Praise as Participation in Philanthropy

Psalm 66, Luke 17:11-19

“One of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice.”

The story that we just heard from Luke gives to us a vision of what it means to show gratitude to God for something that is done. Whilst it is unclear what aspect of his faith has made him well there are two things that stand out for us from this story. One is to say that the person who returned was a foreigner, not a part of the Jewish people. And the other is to say that all ten were healed but only the one came back to give thanks.

The importance of gratitude as an aspect of our faith is something that links well with the Psalm that we used at the beginning of our service.

“Make a joyful noise to God, all the earth; sing the glory of his name; give to him glorious praise.” (Psalm 66:1)

There is a universal claim made in the first verse of Psalm 66 that points to the whole creation participating in the praise of God. This universal claim is also paralleled by the entirely person claim made in the last verse of the Psalm.

"Blessed be God, who has not rejected my prayer or removed his steadfast love from me.” (Psalm 66:20)

There is an overlap between gratitude and praise found in the two Bible readings, however there are subtle and important differences. 

I have given the sermon the title Praise as Participation in Philanthropy to offer a signal to the direction I am heading with this reflection. But to get there I want to unpack the notion of gratitude a little bit more, including offering a critique about our approach to being grateful. I will then move us into the notion of praise and how it connects then to philanthropy.

The importance of gratitude within our culture and its positive effect on us is something that I learned as a teacher over 35 years ago and also reflected on as a chaplain within a school over the last decade. When I first began teaching, I was given responsibility for running what was called Human Relationship Education which has a clear understanding of the importance of people having a positive self-image and the place of gratitude for self and others. 

I can remember a particular activity where we practised gratitude by inviting a student to the front to classroom and each other member of the class was invited to share something positive about that person. The person’s response were simply the words “Thank you”. It is an activity that maybe carried a little bit too much vulnerability and it did not always work well but it highlighted the need to help people develop a capacity to express positive regard for another person and for people to accept praise with gratitude in a reasonable way. 

This morning, we began the service with a similar activity of expressing gratitude to God for our spiritual journey, the creation, our community, and our growth and learning. In pushing you to think of giving thanks for different aspects of our journey in life we were drawn into contemplating what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:

“Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit.” 1 Thess 5:16-19

The constant invitation to gratitude within the scriptures links to not simply living faithfully in the world but to our flourishing and wellbeing as human beings.  

The work that has been done in developing Positive Psychology and the contemporary interest and focus on wellbeing affirm how important expressing gratitude is as part of our human existence. 

For example, in the model of wellbeing developed by Martin Seligman which is known by the acronym PERMA the P stands for “Positive Emotion”. In its definition of this concept the Positive Psychology Centre says:

“Within limits, we can increase our positive emotion about the past (e.g., by cultivating gratitude and forgiveness), our positive emotion about the present (e.g., by savouring physical pleasures and mindfulness) and our positive emotion about the future (e.g., by building hope and optimism).” (link)

Here is a deep and abiding connection between contemporary understandings within psychology and the church as a place that has at its core cultivating gratitude and forgiveness!

In addition to this, research in neuroscience has affirmed the directions of positive psychology and wellbeing and the emphasis that they give to practicing gratitude. In the online article “The Neuroscience of Gratitude & Its Effects on the Brain” Melissa Madeson shares some of her research. I will mention just a few insights:

“As researchers explore the neurological underpinnings of gratitude, they’re discovering that this simple practice can lead to profound positive changes in mood, resilience, and overall wellbeing.” (Russell & Fosha, 2008).

“Thanking others, thanking ourselves, Mother Nature, or a divine power — gratitude in any form can enlighten the mind and make us feel happier. It has a healing effect on us.” (Russell & Fosha, 2008).

“Research examining specific areas of the brain found that individuals who experience higher levels of gratitude had increased grey matter volume.” (Zahn et al., 2014). 

