Removing the Blind Fold

Luke 16:19-31

About 15 years ago, I developed a habit of meeting each month with a group of people from the congregation I was with at the time. The group changed month by month, but our task was always the same, to plan what we would probably call an intergenerational service. I distinctly recall on one occasion having a year 8 student as part of the group. As we discussed the readings, she made a comment about her understanding of the Christian faith which I think is problematic.

What she said was something like this, “Our life is a test about where we will go after we die.” This kind of understanding of Christianity removes the concept of grace and replaces it with a different story, the story of our good works as the mechanism for our salvation. When we hear or use the phrase, “well done good and faithful servant”, we can be easily drawn into thinking about our self-righteousness rather than thinking about the good news of God’s unconditional grace.

This little story is important because the Jesus’s parable that we shared from Luke's gospel could easily draw us into thinking that what Jesus is talking about is this idea of how we behave determining how our afterlife will be.

The oversimplification of this parable in this way ignores the broader context of the ongoing conversation that Jesus was having with the Pharisees and scribes that I outlined in last week’s sermon. His concern was how they were using their wealth and power then and there. 

Given this, I suspect Jesus’s words here are more about how people with wealth behave during their life and challenging them to change those behaviours. The mention of afterlife consequences may be a bit of hyperbole on Jesus’s part. At the heart of his debate is how we should live in this life. But getting people to shift their world view and change their behaviour is hard work because it involves admitting the possibility that maybe we are wrong.

Kathryn Schulz in her TED talk “Being wrong” highlights the reticence that people have, to admitting that they are wrong. Borrowing from the beginning of her talk, she asks, “How does it feel to be wrong?”  “How does it feel to be wrong?" She points out that the audience have answered a different question “How does it feel to know that you are wrong?" The answer to the question “How does it feel to be wrong?”  is that it feels like being right. To put it another way we don’t know what we don’t know.

So, how does all this relate to Jesus’s parable. In my suitcase I have a simple object. A piece of purple cloth. This simple piece of purple cloth may not mean much to any of you.  But 2000 years ago, when Jesus was telling his story, this purple cloth was hard to come by.  It was an extravagance. It was a display of wealth. It was a symbol of power.

We have different kinds of purple cloth in these days. Our wealth might be symbolised by the kind of car we drive, the size of our portfolio, or the size of our house. Our wealth might be demonstrated by our position on the corporate rung or the number of letters before, or after our name.  The purple cloth symbolises the privilege of education, power, authority and money. And any of these can act as much as a blindfold to the plight of others as the rich man in Jesus’s parable.

The purple cloth, the symbol of power and wealth, had become a blindfold for the rich man to the needs of others.  The access he had to be able to live a life of leisure meant that as he came and went from his home, he was blind to Lazarus, the suffering man at his door. 

In one of the commentaries that I read the commentator encouraged preachers to ask the question whether they or their congregations could name a person who was as poor as Lazarus by name. I found this an uncomfortable question. Whereas once I did know people living in boarding houses and classified as homeless by name this is not currently the case. Our suburban sprawl has added to our blindness as our wealth and social status means we tend to live in homogenous communities of like-minded people.

What Jesus parable does is tries to add a level of shock value for his opponents for whom the message about wealth simply does not seem to be getting through. In the parable, the rich man’s fate is not determined by anything other than his refusal to see and help the poor man. It is clear that the rich man knows him because he names him as Lazarus but even this personal knowledge had not led him towards generosity.

We can find numerous stories which involve tumultuous events changing a person’s perspective in life. Today we sung Amazing Grace and many of you would not the story of the writer John Newton who went from slave trader to priest to abolitionist in the late eighteenth century. There is an even recorded of Newton almost drowning in a shipwreck that is sometimes attributed as the most significant turning point. Newton influenced the young politician William Wilberforce who very much drove the abolitionist movement and influence his friend and prime minister William Pitt. The words of the hymn ring true now as they ever did “I once was blind but now I see” as we ask where our blind spots are.

Victo Hugo’s tale of Jean Valjean in Les Miserable provides another example of how significant events shift a person’s life trajectory. The story now immortalised in the musical has a significant moment when Valjean steals some silver after being hosted by a bishop. When captured by the police and brought back to the bishop for confirmation rather than condemn him the bishop says that he had given him the items and then adds the silver candlesticks. The moment is a turning point for Valjean who goes on to become both wealthy and kind to the point of self-sacrifice.

The story Jesus told, and these others remind us that the shift from the tyranny of our own ego and self-centredness often requires a sever jolt to occur. In Jesus parable, the rich man pleads with Abraham to go and let his five brothers know so that they might act generously in their lives and not bear any of the consequences that he is.

Abraham’s refusal to do so is resolute and as an outside observer this appears harsh. There are no ghosts of Christmas past, Christmas Present, and Christ Yet to Come as were afforded Ebenezer Scrouge, in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Abraham points to the teachings of the law and prophets of containing all that is necessary to understand that prioritising the poor is central to God’s will.

