moral vanity .. when he self-righteously, and insincerely, proclaims "could not this perfume be sold and the money given to the poor?"

He is rebuked by Jesus for saying this. Judas has missed the point. Our Lord says that doing a good work may be done at any time but it ought to give way to that work which has to be done "right now" -- Jesus identifies that this anointing is a signal of something that is necessary "right now", or, at least, in the next few days: His death. Jesus sees Mary's action as a gesture of respect offered to His dead body before the time.

He is to die. He is to be buried. In those days, a dead body was anointed before it was placed in the tomb. Anointing, as a practice, therefore had yet another symbolic meaning: depending on the quantity, depending on the type of oil, the expense of it, the smell of it, it was not just a sign of the welcoming of a guest ...not just a sign of royalty .. but also a sign of death and burial.

The death of Jesus is the second great theme of the next few days and weeks, and we, and the church throughout the world, will of course focus on that, specifically on Good Friday.

I have discovered in my ministry that there are some Christians who have some difficulty coping with the death of Jesus. Some of them will tell me that they will not -- that they cannot -- come to church on Good Friday. I respect their position. It may date back to a Good Friday service which they went to many years ago, which had a profound, negative, effect on them. It may date back to some personal tragedy in their lives, or some horrific violent crime that they had witnessed -- and, let us be quite clear, the death of Jesus, on the first Good Friday, was itself a violent crime.

Be all that as it may, we cannot deny that the Christian church has always regarded the death of Jesus as, literallly, "crucial". It is at the centre of the Jesus story. We can only use picture language to try to plumb the depths of what it means. We talk, we sing, about "our sins being nailed to the cross ... our sins being taken away, by His death". We talk, we sing, about the "Saviour of the world, reigning from the Cross".

Yes, He is a king, but a new kind of king, and His kingdom's values are there for us to put into practice as much as we can -- but He also died on a cross, for us and for our salvation. The cross then becomes the "badge" of Christianity, traced on the person's brow at baptism ... used as a symbol in church architecture and furnishings .... displayed in jewellry and art ... and so on.

Mary anoints the body of Jesus, prior to His burial.

But -- and here is where the 3rd theme comes in -- please note that she does not anoint His whole body. Only the feet. I see two messages coming from that detail.

The first is that Mary has a premonition that, even though Jesus is to be buried, He is not to stay buried. Mary has an inkling that the grave will not be able to hold Him. The anointing, therefore, is not complete. It is not an end of a journey, as it would be for any ordinary person coming to their death.

We know that Mary's hunch was right. The grave did not hold Him.

But it is more than that, and I believe there is a significance in that it is the feet of Christ which are anointed. Mary's action points to the Resurrection, but even the Resurrection of Jesus is not by any means the end of the Christian story. What happens after the Resurrection is that the Risen Jesus then empowers His followers to be His continuing Body in the world -- and it is the first disciples who then begin the process of taking the message, the gospel, to the four corners of the globe. It is their feet -- the feet of the apostles -- who literally take the message out from Jerusalem, to the world, to us -- and their feet are the "feet of Christ". The anointing of the feet can also be seen therefore as a sign of the Spirit empowering for movement, for the carrying out of a task in the world.

The apostles' feet are "the feet of Christ". Their hands are the "hands of Christ", their minds and words are to be "the mind and words of Christ".... the Body of Christ is the church, even today.

Yes, this story from today's gospel reading is a foreshadowing of the great themes of the next few days.... a "trailer" of the great themes of Holy Week, Good Friday, Easter Day, and beyond. Jesus the new kind of King, who inaugurates a new kind of Kingdom, new values, which go against those of the world ... Jesus the one who is to die, for us, and who will be buried ..... Jesus the One who breaks out of the tomb, and who enters into the lives of His followers who then carry His message to the ends of the earth.

The fragrance of that pound of costly perfume filled the whole house, that evening in Bethany. We pray that the fragrance of the gospel will permeate, will fill, will extend to the whole world.