“Gratitude can change neural structures in the brain, making individuals feel happier and more content.” (Zahn et al., 2008).

Gratitude is good for us, the invitation and command in scripture is affirmed by contemporary research and scholarship. If we are to love our neighbour as ourselves, we do actually need to love ourselves as well!

However, when gratitude is just expressed to achieve personal wellbeing or gratitude expressed when it comes at the expense of another then we might question its communal benefit. Gratitude needs to be accompanied by a wider understanding of life in the world.

Taking us back to Psalm 66 there are a few difficult phrases for us to examine here in terms of why the Psalmist is expressing praise and gratitude to God.

“Because of your great power, 

your enemies cringe before you.”

“He turned the sea into dry land;

they passed through the river on foot.”

The first of these phrases implies that God has enemies, whilst the second of these phrases about the sea being into dry land might have two connections. Scholars do not seem to agree whether the Psalmist is referring to the flight of the Israelite people through the Red Sea from exile in Egypt or whether it may connect to the crossing of the Jordan by the Israelites when the entered the promised land. Both stories portray the violence of God against another people. Something that as followers of Jesus we should find disturbing.

In her commentary of this passage the Old Testament scholar Casey Thornburgh Sigmon is cautious about the promotion of any notion of what is called exceptionalism which is “the belief that a nation, group, or ideology is an exception to a usual rule or trend or is exceptional in relation to others of the same kind.” Sigmon is wary of any interpretation of the Christian faith that is associated with the idea of a Christian nation and it is helpful to be reminded that the concept of modern nation-state only developed after the treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

In contrast the cosmic action of God in Christ serves as a corrective to the violence of God which is portrayed in the Old Testament. Jesus commands his followers to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27-28). The response of Jesus’ life to the violence of humanity is not to take up arms but to yield to the violence perpetrated on him by human beings at the cross. 

Giving thanks is good for us, we know this psychologically and spiritually, but our giving of thanks should be weighed up in the broader context of understanding God’s love for all things and all people –my wellbeing should not come at the cost of someone else’s wellbeing or at the most extreme their life.

This brings me to explore the difference between gratitude and praise and whilst there are overlaps there are differences. 

Put simply, praise, unlike gratitude, focuses not on what we have received but on who God is, God’s character and attributes. Whilst praise may include acknowledging what God has done God’s worthiness of being praised transcends our personal experience of God.

We praise God because God is worthy to be praised not because I got what I wanted from God or what I think God owed me. The universality of the praise of the creation is something that we are all drawn into simply because we exist. As Jesus reminds his disciples, “I tell you, if these stop speaking, the stones will cry out!” The praise of God is present in all things and all peoples, and it is present in each of us.  “Blessed be God, who has not rejected my prayer or removed his steadfast love from me.”  

When we understand that our praise of God is not simply the articulation of our praise and blessing of God in the context of worship but has this universal scope, we are called to consider how we live a life of praise. 

Looking back to the establishment of the Festival of First Fruits in the book of Deuteronomy the people are instructed to offer the first fruits of their harvest and called to recite these words “A wandering Aramean was my ancestor” as reminder of their time as refugees who had no permanent home, who wandered the land. The first fruits of the harvest are then distributed in a very specific way 

“When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year (which is the year of the tithe), giving it to the Levites, the aliens, the orphans, and the widows, so that they may eat their fill within your towns.”

The praise of God in this liturgy and ritual involves “giving it to the Levites, the aliens, the orphans, and the widows.” When Jesus says, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10) The abundance is to be shared with all peoples. 

As an aside the Old Testament reading which was also set down for today came from the time of the Babylonian exile where the people were encouraged with these words. “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” (Jeremiah 29: 7) Yet another echo of God’s concern for the welfare of all peoples.