At the end of the parable Jesus makes this pointed comment to his audience, “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Whether this is Luke’s insertion or Jesus’s actual words anticipating his own death and resurrection the message remains for us that Jesus’s resurrection should be enough for us to think about what it means to live a good life and live well in the world.

As hearers of this story, we are not Jesus’s direct audience, but the story is asking us the same question about how we will live in this world with what we have. To make the story about good works as an entry into a better afterlife is to miss Jesus’s point. It is interesting that there is no piety on Lazarus’ part that has earned his place but rather the only reason given is that in his life Lazarus received evil things in life so is now being comforted.

The problem of the great chasm in the afterlife is in some ways no different to the purple blindfold. Gaps which appear to be unable to be crossed to create the change that is need so that all people might live well in this life. The momentous events that change us can only work on us if we have the ability not simply know that we wrong about something but allow that realisation to work on us.

In her talk about being wrong Schulz reminds us that twelve hundred years before René Descartes penned his famous “I think, therefore I am,” the philosopher and theologian Augustine wrote “fallor ergo sum”: I err, therefore I am. In this formulation, the capacity to get things wrong is not only part of being alive, but in some sense proof of it. I think Jesus was saying to his audience and maybe us as well that we need a bit more humility to be able to see the world in a whole new light and to see and know others are as much part of God’s love as we are.

To return to where I began and the reflection of my Year 8 friend in the meeting, I don’t think life is a test for us about what happens after this life. And neither do I think that Jesus was making responding to the poor as the way to earn our way. The grace of God is a complex mystery that encompasses all, both rich and poor. Yet, as people who may have had an encounter with that grace we are invited to consider again and again how we live in the world.

Paul writing to Timothy

As for those who in the present age are rich, command them not to be haughty, or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches but rather on God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.

They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life. (1 Timothy 6:6-19)

Let us take hold of life that is really life now as we remove the blindfold and live towards others with generosity.

Rebuilding Community, Redistributing Wealth

 Luke 16:1-13

The other night I had an interesting conversation about whether in presenting a sermon the aim is to present simplified views of the world that might help the average person in their daily life. Yet as we dig into the scriptures, we find passages like the one that we just read and if you're anything like me you're asking yourself what the heck is going on here? The culmination of the whole story is the phrase “You cannot serve God and wealth.” But on its own even that phrase is difficult to unpack.

Rather than us interpreting scriptures, the words of the scripture interpret our lives and challenge us to rethink what it means to be a person and to live well in the world. This morning, I want to explore three ways in which the scriptures might challenge us today. The first is about Jesus and his authority to do what he was doing. The second is about the way in which Jesus reframes and rebuilds community by including those others would exclude. And the third is about the redistribution of wealth.

To be able to explore these things with you today it is important for us to dwell on the first word of chapter 16 which is the word ‘then’. This simple word then implies is that what we are reading comes as part of a sequence within a story and it might seem blatantly obvious to us that this is the case because we are in fact in chapter 16 of Luke's gospel. 

To understand a little bit of the context and sequence of events it is not necessary for us to return all the way to Luke chapter 1. No, we're only going to jump back 2 Chapters to Luke chapter 14. In Luke chapter 14 we encounter a diatribe between Jesus and the Pharisees around who people should eat with and who should have a place of honour at a table. We then find at the beginning of chapter 15 the challenge of the Pharisees to Jesus interaction with the tax collectors and sinners. We are told that the Pharisees and scribers were grumbling saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” 

In response to this critique Jesus tells 3 parables to the Pharisees and the scribes who were listening. The three stories are the story of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. Each of these stories as elements which challenge the Pharisees thinking around who should be included and who might be excluded from the community. 

At the close of chapter 15, Jesus is describing the interaction between the father and the older son an encouragement to celebrate and rejoice in the finding of the lost son. 

It is at this point we get that small transitional word, ‘then’. “Then Jesus said to the disciples.” What is important for us to realise here is it Jesus’s audience hasn't changed. In the telling of the three parables Jesus had primarily been addressing the Pharisees and scribes, but now he turns to address his disciples directly with a story clearly knowing that the Pharisees and scribes are still listening. 

I'm going to recount the story very briefly. 

There is a rich man who had a manager who he thought was not doing a good job so he decided to sack him. 

The manager said oh no what will I do I am too weak to dig and I am certainly not going to beg. 

His plan was to create a situation in which he would find welcome not from those in power but among those whom owed money or were excluded. 

So he went off and called together everyone who was indebted to his master. 

He said to one who owed 100 jugs of olive oil, make it 50. 

And to another who owed 100 containers of wheat, make it 80. 

Now when the rich man found out he commended the manager for his cleverness. 

