Jeremiah 2:4-13
Psalm 81:1, 10-16
Hebrews 13:1-8, 15-16
Luke 14:1, 7-14

Today I wish to consider “the good life”. What is it – how do we get it?

The good life could be described in many ways – a fulfilled life; perhaps a life lived with meaning and purpose; scripture speaks of eternal life or the fullness of life. Even a happy life is in a sense “a good life”. The point is this purpose of living- is indeed to  live well; and then doesn’t our faith have something to do with that life lived well?

Last week I considered the ministry of the prophets, in particular the ministry of Jeremiah. In a real sense this also was Jeremiah’s concern – the Children of Israel, the Jewish people, were not living a good life . . . and they would soon suffer for this. They had forsaken the covenant, that covenant  – the law of Moses – the way of Yahweh offered a fulfilled life.  Moses much earlier had put to the Children of Israel a choice – certainly as they were about to cross into the promised land:
“See I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees and ordinances then you shall live and the Lord will bless you…” Deuteronomy 30:15 ff

Indeed earlier, when the second version of the law is given, Moses again had said
“So now O Israel what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, with all your heart and with all your soul and keep the commandments of the Lord your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today, for your own well being.”  Deuteronomy 10:12 ff

Jeremiah and the prophets simply sought to remind the people of this understanding of  the ‘good life’. They had forgotten and forsaken the way to such a life.
During the week I read this poem by Wendell Berry, which could readily apply to Jeremiah and even to ourselves, as we face our own time of political limbo

The nation is a boat.
How troubling
to ride it drifting
down the flow from the old
high vision of dignity, freedom
….and then he goes on about the falling away from such a vision
To save yourself….
go back upstream.

Now of course our Prime Minister has said “moving forward” is the way to go. Don’t look back – move forward. And generally forward  is the best direction to be heading. However, when we speak of “the good life” – and as Jeremiah and indeed all the prophets constantly reminded their hearers – “back upstream” was indeed the source of that  good life – and they had forsaken this simple fact, or forgotten it – or determinedly avoided this simple understanding of a good life. Loving God and serving others.

The last chapter of the book of Hebrews is also a simple reminder of the good life – some wise sayings and instructions about life – so that you too may have the “fullness of life”. Simple things – perhaps obvious things. Certainly the sort of things you might have got on an old desk calendar, now the sort of thing that a friend might send to you electronically

Let mutual love continue
Show hospitality
Don’t forget prisoners
Look out for victims of abuse as if what happened to them happened to you
Honour marriage and the preciousness of sexual intimacy
Don’t be obsessed with material things – be relaxed with what you have
And so on.

Throughout scripture there are collections of such advice – both in the old and the new testaments. And it was also a feature of the surrounding culture at the time. Indeed much of Greek philosophy was consumed with this question of what in fact is a “good life”. But then the thing about common sense, I guess, is that it is not all that common. We need to “go back upstream” every so often and indeed re-examine the source of this good life.  . . and how we might live it. Because however we might see and envisage this good life, we are aware it does not take much to destroy such a life.

At the top of the list I guess is selfishness. . . . a curving in on oneself.  Simply just worrying about number one. In recent Sundays we have had the story of the rich fool and his belief that he could determine and guarantee his own future – with the tearing down a perfectly good barn and building seven more. A selfishness that has no regard for others and for God . Martin Luther, the great reformer, indeed used to define sin as a person who was incurvatus se, a person curved in upon themselves. So our list of “good life instructions” usually at this point has, for example,  teaching about money  – more particularly the love of money, or teachings about fidelity in relationships and in particularly just going  after one’s own sexual pleasure without the thought of others, or about being aware of the needs of others – like prisoners; or in old testament prophet terms – the needs of the widow, the orphan or the alien – the most marginal members of that society. Selfishness can derail the good life.

So in pursuit of the good life one is encouraged to not just think of oneself – but live out the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

However, today in both the teaching from the book of Hebrews, and from the teaching of Jesus himself, there is a surprising, and I would say challenging, extension to all of this. It rests in an understanding of hospitality.