This draws us to consider again the title of the sermon “Praise as Participation in Philanthropy”. The word philanthropy comes from two Greek words Philo’s (love) + anthropos (human) → “love of humanity.” When we express praise of God, I believe we are expressing our love for God. This love is expressed because we understand that God first loved us and this love of God that we have encountered and respond to by loving our neighbour. Our primary task according to Jesus, as he quotes from the Old Testament, is to love God and love our neighbour. To do both involve praise and showing gratitude.

Increase our faith

Luke 17:5–10 

“Increase our faith” is the cry of the apostles. Part of me wonders whether when Jesus heard it, it sounded a bit like kids in the backseat asking the question, “Are we there yet?” “Increase our faith” “Are we there yet?”

Our congregation vision is “Growing lifelong disciples of Christ” so the answer to are we there yet is “no, not yet” and the cry of disciples to “increase our faith” has a place on our own lips.

But as we think about the reading, I wonder what the apostles were actually asking for and why. And, what does increasing our faith look like for us now. 

When we dig into the Greek word for faith, pistis, we are looking at a verb not a noun. A verb which means hearing and obedience. Faith has an element of our intellectual and emotional assent to some kind of concept of who God is, but it primarily involves these actions of hearing and obedience.

In terms of hearing, the Aboriginal concept of dadirri, or deep listening, that comes to us from the Northern Territory provides an insight for us. We listen for God with our whole being – the inner voice, the silence after the storm, the words of wisdom within the scripture, and our learning and listening from those who carry wisdom in the world around us. 

There is a connection in this concept of dadirri to the theological methodology known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral for developing understanding which involves deep listening to the scriptures, to the tradition of the church, to reason, and to our experience.

This listening element of faith has both a contemplative and active element, but it also leads us into obedience which is to act. Faith is faithfulness, it is about what we say and do as we live in the world. But faith does not sit alone as we seek its increase.

I went to Newington College in Sydney for my first two years of High School which had the motto. In fide scientiam ‘To your faith, add knowledge’. This motto was based on the words of 2 Peter 1:5–8 (NIV).

For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love.  2 Peter 1:5–8 NIV

Increasing faith means considering the layers of meaning that are connected to the word. 

At the time of the Reformation the slogan sola fide or by faith alone developed. Paradoxically by faith alone was one of five solas or “alones”.

Sola scriptura – by scripture (God’s Word) alone

Solus Christus – By Christ alone

Sola fide – by faith alone

Sola gratia – by grace alone

Sola Deo Gloria – to God’s glory alone

The cry to “increase our faith” is a cry that reverberates into all aspects of our journey with God. 

Tomáš Halík in his book The Afternoon of Christianity reminds us of this meaning of faith as journey when he writes, “Faith in Christ is a journey of trust and courage, of love and faithfulness; it is a movement toward the future that Christ inaugurated and to which he extends an invitation.” Tomáš Halík 3

We are invited into Christ’s future as we follow him in the present that we find ourselves no matter how young or old we are. And getting older is a gift which brings with it great possibilities in our faith. A key theme in this service is the recognition older persons.

In his book Halik references the work of the founder of analytical psychology Carl Jung, who compared the span of a human life to the hours of a single day.

The morning of our life is our childhood and transition into adulthood. It is “the time when people are developing the basic features of their personality … They create an image of themselves - an idea they want others to have of them, a mask … that is their ‘outer face’.”

According to Jung this morning is followed by “the noonday crisis. It is a time of fatigue, of sleepiness; people cease to enjoy all the things that used that used to satisfy them … It is a loss of energy and zest for life, a spiritual malaise, a dullness … A crisis can affect our health, our careers, a marital and family relationships, our faith and spiritual life.” Halik 28

Halik points out that “it is only when one has passed the test of the noonday crisis - for example, when one is able to accept and integrate what one did not want to know about oneself and did not want to admit it to oneself - that one is ready to embark on the journey of the afternoon life.” In acknowledging this possibility of moving on Jung also notes that some people fall back into the quest of the morning seeking identity in creating other masks after their noonday crisis. There is a difference between getting older and become wiser.