It may be helpful to add a bit of insight into the nature of the ancient culture as one in which honour and shame were determinative in relationships. By forgiving the debt of the 2 tenants the manager may have brought honour to the master by making appear benevolent and generous whilst at the same time providing an opportunity for the tenants to restore their honour with the master and within the community through settling their debts. 

As I said earlier, I want to explore three levels at which this story may be operating. The first is about Jesus and his authority to do what he was doing. The second is about inclusion in community. And the third is about the redistribution of wealth. 

What if we think for a moment that Jesus is placing the Pharisees and Scribes in the place of the master in the parable It is quite logical as the Pharisees and scribes were at the top of the religious heap in the society. 

If this is the case, then Jesus is saying to the disciples hey these guys who think they are my master want to give me the flick because they think I am managing God’s affairs and message badly. 

If this is the case Jesus may be having a bit of a go at the Pharisees and Scribes who are listening in the background.  “Oh no what will we I do I can’t dig or beg says the manager, says Jesus...  no Jesus has a better plan and Jesus’ plan is God’s plan for dealing with the tax collectors and sinners that the Pharisees and scribes had been grumbling about. 

I am going to include them; I am going to forgive their debts; I am going to forgive the sins; I am going to restore relationships which have eternal implications; and, he says to the disciples, I want you to do the same.” 

Jesus is saying, “These Pharisees and scribes might want to give me the flick but they can’t because I am doing God’s business, and you are part of that too.” 

Now just as in the story the master commends the manager, I think Jesus is saying to the Pharisees and scribes who see themselves as his master, “what I am doing brings honour to all of us, to you as well and rather than grumbling you should be commending me who is doing God’s will.” 

The question then for us as third party observers to this story is whether we can see the value of what Jesus is doing and whether we see that he is about God’s work. 

Paired with the 3 stories told to the Pharisees and scribes about what had been lost and found this parable is a continuation on the same theme of the way in which Jesus was behaving in relationship to the tax collectors and sinners by including which is my second point. 

Through the process of negotiation the shrewd manager gives opportunity for those who might owe something to God to find a way to balance the ledger. Jesus constantly includes people throughout his ministry as part of God's Kingdom that others seem to wish to exclude. There is a universality about Jesus’s desire for people to understand that they are part of the human community. 

This was highlighted for me during the week When I was listening to the Soul Search podcast. In an interview with the scholar John Behr, Behr was explaining the insight of Gregory of Nyssa about the being in the image of God. According to Behr, Nyssa’s concept of being in the image of God is that of the totality of humanity from the beginning to the end of creation. In our highly individualised western culture, the notion of the image of God being the totality of humanity rather than who I am as an individual is deeply challenging. One of the implications of this is it every human person that has ever existed is part of the image of God and therefore this has radical implications for whom we include and exclude. 

This concept of the image of God appears to be played out in Jesus’ insistence that those who have been excluded are incorporated into community once again. In contemplating this there may be political implications for us in terms of our advocacy for those who find themselves at the margins of society. The well-known advocate 4 justice and equality in America, Martin Luther King Jnr., provides us with a good example of political advocacy which reflects the kind of thinking that we encounter in this passage and Jesus’s behaviour around those who are treated as outcasts. In this sense the story is challenge us to consider who we include and exclude from the human community. 

This brings me to speak to one other aspect, the third aspect, that this passage provides a challenge for us on and it is based on a more literal reading of the story. The manager in the story is described in the Greek as an oikonomos. John Squires explains this terms, “In Greek, it is a compound word, joining together oikos, meaning household, and nomos, meaning organisation or arrangement. Thus, the oikonomos is the person who oversees the organisation and management of the household.” You can hear within this word the origins of the term economy and based on Jesus final injunction that you cannot serve two masters God and money there may be issues for us to consider here in terms of the redistribution of wealth. 

The renegotiation of the debts allows the wealthy to show generosity whilst it also empowers a person carrying debt to be released from the financial burden. Again, in a closer reading of Luke’s gospel there is an interplay between the place of the rich and poor in the kingdom of God and how wealth is shared or not. It is interesting to note that wealth may have been understand as a sign of faithfulness by some within the ancient culture and the reversal of this thinking occurs a few chapters later when a rich young ruler is told to sell everything that he has a give it to the poor. Something neither he nor we do. The theme of the redistribution of wealth in earl Christian community is no clearer than Acts Chapter 2, which is also written by Luke, where we are told in the Christian community the earliest disciples share “all things in common,” distributing “to all, as any had need” (2:44-45) 

Radical notions of the redistribution of wealth and reorganisation of economic approaches were a theme of the liberation theologians of the mid twentieth century. The Catholica Priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who is seen as the starting point for the liberation theologians, “developed a new spirituality based on solidarity with the poor and called on the church to help change existing social and economic institutions to promote social justice.” (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gustavo-Gutierrez) 

Jesus’ story brings us into an uncomfortable conversation with our own prosperity and wealth and challenges us to consider our own generosity and limits to that generosity. 