Our Hebrews passage begins with the instruction “let mutual love continue”. The word here is “philadelphia” – which once used to be translated as “brotherly love”. Today we would say “mutual love” – a reciprocated love; a caring sort of love.  Let this love continue. This sounds all very noble, well and good.  It however, is immediately followed with a sort of ticking off. “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers”. As if this sort of behaviour can run counter to “mutual love”. It would seem hospitality can be a corrective to, too much mutual love.  And indeed perhaps it is. Mutual love can have a tendency to look inward – to think of just only of one’s own kind, one’s own family and relations, one’s own church. There are many churches which show amazing mutual love – philadelphia, however, are totally self absorbed, inward looking and have no outward focus in all those acts of love and kindness.  The author of Hebrews even offers an incentive to think beyond just continuing this mutual love – “for by showing hospitality to strangers some have entertained angels without knowing it.” There is the incentive to think beyond one’s mutual obligation – one might be entertaining an angel unawares! Surely, then, that would be a recipe for the good life.

Or another way of saying this – loyalty to one’s own kind does not necessarily lead to the fullness of life Jesus envisages.

Jesus even more radically opens up this dynamic within hospitality. He tells a couple of stories while he himself is being entertained by a leader of the Pharisees. The first is just a little moral tale of not thinking too highly of oneself, and then being disappointed when someone else is given the guest of honour position. This story may work in some cultures – but in Australia in which we have any natural suspicion about tall poppies and people who are full of themselves, I don’t think it really works.  Jesus’ next story or instruction is however, telling.

‘When you give lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbours, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind.” (Luke 14:12 ff)

Duty, obligation and the whole culture of reciprocity, drives our society.
Who of you have not pondered the question of the Christmas card or gift list on the basis a particular person should be axed from your generosity, because they had not given you a card or a present last year?

Jesus urges a social system without reciprocity. . . without the exercise of power through the implication of obligation. In Jesus’ story, the marginalised people listed are no longer outside the circle of power – d they are treated in a different light. They too, join as a fellow human being, in God’s great feast.

At the second Carlton Conversations@The Clare a couple of weeks ago, our guest Rhonda Galbally, spoke about being a disabled person and being the subject of sympathy, or of  pity, or of charity. The help, the concession, the acknowledgement,  what ever it was that was being offered to her – it might have been toys as a child for crippled children – was given from a position of power that the giver possessed. She was beholden to them – she was not free. She felt diminished.  She felt she was not seen as a full person; a person who rightfully could share in the fullness of life with others who just happened to be able bodied. Or as Olivia Ball would remind us – there was not a rights’ based approach shown to all to, say share in this Messianic banquet and feast with Christ.

Jesus here breaks down the power of obligation and reciprocity. He opens his kingdom to all and calls on us to even go beyond mutual love.  In the great discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essene Community down towards the Dead Sea, there was a scroll called “The Messianic Rule”. Within this there was actually an invitation list for that great banquet – “All the wise men of the congregation, the learned and the intelligent, men whose way is perfect and men of ability … the men of renown” were to be invited.  Apart from the fact it was limited to men, one is taken aback as to who would come.  The scroll went on:

“No man smitten in his flesh, or paralysed in his feet, or hands, or lame, or blind, or deaf, or dumb, or smitten in his flesh with a visible blemish, no old and tottery man unable to stay still in the midst of the congregation, none of these shall come. ” Jesus overturn the thinking of this Jewish sect.

Remember I started with thinking about the good life. Yes there are things we can do – rules we can follow. Thinking beyond oneself is a thing we can do. However, how far do we go? Hospitality is important  – however, we know as Jesus suggests, that to invite just the ones we know sets up mutual obligations, and predictable responses. Mutual love, it should be said, is not necessarily bad in itself – but it fails to understand the nature of grace, and love which is not  limited to mutual obligation and obligation. A love which is as wide as God’s grace shown on the cross of Christ.

Perhaps at the end of the day all people are angels.

Jeremiah 1:4-10
Psalm 71:1-6
Hebrews 12:18-29
Luke 13:10-17

In the commissioning of the prophet Jeremiah it was said

“See I today appoint you over nations and over kingdoms,
to pluck up and to pull down,
to destroy and overthrow,
to build and to plant.” (Jer 1:10)

Here is the commission of one of the greatest prophets ever. What does it mean?  How are we as a congregation to our understand our prophetic task?  What is our prophetic ministry for our nation, as we await the formation of new government after the election yesterday.

However, let us first be sure we understand Jeremiah a little, and his context.