Moving beyond the self-centredness of the morning the afternoon of life provides new opportunities. Halik summarises it this way: “The afternoon life - mature age and old age - has a different and more important task than the morning life - a spiritual journey, a descent into the depths. The afternoon of life is Kairos, a time appropriate for the development of spiritual life, an opportunity to complete the lifelong process of maturing.” It is a time of crying “increase our faith Lord” with a new zest and new desire.

Halik reminds us that “God comes to us not only as an answer but also as a question. God comes in the desire to understand, a desire that transcends every partial answer and constantly revisits it with new questions, instigating a fresh search; God imparts a Pilgrim character to our existence.” Halik 28

But in response to the cry of the apostles Jesus’ answer is uncomfortable for we who live in the 21st century to hear and contemplate. So, we need to bring some wisdom of the afternoon of our faith to our considerations of what this means for us.

Jesus’ answer speaks of faith the size of mustard seeds enabling the apostles to tell mulberry trees to throw themselves in the ocean. In other words, the tiniest of faiths can make the hugest of differences. But then Jesus goes on to speak about slaves and their task. The slave does what they have to do not for any reward but because it is their role in life.

We should be careful of imposing first world societal understandings on our society or seeing these words of Jesus affirming slavery. However, Jesus’s listeners lived in a world of slaves, and many had slaves, and the slave knew their place. The shock for Jesus’s listeners of this story, and us comes at the end of the reading that we heard. 

“So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’”

Jesus puts his apostles and anyone else listening into the role of slaves and basically says there is no reward and affirmation for simply living as you should. This is a stark contrast to the oft-quoted verse from Matthew 25, “Well done good and faithful servant”. No instead, “We are worthless slaves!” 

As I struggled with this passage, I was led to read Bill Loader’s comments about it. Loader emphasizes the idea that at the heart of what Jesus is saying is that it is not our actions, not our faith, that is determinative in our relationship with God. No, it is God’s love for us.

He says, “We are valued because of who we are. The more we become convinced of that, the less we need to play the other game and the less it will matter. Then, the less we are preoccupied with making ourselves deserving, the more value we can give to others, the more energy and time we have for others.” Bill Loader

“The less we are preoccupied with making ourselves deserving, the more value we can give to others.”  I wonder what this could mean for us as lifelong disciples of Christ on older person’s Sunday. How does this idea of increasing our faith as we bring it together with the wisdom of the afternoon of our lives?

The first thing is to say that we have already arrived at the fullness of faith and life with God in and through Christ. We will remember and celebrate this as we share in bread and wine today. But being set free from the need to justify ourselves we are set free to grow.

Before the service we asked to collect your age as you walked in. I did that deliberately because I wanted to find out this statistic. In this room are close to 6777 years of Christian experience. What do we do to share that experience and grow that experience?

At the end of each sermon, I invite you to contemplate what Is the one thing that is standing out for you from the sermon. However, I have also asked you to consider who you will share your insight with. The way that we grow in our faith is that we act up on in conversation and in good works. We listen deeply to each other with humility expecting the possibility that there is more for us to learn and know.

Just before I went away on my leave you were invited to consider the concept of belonging and how you connected to this congregation. By engaging in that process, I have been approached by at least two people in the congregation who wish to explore confirming their membership. 

These are some internal opportunities that we have. But I'm interested also in the people that lie just beyond these windows around us in the suburb of The Gap. Did you know that at the last census 732 people in just this suburb identified as being Uniting Church? If just one third of these people came to church, there would nearly 220 people here today. What might we need to learn from them about their faith and why they may be going to a different suburb for church or more than likely not at all? How can the 6777 years or Christian life in this room connect with these people?

This may be a challenge because the average age of the 82 people in church this morning our average age is 83! This means we are not reflective of the suburb around us. At the last census the median age for residents of The Gap was 42, with nearly 65% of households identifying as being a couple, or single parent, with children at home. I wonder how many of these families identify with the Uniting Church.