In verse 14 the response of the Pharisees which we didn’t read out is to ridicule Jesus and his ideas. The fact that it is the Pharisees who make the response, not the disciples to who Jesus was speaking, indicates that Jesus’ actual target audience was the Pharisees and scribes after all. 

The polemical debates that Jesus has with the Pharisees and scribes were part of the rabbinic culture. Jesus’s words invite the Pharisees and Scribes to consider Jesus’ actions as potential bring honour to them as much as to those that the are labelled as sinners. The hope of the good news is found in Chapter 18 when in response to being asked by the disciples, “Who then can be saved? Jesus declares “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.” This is at the heart of Jesus’ ministry inviting people to reconsider their place in the world as part of the community of humanity in which all have a place and in which all can be honoured as being in the image of God.

Belonging the World

Colossians 1:15-20

 As we have journeyed through our series on belonging, we have focussed each week on readings from Paul’s letter to the early Christian community in Colossae.

We have thought about what it means to belong in Christ as we follow Christ and as we thrive in Christ’s life. 

We have thought about what it means to belong in the community of the church as people whose lives are hidden in Christ’s life. 

And this week we will explore what it means to belong in the world and our relationship with other peoples and the creation who are also in Christ. Listen again to Paul’s claim about Jesus.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

There is a universal or cosmic scope to Jesus’s relationship with the world in which we find ourselves. In last week’s reading from Colossians 3 we heard this cosmic claim echoes when Paul wrote, “Christ is all, and Christ is in all.” As followers of Jesus, and as the church, we are sent out from church each week to meet Jesus where he is already present and at work among all peoples and in the whole creation. As Christian people our thriving involves ensuring the thriving of others and the flourishing of the world.

During the week I was reading about St Francis, whom I will be referring to later in the sermon, and given the breadth of this morning’s topic I am acutely aware of one of the rules of St Francis “I admonish and exhort the brothers that in their preaching... they ought to be brief, because the Lord kept his words brief when he was on earth.” I am not sure I will be brief enough for St Francis but let’s see how we go.

There are two essential parts to this message belonging to the human family and belonging to the creation. The first is our connection with other people and belonging to the common human family. As Christians the common ground of our faith is that “in Christ all things hold together”. In meeting and getting to know another person we are invited to curiously seek Christ’s presence in them as we listen to their story. 

It can be so tempting as Christians that as we engage with another person to seek to colonise their thoughts and their lives with how we live and what we believe. However, the challenge for us people of faith is to seek to meet the presence of Christ which is already within them.

When we mainly hang around people who look like us and share our beliefs, gaining a concept of how challenging this might be this involves lifting our eyes to see the people of the world. It means being curious about who they are and what their experience of life is like. 

One of the better documentaries about humanity was made by Yann Arthus-Betrand. It is simply called “Human” and is freely available on YouTube. For those of us who may be not have the opportunity to travel it is a way to meet people from across the globe. I would love to share some of the stories, but I am keeping to my commitment of brevity so I will just share the trailer and encourage you to find it for yourselves on YouTube.

The goal in listening to the stories of others is to be curious about how their stories might change who you are as you listen for Christ speaking through their lives into yours. In hearing these stories there is also the challenge for us to be changed by the stories of people from across the globe and act with the love of God and compassion of Christ. As people of the Uniting Church this was part of our vision in 1977 in our statement to the nation when we declared: 

“We affirm our eagerness to uphold basic Christian values and principles, such as the importance of every human being, the need for integrity in public life, the proclamation of truth and justice, the rights for each citizen to participate in decision-making in the community, religious liberty and personal dignity, and a concern for the welfare of the whole human race.”  UCA 1977 Statement to the Nation

As I contemplated the challenge of how we connect to people across the world sometimes it can feel a bit daunting but beginning where we are can always be a starting point. Some of you may remember the movie “Pay it Forward” when a young boy started a school project inviting people in response to an act of kindness to pay it forward by doing good deeds for three other people. 

Another way of thinking about the simplicity of helping others is found is the great little video from Soul Pancake by Kid President. 

I said earlier that I was reading the rule of St Francis in preparation for today and I believe that we could all benefit from this simple but challenging rule in our interactions with all others that we meet. “I counsel, admonish and beg my brothers that, when they travel about the world, they should not be quarrelsome, dispute with words, or criticise others, but rather should be gentle, peaceful and unassuming, courteous and humble, speaking respectfully to all as is fitting.” St Francis

As we begin to engage with others the simple values of respect, curiosity, and kindness may help us in our contribution to sharing God’s love in the world.

This brings me to make a few comments on the second aspect of the cosmic Christ and our responsibility for the creation.

In Genesis 1, human beings are given responsibility over the earth, and most Christians understand that the concept of dominion is not one of domination but one of stewardship. We are called to care for the creation in which we live as we put on the new self and look towards the coming renewal of all things in Christ.