Many years ago I was assured by the wonderfully eccentric Jesuit, Tony Campbell, I really only had to know four or five dates, and the whole of the Old Testament would fall into place.

1290 BC  thereabouts,  was the Exodus out of Egypt, Moses and the “promised land”

1000 BC King David

722 BC the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria

587 BC the fall of Judah and Jerusalem and exile to Babylon

520 BC the restoration or return to Jerusalem after Babylon (Iraq) got knocked off by Persia (Iran)

The Jewish people really began with the leadership of Moses and his forging of new nation over and against the empire of Egypt.  There were no doubt bits and pieces that went before this story – the great sagas and myths about creation and the special election of the Hebrew people; and of their patriarchs and a couple of matriarchs. But these accounts really were a back fill exercise in trying to clarify their origin till we get to this point of liberation over in Egypt. Moses was your man, and he led and forged a new community. Interestingly he encountered the same issues we see in the Australian electorate. The people wanted the easy life, people wanted to follow the latest fads – especially religious fads, and people grizzled and grumbled. They even preferred returning to Egypt and the power of the Pharaoh. However Moses had an alternative vision of life, or God, of God’s freedom and love, and the nature of community. He battled through and lead his people to the promised land.

Now these other dates then speak of what happened with this great vision of Moses.  Well with Saul, then David, and particularly Solomon,  kings are established and the very worship of God, gets centralised, ordered and structured. This is very different to how Moses had envisaged it. He sort of thought of people’s assemblies and leadership just emerging, and worship happening well – round about where you were. For 250 years there was this period of judges, and various shrines around the place.  One king with all power, one temple, with the one high priest, was very different.  And so what you have are huge swadges of the old Testament that reflecting this royal and cultic aspect of Jewish history – a history that favours the kings – like the books Chronicles 1 and 2, which are like the books Kings 1 and 2, but only kinder towards really ambiguous and flawed people like David. And then there are all those religious rules, such as in Leviticus, and you might even like then to throw in the wisdom teaching , attributed to Solomon – like in the book of Proverbs.

However, what then happened was that these kings, rulers and officials very rapidly departed from that earlier vision of Moses. So first of all after the nation divided into two – the kingdom of Israel and that of Judah – the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom.  Soon one has people like Hosea and Amos in the north, and Micah and Isaiah in the south – challenging what was actually happening. However, as we noted this Northern Kingdom was occupied in 722. Yes it was a part of the expansion of the then fearsome Assyrian Empire  – but it was actually seen by these prophets to be the hand of God acting against the king and nation falling away from worship and what we today we might call social justice. They were not treating the weakest in the land, the orphan, widow  and alien, with due respect and honour. Indeed this perhaps is the whole point of the Old Testament – God has acted in history.  God has chosen in God’s own freedom a people to be a blessing to all the nations, and as the history of that people unfolds, especially as they drift away from Yahweh,  one also can see God acting and a story within God also unfolding.

Now our friend Jeremiah enters the story. He comes just this little bit later – he lives in the years in the lead up to our next big date in Jewish history – 587 BC and the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the taking of the people off to Babylon. His context was the death throes of the Kingdom of Judah – the Southern Kingdom. Indeed the geopolitical situation for Jewish people was grim.  Assyria as an empire was on the wain – Babylon was in the ascendency. Egypt to the south was feeling apprehensive about this – and so just marched through Judah on the way to confront Babylon and support the ailing Assyrians. Judah was hanging on by a thread in a world of diplomatic intrigue – and yet all along the royal house and religious authorities could not see it. Let alone could they live in accordance to the covenant – that initial vision of Moses.  In fact, as we find later in Jeremiah, they had their own prophets (we would say spin doctors today) who would say – yes times are tough , but we soon will be back to prosperity, or the king will be back to prosperity. Don’t worry, God will look after us. Hananiah, was one of these prophets, he prophesised, in chapter 28 of Jeremiah, that in two years everything would be OK – or is it everything will be back into surplus! Needless to say  he was wrong.