Lent 4 14 March 2010 Luke 15:11-32

There are 2 parables which really define Christianity, and without those parables, Christianity would be something different. One is the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and the other is the story we heard this morning. We usually call it "the Parable of the Prodigal Son" -- although it could well have another title.

Most of us would be very famliar with the story, that parable... of the Prodigal Son ... but because we are so familiar with it there is the possibility that we fail to understand how outrageous a story it is, how radical, how unbelievable. When Jesus first told that story, to Jewish people in the 1st century A.D., they would have been very shocked. The shocking aspects of the parable may not register with us, because we live in another culture, in another age.

Let me give a few examples of how unbelievable the story must have sounded to those who heard it for the 1st time:

We are talking here of a fairly wealthy father, a property owner, a man who has slaves and servants, a man who has significant wealth to bequeath to his sons. So when his younger son comes to him and says "give me the share of the property that will belong to me", it is as though that son is saying to the father, "you are as good as dead as far as I am concerned". So what we are hearing about, at the beginning of the story, is of a younger son insulting his father in a most vicious way. Sons didn't speak to their fathers in that way in those days, in that culture, in the community in which Jesus lived and taught. It was a shocking, scandalous beginning to a story for it to start like that.

Well, as we heard, the father agrees to the younger son's request -- and again, that would have been very unexpected and highly unlikely in the minds of the first people to hear the story. The people who heard that story for the first time would have expected that the father would be very angry with the son, for insulting him. But no... as we heard, the father lets the son go, and the young man goes off into a far country, and wastes the money. When he is destitute, the only work he can find to do is to look after pigs, and the only food he can eat is the pig-food. Again to the first hearers of this parable, this would have been a very unsavoury element in the story. People would want to shield their ears when the subject of pigs -- and pig food -- was mentioned. We have to remember that the Jews of that era -- and even today -- have an aversion to pigs, which are seen as unclean animals. The good Jew, even today, will not keep pigs, will not eat pork , or ham, or bacon.

So ... the story continues.... eventually the young man "comes to himself" and he decides to come home, with his tail between his legs, as it were. The story says that the father sees him coming. Now that little detail seems to imply that the father was watching out for him all the time he was away. Hard to believe ! And in the culture of that day, if that son had done what he had done, a normal father would have "written him off" weeks beforehand, and would want nothing more to do with him. But that's not what happens.

The next outrageous element in the narrative is that the father runs out into the distance to meet the young son. Now ... and this is perhaps what we don't realise, from our 21st century perspective ........... it was unheard of for a wealthy, land-owning man, in that culture, to leave his house and to go and meet someone of lower rank -- let alone RUN out to meet that person. Rich, important people in those days didn't run, they walked majestically, usually with slaves and servants around them. AND they did not show extravagant emotion,such as hugging someone and kissing them. Yet this is what this father does, to the younger, dissolute, prodigal son.

The first hearers of this story would have been wincing and screwing up their faces in horror at this unsavoury story.

But the horrors are not yet over. OK, the story says that the younger son is welcomed back in to the home, with a great party ... the special robe, the fatted calf, and all that.

Then the father notices that the older son, the dutiful son, is not there at the party. What does this father do ? He forsakes his dignity, as the host of this celebration... he forsakes his dignity, to go outside and to plead with the other son, and, as we heard in the 2nd half of the parable, the father has then to endure the sour, nasty, resentful, bitter, contemptuous words of the older son.

If a story is supposed to have "goodies" and "baddies" in it, the first people to hear that parable would have said, well, of course the younger son was a "baddie" -- and,yes, the older son was a "baddie" too, because of his negative attitude. But the first hearers of the parable would also have been rather dubious about the father: they could not envisage a father being so foolish, so indulgent, so generous and forgiving in such a shocking situation.

We might call it the Parable of the Prodigal Son, or the Parable of the Lost Son, or the Parable of the Lost Sons -- because, in a sense, that older brother was "lost" too. But maybe we should say that, really, the central character in the story is the Father, and that it really is a parable about A Very Special Kind of Father.

Our Lord told that parable to force us to think about what sort of God God is - indeed, that God is "like" that father, in the story, and that perhaps we, from time to time, might be like the younger son, or even like the older son. Jesus challenges us: can we accept that God is like that "father" in His relationship with us ?