Beyond that, of the approximately 17 000 people who live in the suburb more than 50% do not identify with any religion. Every second person you walk past at the shop could be an opportunity to bring to bear the wisdom and fullness of life that you have from knowing Jesus and share with them why you come here as you listen and are curious about who they are and what they believe.

“Increase our faith”. October 1st was the International Day for the recognition of older persons. António Guterres, the Secretary-General UN in his reflection on this year’s theme said that “older persons are powerful agents of change”. 

As a community committed to Growing Lifelong disciples of Christ we are not there yet. We are committed to increasing our faith we are seeking constant renewal. We have a prayer group led by Glenda who is committed to just that purpose that you are welcome to join. If we take seriously the afternoon stage of our lives as an opportunity to grow spiritually then change is inevitable.  

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 know 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 similar to the purple blindfold. These are the gaps which appear to be unable to be crossed to create the change that is needed 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 are wrong about something but also 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 in 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?

Uniting Church Anniversary 2025

John 17:1-11

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qgDYrMc3/

“May [they] become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them.”

The Uniting Church officially came into being on June 22, 1977. Some of you may have memories of the time of union. Some of you may have been at the old Milton Tennis Courts on that cold evening as the three churches came together.  This stole was worn on that occasion.

However, there are many of you who don’t remember because you were too young, or not born, or not part of one of the churches that came into union. I was only 8 years old at the time of union and have no personal memories of the event.

My father was the Presbyterian Minister in the small town of Quirindi in NSW at the time. He shared the story with me that the year before union the Methodist Church in Quirindi one Sunday morning walked out of their church, closed their doors, and walked around the corner to join the Presbyterians. I have always idealized this move in the country town when in so many other places disagreements occurred over properties and power sharing through the process.

At the heart of the decision was an understanding that unity was God’s gift and will for the church. This desire for the unity of the churches and the unity of humanity more broadly was drive by a response to the events of the two world wars that occurred at the beginning of the 20^th century. The talks about church union in the 1950s were part of a global response which saw the establishment of the World Council of Churches, the United Nations, and over 50 United or Uniting churches across the globe.

Union in Australia was far more than an act of ecclesial carpentry but a desire for a deeper faithfulness to what is expressed in Jesus’ prayer of John 17. A desire for unity within the church and more broadly among all human community.

Furthermore, rather than being trapped in history and sentimentalism, the Basis of Union, the document that drew the uniting churches together, was meant to inform our ongoing life. This morning, I am going to take us through four reflections on some of the elements that make up the DNA of the Uniting Church. Before we engage in these four reflections let us sing the song ‘May we be one.’

Song May we be one

The four strands on our DNA that I want to explore with you are:

• We are people of humility.
• We are reconciled people.
• We are people seeking constant renewal.
• We are people who have been sent.

As a congregation who declare that we are “Growing lifelong disciples of Christ” these 4 strands of our DNA should influence our journey.

We are a people of humility.

Firstly, we are people of humility. The words that we heard from John’s gospel this morning are a part of a long discourse which occurs during the last supper.  The pray of John 17 could be consider the pinnacle of this discourse in which we find the disciples at times confused and misunderstanding Jesus’ teaching. Decades early Paul had written to the Corinthians that we only ever glimpse God through a glass, darkly.

In the process of union the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregationalist churches recognized “that none of them has responded to God’s love with a full obedience.” (Basis, Paragraph 1) This recognition of our unfaithfulness was shaped not simply by the understanding the divided church can only ever provide a broken witness but that that in coming together we had not arrived but were changing tack on our journey with God. Union was a confession of the problem of the division of the church and humanity as much as it was a witness that joining together was an act of faithfulness.  