I have always thought that the Uniting Church Statement to the Nation was ahead of its time when it said, “We are concerned with the basic human rights of future generations and will urge the wise use of energy, the protection of the environment and the replenishment of the earth's resources for their use and enjoyment.” (1977 Statement to the Nation)

The world is God’s good creation, and its value is found not simply in its benefits for humanity but in the fact that it has all been renewed in and through Christ. As a person who lives in a developed nation, I find the care for creation particularly challenging.

During my time as a Chaplain each year we did a Unit on Creation and our responsibility for the environment with the Year 12 students. In this Unit we reflected on issues like pollution, consumerism, and climate change. One of the activities was to measure our ecological footprint and consider the concept of Overshoot Days. 

The footprint calculator provided feedback on how many planet earths are needed to resource your personal lifestyle if everyone on the planet lived the way that you do. In the 7 years that I taught this only once did I have a student who had less than 2 planet earths. She was a vegan and being vegetarian or vegan has a big impact on your score! 

Each year that I completed it my own result hovered around 4-5 planet earths. That means if everyone lived like I do we need 4-5 planet earths for that to occur sustainably. Regularly we had students who scored 10 or more and one made it to 17 and a half. The underlying message for us is our consumerist lifestyle is not sustainable for everyone on the planet. It raises questions for us as individuals of what it means for us to care for God’s good creation.

Alongside the ecological footprint the concept of earth overshoot days measures when a country has utilised the sustainable resources available to that country for that year. In 2025 Australia’s overshoot day was on March 19. The implication of this is that we are now using resources beyond what is sustainably available to us.

As we contemplate our lifestyles my intention is not to create a sense of guilt but to challenge us to think spiritually about how we live in response to what Paul wrote to the Colossians. “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.”

To return to St Francis rules there is something to be said about the commitment to poverty and living simply.  He said, “The brothers should appropriate neither house, nor place, nor anything for themselves; and they should go confidently after alms, serving God in poverty and humility, as pilgrims and strangers in this world.” 

Jesus words to the rich young ruler to sell everything that you have a give it the poor were taken literally by St Francis. This idea may feel a bridge too far for you and me, but as you think about the aspects of the message today, I remind you that our response is about our participation in what God has already done for us in Christ. 

In Christ we are invited to live in love for other people and the whole creation. To conclude as you think about what you are feeling called to in your connection with other people and the creation, I am going to share a prayer written by Pope Francis for “Laudato Si” which was an encyclical written about our common home and environment. The phrase “Laudato Si” is a central phrase in St Francis’s Canticle of the Sun by St Francis and means “Praise be to you, my Lord”. 

Laudato Si

Belonging to the Church

Colossians 3:1-11

Continuing our theme of belonging today we're looking at belonging in the community of the church. Of course, to do this requires us to ask some basic questions about how we understand what the church is and where it can be found.

It is appropriate that we're reading through sections of one of Paul's letters as we explore our sense of belonging in the church. When Paul was writing his letter to the people in Colossae, and to the many other places he wrote, Paul was seeking to help those fledgling Christian communities understand what it meant to live as a community of followers of Jesus Christ – to be the church.

The church in Colossae is thought to have consisted largely of people from outside the Jewish faith who had converted to become followers of Jesus. Many of the other early church communities had originated from within Judaism but the Church of Colossae was different.

Maybe this is a part of the reason that throughout his letter Paul keeps referring to much broader universal themes. The Christ that is described in Colossians 1 is sometimes referred to as the cosmic Christ. And, in today's reading we finished with those wonderfully inclusive words “Christ is all and in all!” Being part of the church was an expression was having a life hidden in Christ’s life.

As people reading this letter 2000 years later it behooves us to recognise the cultural influences that are acting upon us in how we interpret what it means to belong to the church and to be in Christ. 

In the first chapter of his book about the church Jürgen Moltmann says, “At every period the church has a duty to be clear about its commission, its situation and it's goal.” (The Church in the Power of the Spirit p.1) In 1959 the Joint Commission on Church Union put out its first discussion paper entitled The Faith of the Church it explored the fundamental question of where the faith of the church is to be found. In this sense the Joint Commission sought to reflect on the commission, situation, and goal of the church in the 20th century. The quest to understand what it means to belong to the church continues to involve reflecting on how we understand who we are as people and what the church is.

On one level we can recognise that in the modern world the church could be seen simply as an institution in which like-minded individuals gather and support one another. However, this kind of oversimplification is influenced by the individualism and consumerism of the era in which we live. 

In his book Humanism: The Wreck of Western Culture the Australia sociologist John Carroll postulated that, “humanism had to undermine the ‘I am that I am’ if it was going to establish its rock. It had to replace it with ‘I am’, where the ‘I’ is the individual man [sic].” (p.3) 

At the centre of our culture is the individual and their preferences which are often elevated over and above other individuals and any notion of the common good. The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age speaks about the bounded or buffered self that has emerged as our way of being in the world. 