That God is deeply concerned for all His children -- you and me, and all the others -- even deeply concerned for those who wish He were dead ... (atheists?) .... deeply concerned for those who deliberately go away from what they know of Him. The father forsakes his dignity and goes to each of those sons simply because he is their father. God comes to us, wherever we are, whatever we've done ....forsakes His dignity, ... simply because we are His children. For God, the person is more important than what he or she has done. He even says -- as the father says to the older son -- "you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours". What an incredible admission from God to us !

So, some questions for us: are we comfortable with a God who acts with the foolishness of love as displayed by the father in that parable ? When someone returns to God, can we share God's joy ?

And there are a few loose ends in the story which we can think about : did that elder son ever get to the point of forgiving his brother ? did he eventually come into the welcome-home party, or did he stay outside and sulk ? We don't know,

Is not this story not so much about "sin" and "repentance" but more about being "lost" and then "found"... being "dead" and then "alive" ?

I finish with another story -- a story about a young man in India some years ago who ran away from home, and wasted money that his parents had given him. Like the Prodigal Son, he came to himself and he decided he would go home in disgrace. But he wasn't sure he would be accepted by his parents and by the people of his village. He wrote a letter to his parents and said "I am coming back in the train. If you want to welcome me back, tie a yellow ribbon to the tree outside our house. I will see it from the train. If it is not there, I will know your feelings." Some days later, his train pulls into the station. The young man is in the carriage. As the train is pulling into the station, the young man feels ill, he feels guilty, he feels as low as he could possibly be. He hides under the seat. He can't bear to look out the window. He asks someone else in the carriage to look out the window for him. The other man does, and he reports, "the tree outside your parents' house is covered with yellow ribbons ... and so are all the other trees in the village".

Lent 3 - 7 March 2010

We often run into people who, when you ask them what religion they are, they say "Church of England" . When they say this it is a clear indication that they have not been regular at church since the 1980's, when the official name of our church changed from "The Church of England in Australia" to "The Anglican Church of Australia".

Likewise, we often run into people who have not been to church for a long time and one of the things they say to us is "Oh, you have changed the words of the Lord's Prayer". When they say this it is a clear indication that they have not been regular at church at least since about 1994, when the "new words" of the Lord's Prayer appeared in our prayer books -- in particular, instead of saying "lead us not into temptation" they find that we are now saying "Save us from the time of trial".

Are these "new words"? Well, no. They are an attempt to say, in modern English, what we believe the original words of the Lord's Prayer were. The words of the Lord's Prayer come from two sources in the New Testament. They claim to be the words of Jesus. The words we have in the original documents are actually in the Greek language, because that's what the New Testament was written in -- although it is the case that Our Lord spoke a language called Aramaic -- a derivative of Hebrew -- so what we have in the original N.T. documents are themselves a translation from Aramaic into Greek.

"Lead us not into temptation" .... "Save us from the time of trial". They sound different -- but are they ?

"Temptation" is one of those words, one of those concepts, which has become trivilialised over the years. We make jokes about "temptation". "Can I tempt you?", we say, with a wicked smile, when we offer someone a particularly rich chocolate, or some other special luxurious food. Certain female film stars, from the silent movie era onwards, have been called "temptresses".

But despite that, it is a serious concept, and one that I believe that we should focus on, not least in this season of Lent.

During Lent, for 40 days, we remember Christ being "tempted in the wilderness", and that 40-day experience itself has echoes of the 40 years in the wilderness, which the People of Israel endured, after they had escaped from slavery in Egypt. We read about all that in the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament. And just as Our Lord was "tempted in the wilderness", so the People of Israel were "tempted in the wilderness" as they travelled through it -- and so it is that we, as the People of God today, find ourselves "tempted" in various ways.

This is what St Paul is getting at in the reading we heard this morning as our second reading. He is addressing his words to a Christian community, in the city of Corinth, in Greece, some decades after the earthly life of Jesus -- and his words have been preserved for us, over the centuries, to remind us that we, the People of God today, are a Christian community, and let us not think that temptations will not come -- indeed, St Paul encourages us to look back to the Israelites' experience and to assess how "we are travelling".