The difficult of the moment of union was for those congregations who chose not to unite the act of union was a schism. In addition, whilst 3 traditions came together the problem of the ongoing institutional division of the church remained. To this end the Basis made the bold claim:

“The Uniting Church in Australia lives and works within the faith and unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Uniting Church recognises that it is related to other Churches in ways which give expression, however partially, to that unity in faith and mission.” (Para 2)

The word catholic here means universal and the word apostolic for the Protestant tradition refers to receiving the message of the first apostles who were sent out with the good news of Jesus death and resurrection. The Reformed Church theologian Miroslav Volf in his book After our Likeness argues that one of the marks of the church is its openness to other churches.

The claim that the Uniting Church is related to other forms of the church is a vital response to the notion that the church should be one. But, as long as the denominational and institutional divisions remain the capacity for witnessing to God’s love for us is marred. This is why Paragraph 2 has the sunset clause saying that, “The Uniting Church declares its desire to enter more deeply into the faith and mission of the Church in Australia, by working together and seeking union with other Churches.” (Para 2) Whilst the energy that lay behind the mid twentieth century ecumenism may have dissipated the question of church unity remains.

As people of humility the Basis has an echo of the need to recognize our imperfection in its final paragraph. It says, “The Uniting Church prays that, through the gift of the Spirit, God will constantly correct that which is erroneous in its life, will bring it into deeper unity with other Churches, and will use its worship, witness and service to God’s eternal glory through Jesus Christ the Lord.” (Para 18) We are called to constantly look into the mirror as individual persons, congregations, and as a denomination to reflect on what needs to change and be renewed. This understanding of the constant need for renewal ties back to the motto associated with the Reformed tradition, “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda," which means "the church reformed, always reforming". 

Earlier in the year I quoted an Aboriginal minister and Elder Rev Ken Sumner who reflected that he could not find his song lines in the Basis. In 2009 the Assembly accepted a Preamble to the Constitution of the Uniting Church which was a significant step to making space for the voices who were missing from the Basis. Recently, a book called The Present and Future of the Basis explores the formation document through the eyes of those who have come to be part of the Uniting Church on its church. Alongside the voices of Indigenous Australians are the voices of the migrant communities who have joined us.

As the Uniting Church we are called to be people of humility ready to hear God speaking to us through marginalised voices and as the Basis declares, “look for a continuing renewal in which God will use their common worship, witness and service to set forth the word of salvation for all people.” (Para 1)

We are reconciled people. (Paragraph 3)

In Jesus prayer he prays, “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3 Through baptism we are drawn into Jesus’ life by the power of the Holy Spirit. We come to know God because in and through Jesus we are reconciled. 

J. Davis McCaughey in his commentary on the Basis tells us that the third paragraph of the Basis is “the most fundamental paragraph in the Basis.” Why? Because it speaks of what God has done for us in and through Jesus. It is the only paragraph which contained a direct quote from the Bible. It says that in Jesus Christ “God was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19 RSV). In love for the world, God gave the Son to take away the world’s sin.” (Para 3)

As a theologian it sometimes amazes me that the three churches were able to come together. The understanding of the good news and what it meant were vastly different. To bring together churches shaped by the contrasting theologies of prevenient grace and predestination was astounding. This paragraph did not completely desert these theologies but opened the way for holding Chrit as central. It reminds us, “God in Christ has given to all people in the Church the Holy Spirit as a pledge and foretaste of that coming reconciliation and renewal which is the end in view for the whole creation.” (Para 3)

 At the beginning of the service, I played the 1977 Statement to the Nation which includes these words. “We believe this unity is a sign of the reconciliation we seek for the whole human race.” (UCA Statement to the Nation 1977) Given the Uniting Church was a byproduct of what occurred at the beginning of the 20^th century the importance of the message of reconciliation and love seems as pertinent now as ever as the Middle East appears to be on the precipice of even greater conflict.

 The claims made about Jesus and the reconciliation and renewal of all things are a deep gift to us. It is a paradox and contradiction that as human beings we have not celebrated this gift with greater joy. As Christians we should hear the message that through our own faith or doubts we do not add to or subtract from the reconciliation won for us in Christ. What we can do is seek to constantly witness to that gift of unity as we challenge the inclinations that break down relationships.