He says, “The buffered self is essentially the self which is aware of the possibility of disengagement. And disengagement is frequently carried out in relation to one’s whole surroundings, natural and social.” (Taylor p.42)

The emergence of our contemporary way of thinking about being in the world began over 500 years ago. As people who are children of the Protestant Reformation and continue to be influenced by reformation thought it is pertinent to take note of how the Reformation contributed to the rise of the individual and potentially some of the negative impacts this has had on us when it comes to thinking about what it means to belong to the church.

John Carroll explores the contradiction of the Protestant and Reformed thought found in Martin Luther and Jean Calvin. The contradiction that Luther developed in his debates with Desiderius Erasmus on the concept of free will. And then were deepened by Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, as he defended the concept of God’s sovereignty and unconditional grace in the doctrine of predestination. The contradiction was that “Man [sic] has no freedom but is responsible.” (p.52) 

For both the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers of the 16th century what was occurring was a discussion grounded in how we were to understand our legal relationship with God as a judge. It was a theological and spiritual approach that had developed under the influence on Biblical interpretation of how the ancient Roman society structured itself and understood personal relationships. In other words, a person’s belonging was determined by how the society defined it legally. This is an oversimplification, but the question of how a person legally appeared before God became a core issue and for the reformers it was very much an individualistic question.

Carroll goes on to say, “The cost [of the Protestant movement] was the decline of community. Once there is faith alone and Calvin's conscience, the vital unifying role of family, village and town has been eclipsed. The Reformation threw out the incense and holy water, the chanting, the bleeding Madonnas and most of the sacraments. It burnt the relics and smashed the statues; it banned the dancing. It found, however that the church it occupied had cold floors and bare walls. The communal warmth had gone.” (Carroll p.52)

The elevation of the individual and of personal salvation in the Western Protestant tradition can limit our understanding of what it means to belong to the church, so it is helpful to bring in other perspectives on what the church is.

This brings me to make a comment about the architecture and theology of Eastern Orthodox churches, like the Greek Orthodox Church. For those of you who may have had the privilege of looking in an Orthodox church or even worshipped in one you may have noticed the iconography. Often centred at the top of the dome of the church will be an icon of Jesus, sometimes referred to as Christ Pantocrator.  

The image represents Christ, who is fully God and fully human, coming down to be present within the creation. Surrounding Christ are the prophets and the apostles, and then further down the walls there might be a depiction of the saints. The otherworldly artwork serves as a reminder that in the process of worship Christ becomes present to the congregation through the power of the Holy Spirit. But more than this the icons of the prophets, apostles and saints remind us of the cloud of witnesses that are also present as we worship.

The worship within the orthodox tradition is imbued with the mystery of God’s loving presence coming to be with us in and through Jesus Christ. It is the kind of imagery and belonging that the buffered Western self might tend to resist. It might be easily dismissed by the modern mind as lacking relevance or practicality. But being the church and belonging to the church draws us into the great mystery of God's life and God's love.

In his excellent book about the church called After our Likeness Miroslav Volf reminds us of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18:20. Volf says, “Where two or three are gathered in Christ name, not only is Christ present among them, but a Christian Church is there as well, perhaps a bad church, a church that may well transgress against love and truth, but a church none the less.” (Volf p.136)

When we gather in Christ’s name, we become what we are – the church. Volf’s book brought into conversation Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Reformed ideas about the church and he summarizes his thoughts on where to identify the church saying this:

“Every congregation that assembles around the one Jesus Christ as saviour and Lord in order to profess faith in him publicly in pluriform fashion, including through baptism and the Lord supper, and which is open to all churches of God and to all human beings, is a church in the full sense of the word, since Christ promised to be present in it through his Spirit as the first fruits of the gathering of the whole people of God in the eschatological reign of God.” (Volf p.158)

There are moments within my reflection on where we are as part of the Western Protestant church that cause me to think that when we seek to be relevant and find practical application in our teaching, we inadvertently remove the mystery of the presence of God and domesticate our faith and experience of God to something that is under our control.

The question for us as we think about belonging to the church is whether we believe that we belong to something that gives to us a different understanding of our place in the world and the mystery of our human existence. Are we drawn into something that is far bigger than something that we can control? God’s very life.

When we come to celebrate communion today, we enter these mysteries, and we celebrate. When we partake of the bread and wine the Uniting Church believes God is present and acting in and through Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is not a mere remembering of what Jesus did but an encounter with the divine.

The word that we use to describe this is anamnesis. The word loosely  means the opposite of amnesia. It is an act or remembering that draws us into the original event and through which we are transformed by an encounter with future. In the act of remembering the past, we encounter the risen Christ who comes to greet us from the future in our present with his presence. 

Let me make a few observations about what the implications of us sharing at the Lord's supper might mean. First, whilst I may appear to be presiding, the host of this meal is Jesus who is present with us and within us. He is always the host at every celebration of the eucharist. 