He makes the point that temptations, in life, will come. They are part of life. But they are there, not to make us "fall", but to test us so that we might emerge stronger, from the experience. It is natural for us to pray that we might be saved from these "times of trial" but let us not be surprised when they come.

Paul is saying to the Corinthian church that, just as the ancient People of Israel were delivered through the Red Sea, that liberating experience did not stop temptations coming later on. Therefore, just as the Christian community has been delivered through the "waters of baptism" -- so to speak -- that is not a guarentee that temptations will not come. And St Paul is saying to the Corinthian church that, just as the ancient People of Israel were sustained in the wilderness, by God's miraculous "water from the rock", and"manna from heaven", that still didn't prevent temptations coming their way. And the analogy then is that attendance at church, to receive the Holy Communion, the Eucharist, the bread from heaven -- so to speak -- that that also will not make us immune from temptations, as we proceed through daily life.

In other words, St Paul is saying, it is possible to be admitted to high privileges and yet still fall from grace.

He identifies 4 specific temptations, and I believe it is useful for us to look at those 4 today, and to ask ourselves whether they might apply to us as well.

First, the temptation to idolatry. The People of Israel, journeying in the wilderness, a number of times, left God behind and started to put their faith in objects which they had made. You might have heard the story about how they made the Golden Calf. Putting faith in something you have created is what idolatry is. It is taking something that you yourself have made, or acquired, and invested in -- and trusting that that "something" is what ultimately matters.

The obvious example of that today would be people's attitudes to their home -- they have worked for that home, they have built that home, they have maintained that home. Itsi their ultimate security. It would be an absolute disaster were they to lose that home. One's house, one's home, can be an idol, in that sense.

Another obvious example would be one's financial assets, one's bank balance, one's stocks and shares, one's investments. It is very possible in this day and age to spend a lot of your time worrying about all these things, hanging all your hopes upon them, putting all your faith in that material wealth.

Idolatry ... and I could go on and speak about our cars, our possessions, our holidays ... all these things, which we produce or which we make or provide from our own resources, can be temptations to lead us away from God.

The second temptation which St Paul identifies, from the story of the People of Israel, travelling through the wilderness, is the temptation to allow the lesser side of ourselves to dominate our lifestyle, our decisions, our use of our resources.

We are human beings, we are mammals, we are part of the animal kingdom -- yes -- but as human beings we know that we have much more control over our physical desires, our emotional desires, our behaviour, than all other species. We have ethics, we have morals, in a way which other creatures seem not to have. They act from their instincts, their instincts for self-preservation, their instincts for reproduction of their species. We have the same sensual and basic instincts too -- but we, as humans, also have an overlay of something more: a calling to be like God. We might call it a calling to purity, to holiness.

This special human, but godly, feature of our lives leads us to certain ways of behaviour which mark us out from the animal kingdom, and it has to do with our ethical lives, our relationships, our sexual appetites. It has to do with respect, with honour, with altruism ... these are all instances of the higher side of our nature.

But temptations come -- as they did with the People of Israel, in their 40 years in the wilderness -- and we sometimes find ourselves tempted to lower our sights, to lower our standards, to give in to what is the lower side of our being. And in doing so, this too leads us away from God.

The third one is the temptation to "try God too far". What I mean by this is the idea of trading on the mercy of God... doing something which we know is a bit dubious, but we say to ourselves, "God will understand ... He will protect me .... ". It is a much more subtle temptation than the other ones. It is putting God to the test. It is presuming on God. It is bargaining with God. It is treating God like a negotiating partner. "If you do this for me, God, then I will do this for You" -- that type of thing. That is a temptation, especially when we are single-minded about some aim, some goal. And I suggest that we fall for that temptation perhaps even more than any other.

It would be a good exercise for each of us, during this Lent, to spend some quiet time just analysing what exactly we say to God in our prayers. Are we "trying God too far"? Or are we allowing "God to be God".