So I hope you a getting hold of something of the role of the prophet – but just to finish quickly our Old Testament history . This time of being in exile, those years after 587 BC, turned out to be the most pivotal period in national formation and reflection – and for us too.  How had it come to this?  So the various bits of the story gets pieced together at this time. Yes there were the bits that seemed to favour the kings, and the religious authorities. There was however, this other story as well of how God, in God’s freedom had chosen this motley collection of slaves in Egypt and with the leadership of Moses had a different vision of how society and religious life could be lived out.  This story needed to be retold – it was an inspiration, but falling away of that vision – also needed to be told – warts and all. Scholars call this person or group who did this “the deuteronomistic historian”. Never again should they fall away.  And part of task of reflection was that Jewish people kept the various prophesies of people like Hosea, and Micah and of course Jeremiah. Needless to say they did not keep the prophecies of people like Hananiah. They were just wrong – the nation was defeated, the Temple was destroyed, and the people were taken off into exile. God had indeed acted in history. Strangely it was not victors writing history this time – it was losers, very reflective and humble losers.

“See I today appoint you over nations and over kingdoms,
to pluck up and to pull down,
to destroy and overthrow,
to build and to plant.” (Jer 1:10)

The word of Jeremiah was to speak to the geopolitical context of his day: and that includes Assyria, and Babylon and Egypt and all of the rest of them.  Then the “pulling down, destroying  and overthrowing”, given the history I have just outlined, is relatively obvious. But prophet’s task involved more. It was also “plucking up, and building and planting”. The prophet was there to present again something of this vision of Moses. Although perhaps it was a more nuanced vision this time – so as we discover later in Jeremiah he speaks of a new covenant;  not a reinstatement of the old covenant of Moses – but a new covenant. In fact some scholars wonder if these positive visions necessarily all happen back in the awkward days prior to destruction and exile. Perhaps they come later – actually while the Hebrew people were in exile.

So back to our initial question  – what was this craft of the Old Testament prophet? How are we to be prophetic today?   Walter Brueggemann, perhaps the most significant Old Testament scholar of our generation, speaks of the “prophetic imagination”. The prophet, with great imagination tells it how it is. Imagination in language, in the images that are used – and as with Jeremiah in actions he takes. In fact with Jeremiah we could accuse him of political stunts with some of his behaviour.   . . . wearing oxen yokes, going to a potter’s house, buying real estate while one’s city is under threat, referring to one’s own sexual life  and so on.  However, it is using imagination in trying to express what is happening. A plain speaking message was not getting through.  That imagination however, is fuelled by Yahweh’s insight into how we are to live together and how we are we are to relate to God. Moses again.

Prophets are not about predicting the future. Prophets are not just some sort of ancient “culture of complaint”.  But then prophets are not just driven by some evidenced based policy.  Prophets actually have in mind how life can be lived to the full, and that vision leads them to either to pull down or to build.   Jeremiah’s “new covenant” is a classic expression of this.

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt – a covenant they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord (31:31)

This new covenant God will put within them and it will be written on their hearts. A new covenant ! An idea, and a hope Christians have picked up upon. For us Jesus is  a sort of new Moses , with a new reign and a new way of being free because, as Jeremiah says “I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more.”

Today,  how do we express all of this?

Well first of all if we are to have any creditably as a prophet – we are to live it out as a Christian community. On Thursday night at our second Carlton Conversation down at the Clare, Rhonda Galbally our guest was asked what kept her seemingly boundless passion and drive alive. She tellingly said – you don’t do these things alone. You advocate for disabled people with others – and let your vision ripple out. Prophets are really not loan voices.

Is our God given vision for Carlton – actually lived out here? Do we let it ripple out. I think that is prophetic imagination.

The prophetic task is to expose where our community when it goes astray. Just reflect on our recent  election campaign – imagine parties actually calling the voters and the financial backers of the campaign to account. No one is going to be elected if you call your constituency racist, bigoted or selfish and greedy – so no one does. With imagination our friend Jeremiah did not shirk from the difficult task of calling what is going on.  .  . because he actually could see a better life for all, a richer community.

However, in whatever we do and say we always need to be clear about the values of Jesus –and express them positively, hopefully, respectfully – that again I think that is prophetic imagination.

Enjoy being prophets. It is a calling for all of us especially at this time national political uncertainty.

Isaiah 5:1-7
Psalm 80:1-2, 8-19
Hebrews 11:29-12:2
Luke 12:49-56

Have you ever been watching the news, or reading the paper and thought: that can’t be right?