We are people seeking renewal.

Part of the response to being reconciled is that we receive this news with joy. Jesus prayed, “Now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves.” As we experience and encounter that joy our lives are renewed. And, as we recognize those places in which we encounter things which are erroneous in our lives we seek renewal.

This vision for renewal is grounded in the Scriptures as well as the first paragraph of Basis. The uniting churches “look for a continuing renewal in which God will use their common worship, witness and service to set forth the word of salvation for all people.” (Para 1)

The answer to the perennial question “Are we there yet?” is “No!” So, as we have heard there was a theme of renewal, at Synod. We celebrated the gift of the Holy Spirit a couple of weeks ago and recognized the constant need for its presence to open us to the new possibilities of how we understand and express our faith.

Renewal is found in our response of lifelong discipleship and our capacity to respond to the good news. Again, Paragraph 3 of the Basis says, “To God in Christ all people are called to respond in faith. To this end God has sent forth the Spirit that people may trust God as their Father and acknowledge Jesus as Lord. The whole work of salvation is effected by the sovereign grace of God alone.” (Para 3) Trusting in God through prayer and reflection on the Scriptures is important as is our willingness to engage with the world around us. 

One of the legacies of the Reformation was the focus on the scriptures through the catch cry sola scriptura. However, those who wrote the Basis also understood the importance of engagement with scholarly thought. The said, “In particular the Uniting Church enters into the inheritance of literary, historical and scientific enquiry which has characterised recent centuries, and gives thanks for the knowledge of God’s ways with humanity which are open to an informed faith.” (Para 11) We listen with open hearts and minds to understand the context of the world in which we live and where necessary we are called to challenge the world as we seek to live differently.

One of the most difficult and confronting phrases that sits within the Statement to the Nation from 1977 challenges the heart of our consumerist culture. It says, “We will challenge values which emphasise acquisitiveness and greed in disregard of the needs of others and which encourage a higher standard of living for the privileged in the face of the daily widening gap between the rich and poor.” (UCA Statement to the Nation 1977) Our whole consumerist culture is built on teaching us to covet, to desire the things that we do not have and spend money on them. The question of discipleship and renewal invites us to contemplate how we live within economic systems which have a tension between who we are called to be in Christ and how we get along in our daily life.

We are people who are sent.

In being the church, we are called not to simply be disciples but apostles. Jesus prayed, “As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” John 17:18 A disciples is a student or follower, an apostle is one sent into the world to share what they have learnt. When I asked the question who are you seeking to help in their discipleship I am not simply speaking about people who come through our door but the people who we encounter in our daily lives.

One of my friends and colleagues at an induction service reminded the congregation that at the end of a service we are “sent out” not sent home”. To be able to engage with this world we need to understand this world and to find ways to creatively engage with sharing the message of Jesus. Paragraph 11 of the Basis invites us into this space as it says, “The Uniting Church thanks God for the continuing witness and service of evangelist, of scholar, of prophet and of martyr. It prays that it may be ready when occasion demands to confess the Lord in fresh words and deeds.”  (Para 11)

We seek to confess the Lord in fresh words and deeds ad we do so seeking to engage with and serve the world for which Christ died. To return to the Statement to the Nation it says, “In the spirit of His self-giving love we seek to go forward and will use its worship, witness and service to God’s eternal glory through Jesus Christ the Lord..” (UCA Statement to the Nation 1977) Putting our own needs and desires to the side we seek to find ways to help others encounter and know that the reconciliation of all things is a gift for the whole world to receive and live through.

To conclude today I want to share with you a fresh affirmation of faith written by my colleague Reverend Will Nicholas. It will be shown on the screen. As you watch it think about all that you have heard. What is God saying to you today?

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16UgpfuX7E/