Then the fourth temptation which St Paul identified in the story of the People of Israel, in their wilderness experience of 40 years, was the temptation to complain about God, to murmur against God, to grumble and whinge and whine. I am sure, if we are all perfectly honest, we are guilty of falling for this temptation over and over again. In the psalms we read plenty of examples of the psalmist complaining to God -- it is natural. But that is at the individual level. The danger comes when we complain and grumble and murmur and whine in the presence of others -- and that's the real temptation. We do it to gain sympathy. We might feel better for doing so, but there may well be a sense in which one's public complaining will undermine others' confidence, will lead to discouragement, and a lowering of morale.

It is high calling for a Christian -- and particularly a Christian leader -- not to fall into this temptation, because of the damage it can do to others on the journey. Complain to God in private, yes -- but be careful about the implications of doing it in public !

St Paul finishes his advice to the Corinthian church with some words which give us hope: he reminds us that when temptations come, we are not in it alone. Others have been similarly tempted. Many have overcome those temptations. Many have found that the grace of God has given them that power. We should be encouraged by that.

And he goes even further in saying that we can always trust God not to let us be tempted beyond our strength. There is no cause for despair.

So when we pray "Lead us not into temptation", or, "Save us from the time of trial", there is, within that, a heart-felt plea to God that we will emerge stronger, closer to God, and more effective in being His people and doing His will.

Lent I The 3 temptations - 21 February

The 3 temptations: Bread...Authority ... Mystery

The great Russian writer Dostoevsky has a scene in one of his novels where Jesus Christ returns to earth, incognito, at the time of the Spanish Inquisition, and Jesus is questioned by the Grand Inquisitor, and, in the scene, Our Lord's temptations in the wilderness are recalled -- that story which we have just heard as our gospel today -- and the Grand Inquisitor says to Christ: "When you were in the wilderness you were offered the three things by which people may be controlled: Bread, Authority and Mystery".

BREAD. "The people have no bread!", said the French courtiers to Queen Marie Antoinette. "They have no bread ?" . She (allegedly) replied. "Let them eat cake". But the people wanted bread, and Marie A. lost her head ... lost her life ... because of her attitudes, during the French Revolution. It is a dramatic story which reminds us that Bread is what poliitics are all about. You control the people by keeping them fed, by keeping their standard of living at the level they expect. Kevin Rudd will be thown out of office at the next election if the majority of voters feel that he is not "delivering the goods", if the majority of voters feel that their standard of living is threatened. Bread is the symbol of the whole economy: goods and products, sustenance, material well-being.

If you keep people well fed then they are much less likely to rise up and protest. "Bread" is one way people control other people -- in politics, and in intimate human relationships as well. There was time when many a marriage was contracted for financial security. A mother would tell her daughter, "Marry him, my dear, and you will be well off... he's a good match.... he comes from a good family... you will never 'have to worry' ... you will be well provided for ... there will be no shortage of .... bread."

And so it was that the devil said to Jesus in the wilderness, in that gospel story which we heard this morning, "Go on! Turn the stones into bread ... go to the crowds and feed them ....out of nothing. You will be Mr Popularity. You will be able to control them that way!"

There are instances in the scriptures of the people wanting just that of Jesus -- to be the provider of material well-being. Jesus said "No".

The Grand Inquisitor, in Dostoevsky's story, says to the incognito Christ,"The devil bade Thee take bread as the instrument of Thy work. Men will follow one who gives them bread. But Thou wouldst not. Men were to follow Thee out of love and devotion, or not at all". Do we follow Jesus because we hope that being a Christian will somehow give us material well-being ? Will somehow bring us material success ? Will make us comfortable ? Or do we follow Him out of sheer love and devotion ?

AUTHORITY. There is one thing I will never understand. Why did the German people in the 1930's amd 1940's allow the Nazis to exterminate millions of people, mainly Jews ? I don't think I will ever understand that. But I CAN understand how Hitler came to power in Germany in the early 1930's. Because the people wanted authority. They had had 10 years of unstable, weak government ... the Weimar Republic -... and they were fed up with the near-anarchy which had resulted. They wanted a strong leader, and in Hitler they got one. And they obeyed him.