Second, because Christ is constantly the host all those who have gone before us and all those who are yet to come are gathered alongside us. This is what the physical paintings in an Orthodox Church might remind us of. To put it more personally alongside us as we celebrate are the people that we have known and loved, like my parents, and like the people who have gathered through over 150 years in this place. People we have known and loved, the great cloud of witnesses to whom we also belong, for the barrier between life and death is not opaque for us it is translucent.

Third, through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit our participation in sharing the bread and wine help us to be the church and to grow into out the discipleship as followers of Christ as we participate in Christ’s very life, which as Paul pointed out to the people in Colossae is hidden in us. Participating in eating the bread and wine we are drawn closer into God’s life, and so drawn closer into each other’s life, and into the life of the world.

Likewise, being drawn into the church, belonging to the church, is celebrated in baptism which draws us into the life death and resurrection of Jesus. Living out our belonging in a church community is a lifelong process of growing into Christ’s life. We come not as people who are perfect but as people who have been set free by God to be renewed throughout our journey of life as what Moltmann helpfully refers to as the “wayfaring people of God.” (Moltmann p.1)

Paul’s reflection on being draw into the life of the church for people of Coloasse speaks to us about the gift of unity in the church,” In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!” This union and renewal are what we celebrate and seek to live out. As always, I invite you to take a few moments to contemplate what God might be saying to you today. 

As you do so I will share one final thought from Moltmann about being the church, “The church participates in the uniting of men [and women] with one another, in the uniting of society with nature and in the uniting of creation with God. Whatever unions like this take place, however fragmentary and fragile they may be, there is the church. The true church is the fellowship of love.” (Moltmann, p.65)

What if? The Good Samaritan

 Luke 10:25–37

As with last week, today we heard an ancient story in our season of winter as a congregation. The familiarity of the story of the good Samaritan, like the story of Namaan, is problematic. It is a story which has been acted out and interpreted from our days at Sunday school. Did anyone ever act this one out? Because of our familiarity with the story we might sit back and reflect on the ethics of the tale of the Samaritan thinking we have this one all nailed down.

We might think to ourselves, “this parable is an ethical story with a moral injunction that we should help our neighbours who are in need.”

So well-known is this story that many Chirstian countries, states and provinces have Good Samaritan Laws. In Queensland we have the Civil Liability (Good Samaritan) Amendment Bill 2007. This Bill is intended to protect people “who offer aid or assistance in emergency circumstances, and that any act done or omitted is done so in good faith and without reckless disregard.” 

This moral injunction to help others is matched by many of Jesus’s teachings in Luke: “love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return” (6:35); “if any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” (9:23); “sell your possessions, and give alms” (12:33); and “when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind” (14:13), and there are others. 

Of course, hearing and believing this moral injunction to love our neighbour is quite different thing to living it out. We should hear the challenge to each one of us in the interaction between Jesus and the lawyer who, seeking to justify himself, asks “who is my neighbour?” The lawyer is assuming that he already loves his neighbour. 

But what if this story has more layers to it that we miss out on because we want to stay on the well-worn path of our Sunday School interpretation. What if rather than thinking that we are interpreting the story we think again about how the story is interpreting us. 

I want to pose 4 questions from the story some of which come from ancient interpretations that might cause us to pause and consider how the story might be interpreting us. 

What if the story is about changing who we see as our neighbour?

What if the story is about shifting the lawyer in his relationship with Jesus?

What if the story is about changing the views of Samaritans about Israelites and vice versa?

What if the story is about challenging the church with a task of caring for the broken and bleeding? 

What if the story is about changing who we see as our neighbour? 

Part of the well-worn pathway of interpreting this parable is the potential shock value that the lawyer feels but also we should feel who seek to justify ourselves. 

The story unfolds and creates an expectation for Jewish listeners. 

If you were in ancient Israel and your were an Israelite your expectation of where the story was heading would have been that the third person coming was an Israelite. A bit like the old jokes we hear ‘an English man, Scots man and an Irish man’ walked into a bar. Based on this idea the story should go a Priest, a Levite and an Israelite were coming down the road. 

The Priests were all descended, it was claimed, from Aaron, the brother of Moses.

The Levites were “set apart … to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord” (Deut 10:18)

The Israelites were all the others, descended from the other sons of Jacob. 

But no there is a plot twist. Coming to help is a Samaritan. As Christians many of will have been taught from a very young age that there was a difficult relationship between Samaritans and Israelites. We may not know or understand what that difficulty was, but we do know the person coming towards the injured man is potentially his enemy. 

John Squires “The Samaritans were regarded as being the descendants of the people who committed idolatry after the Assyrians had conquered the northern kingdom (2 Kings 17:5–6) and resettled the northern region with people from other locations in their empire (2 Kings 17:24), from “every nation [who] still made gods of its own and put them in the shrines of the high places that the people of Samaria had made, every nation in the cities in which they lived” (2 Kings 17:29).” 