We humans have a tendency to abdicate responsibility at the drop of a hat. A tendency to not want to think for ourselves. We like to be told what to think. How else can we explain the importance and popularity of the "shock-jocks" on talk radio ... and the columnists in the papers. They tell us what to think.

Authority. We will trust the authorities, the experts. Authority is a way in which people control other people.

Even within Christianity there are those who clamour "tell us what to believe! ...be authoritative!" ...... "what has the church got to say about ...drugs... abortion ... homosexuality ... tell us what to believe ! What is the church saying about the economy ... the Global Financial Crisis ... the violence against Indian students ... tell us what to believe!" Many Christians want to be told what to believe about these and other matters. They want the authoritative voice that will settle the matter once and for all !

The fastest growing Christian denominations are those groups which have a clear, unambiguous, black-and-white belief system. With them, you know where you stand. You're "in" or "out". "Sorry, no grey areas". Many people want that. They feel secure. It's the demand for authority.

And so it was that the devil said to Our Lord : "Come on ... just take me on board and you can be the great authority figure, with all the answers .. .all the powers of manipulation, coercion over people's minds and lives ... you can have all the kingdoms of the world .. you will keep them under your thumb, thinking the ways you think, doing the things you ask them to do. You will be Mr Powerful, you will be able to control the world that way!" And Jesus said "No".

Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor said to the incognito Christ: "the devil bade Thee assume authority; men will obey one who rewards the obedient and punishes the disobedient. But Thou wouldst not; men were to obey Thee out of love and devotion, or not at all".

Do we obey Our Lord because He is like some Big Brother who is to give us all the answers ? like some kind of automatic pilot or puppeteer ? Or do we obey Jesus out of sheer love and devotion ?

The Grand Inquisitor says to Christ: "When you were in the wilderness you were offered the three things by which people may be controlled: Bread, Authority -- and Mystery". MYSTERY. There are many examples of this one. People are charmed and dazzled by what is new, and astounding and glittering. The latest fashion. The latest fad. That which stimulates and entertains. That which promises excitement. It is not "bread", it is not "authority" -- but it is what attracts our attention simply because we are intrigued by it, and we cannot completely comprehend what it is. We can't be blase about it because there is a mystery attached to it, and we are "hooked".

The power of the pop star. The power of the entertainer. The power of the sports personality. The power of royalty. In one generation it was Princess Margaret. In the next generation Princess Diana -- and now it's Prince William's turn. These and other "celebrities" cannot deliver "bread". They have little "authority" as such -- but people are curious and fascinated about them, because we can never really live in their world. It 's a mystery -- and yet there is "power" here: a control over the way people think, over the way they see their own lives, over the way they part with their own money.

And even within religion there is, for many people, the fascination, the keen interest in what is bedazzling, novel, modern, "alive" . Because it has not been tested by experience it still has that fascinating, un-boring, mysterious dimension to it.

And so it was that the devil said to Jesus: "if you go and jump off that temple pinnacle, with all the crowds watching, you know of course that God will not let you come to any harm -- his angels will protect you -- but just think of the impression you will make on all those people ! They will think you are tremendous ! You will be a celebrity ! You will get top coverage on the Channel 9 news .. you will get an interview with Oprah Winfrey ! If you put on that great display, and jump off the temple, unharmed, people will be talking about you for weeks ! You will be the Man of the Moment !

The Grand Inquisitor said to the incognito Christ:" the devil bade Thee show some marvel that men might be astounded and believe; they will believe in one who is wrapped in mystery. But Thou wouldst not; men were to believe in Thee out of love and devotion, or not at all."

No, Jesus rejected the opportunity to be the deliverer of material blessings; He rejected the opportunity to be the supreme, social, political & military authority; He rejected being the head of a bright dazzling personality cult. He rejected those temptations -- because He wanted people .....He wanted you and I ................to relate to Him purely on the basis of who He really was... that by seeing Him, and partaking of His true personality, we come into the full and complete presence of God Himself.