If the scripture is now interpreting us and who we are and asking us to reconsider who we think our neighbour is, we need to recontextualize the scene to our contemporary setting. The person that we see coming down the road to help is no longer a Samaritan but is the person that we see as an enemy. 

At which point I'm going to suggest to you that whoever it is that you might be thinking about at the moment that you are saying to yourself I should be thinking about these people or that person or that kind of person because I know that I should really be thinking of this person or these kinds of people as my enemy. That's exactly who is coming down the hill to help. This is the plot twist not simply for the lawyer but for each one of us who want to listen to this story with fresh ears. Jesus is challenging all of us as to whom we consider to be our neighbour. 

So, what if this story is about saying to you that you need to rethink who you think your neighbour is? 

This brings me to a second question which in some ways has a high level of complexity to it. What if the story is about shifting the lawyer in his relationship with Jesus? There are ancient interpretations of this parable that carry through right into the 20th century that teach that Jesus is the Samaritan. 

From key ancient scholars of the early church including Clement and Origen, who were both bishops of Alexandria, down to more contemporary theologians including the great Reformed theologian Karl Barth there is an interpretation that suggests Jesus himself is the Samaritan. 

When we place Jesus into the role of being Samaritan, I think it is also important for us to consider then where the lawyer is placed in the story. Remember that the lawyer has asked Jesus’s question, ‘who is my neighbour?’ Now within the context of the debate between Jesus and the lawyer they could be seen as adversaries or enemies. So, the lawyer then is placed by Jesus into the position of being the man who is broken and bleeding by the road. 

The lawyer, who is seeking to justify himself through his behaviour and through who he treats as his neighbour finds himself as one who is powerless and in need of God's grace. 

What if this story is about saying to us that any of us who seek to justify ourselves or think that we have been good enough for God, or think that we have been the Samaritan ourselves and helped the right people, are actually the ones who are in need of Jesus help. What if this story is a story which reminds us that God comes to us in Jesus in the time that we are feeling battered and broken by life and that we feel that we have been left by the roadside of our existence, but the good news is that Jesus whom we would treat as our enemy comes to us with grace and mercy. 

One of my colleagues John Squires offered a new insight through his blog on this story about the location in which the story may have been told. His insights led me to ask the question, “What if the story is about changing the views of Samaritans about Israelites and vice versa?” 

John explores Jesus’s movement through the Gospel of Luke and postulates the possibility that between Luke 9 and 19 Jesus may in fact be travelling in Samaria. If this is the case it is also possible that a large part of Jesus’s audience, possibly even the majority are Samaritans. 

Squires’ notes that, “In this story, no Jew exhibits the behaviour that the Torah mandates, of loving your neighbour; it is a Samaritan who lives this way. The power of the story is intensified by where it is being told.” In this case not only is Jesus issuing a corrective to the behaviour of the Israelites he is affirming his Samaritan listeners who had become traditional enemies of the Jews. 

Jesus’s story serves as a challenge to the geopolitical, religious, and ethnic divisions that had developed. If this is the case, then we might also ask how is Jesus interpreting how we understand who our friend or enemy is now when it comes to thinking about nations and peoples. And who is it that Jesus might affirm in their behaviour to correct us in our thinking. 

This leads me to my 4th and final what if question. What if the story is about challenging the church with a task of caring for the broken and bleeding? 

When I was speaking before about ancient understandings of this story and the idea that Jesus was the Samaritan, alongside this idea of Jesus being the Samaritan is the idea that the inn and the innkeeper represent the church. 

The coins are the gifts that God provides us with Jesus own presence and giving of the Holy Spirit to help the church fulfil the task of being a place that cares for the broken and the bleeding in the world. The church is not a place filled with people who are righteous and who know their neighbour and who help their neighbour. No! The church is a place that is filled with people who have been battered and bruised by life who have struggled to find their way safely through the pathways of their existence but have found within the church a place in which they can wait for the returning Christ who comes to meet us in the process of our healing. 

Far too often the church has presented itself as a place full of good and righteous people, people like the lawyer, rather than a place that welcomes Saint and Sinner alike. What if this story challenges us as a congregation as we look around and see who is within this church and who was missing from this congregation and we ask ourselves are we willing to be those who care for the broken and the bleeding in culture and society around us? Are we available and do we have the tools to support those who have real need without judging them for their predicament. 

So, what if the parable of the Good Samaritan is far more than a challenge for you to help someone whom you see in need? You see most cultures and societies would teach us that anyway? What if it is about question again who we discriminate against and who we should really be treating as our neighbour? What if it is about us thinking we are just as self-righteous like the lawyer accepting that maybe we need Jesus' help and that we are broken and bleeding? What if it is about us rethinking who the audience is that is listening to Jesus’s stories? And what if it is a challenge for us to look around their own community and wonder are we really willing to take in the broken and bleeding and look after them until Christ comes again?