Early in January 2005 we had been overseas for a holiday. We were only away three weeks; not long. Jean was reading the paper when we returned to WA and asked – who was the premier? I looked amazed. Of course she knew who the premier was. I said Geoff Gallop, of course; no she said – it says here it is Alan Carpenter. No-ooo – I said – that can’t be right –it is Geoff Gallop.  Well, I was wrong. Geoff Gallop had resigned for health reasons while we were away – and indeed there was a new premier.

So when we hear, for example, someone we know and respect and they are charged with a serious criminal offence – say like that strange recent murder case of Mr Rockefeller; or a couple we know who we always thought had a great marriage – and they then separate; or we see the headline like political parties agree to tackle climate change; or the Dockers win the Grand Final – it just does not seem right.

Well our gospel reading today is just like that. There must be some mistake – there must be a misprint.

Surely Luke 12:51 is wrong. Jesus could not have said – “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”

In one of the early editions of the King James version of the Bible, the printer left out the word “not” in the line of the Lord’s Prayer. ‘Lead us not into temptation’. Needless to say this edition was called, the sinful bible. Something similar must have happened here. This is the divisive, confrontational Jesus. But isn’t Jesus the Prince of Peace. Did not Jesus say ‘my peace I leave with you’ – ‘let not your hearts be troubled’. Jesus is all about wanting to bring about reconciliation, not division. Surely this verse is wrong.

“Do you think that I have come to bring peace  to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”

Well the troubling news is – that it is in the Bible; Jesus did seems to say these words. So what possibly could be going on here?

But first let us just ponder how dangerous it can be to take one verse of scripture and leave it stand alone – without trying to understand the context, or understand something of the life and times of Jesus. How many violent and hateful conflicts over the centuries have been justified by one verse being quoted out of context – just like this one.

But back to our verse. I want to begin by really confirming your initial thoughts. God’s will is that we live in peace; that the seven billion of us can somehow have a full life on this small planet. That we respect each other. But it is also true that there is division in the world: it happens on a tragic and an enormous scale. Just take religious divide between and among religious groupings. Ethnic, religious division, division within families – they all happen – not because God wants it, but because we are sinful people. There are even divisions within the Church; protestant /catholic; conservative and liberal; those who like loud music, those who like hymns – and so one. Into a world dominated by division I have no doubt that the Christian message is that Jesus came to overcome such division. He did come to bring peace. The Gospel message fundamentally is that Jesus came to overcome sin; to bear that sinfulness of humanity, and that we are indeed reconciled to God by his cross. This is the good news; divisions are not the way of the kingdom of God. The way of Christ is peace.

So what is happening in these verses?  Some of you may have one of those bibles which mark all the words of Jesus in red. Anyone? What’s happening in Chapter 12?  Well it basically is all red. This is a chapter of teaching. But the black bits are interesting. Jesus begins by teaching to many thousands. Later he is just talking with the disciples: his inner circle. And message for them gets a different edge. He actually calls them his little flock. He however, assures this “little flock” that “in the Father’s good pleasure, they will have the kingdom of God”. This is the will of God. But for them as disciples (and not necessarily the crowds) this will not be simply a bed of roses; it will not be easy. So he reminds them to be at all times ready and watchful. He tells them the story of wedding guests waiting for the return of the bridegroom. Peter, as only Peter can do, gets indignant. “Lord are you telling this parable for us, or for everyone.” No, Peter it is for you! Jesus then tells the story about the manger who puts his servant in charge while he is away; but the servant takes advantage of the situation while the boss is away. Jesus thus concludes – just prior to our passage “from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required, and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.”

Jesus is talking to his close followers. . .  those who really call themselves a disciple of Jesus; yes your are promised the kingdom; this is God’s pleasure. But you will have to get your priorities right, be ready and watchful. You will have an important responsibility: an important commission. Then there are these words. Jesus’ peace is not a ‘there, there’ everything will be all right, a course of least resistance, everyone is going to be happy, you will never face grumpy people, compromising sort of peace. In leadership there will be division. People will be challenged about who they are, and what there priorities are – and people will resist you.

Jesus was serious. He came with a revolutionary zeal to change and challenge the priorities of this world. He says ‘I came to bring fire to this earth’. He came to challenge the injustices of his day. He came to challenge the powers and forces of this world. He came with a sense of urgency. He says “I have a baptism – and under what stress I am until it is completed.” His objective was not political – it was spiritual; but that spiritual objective may not mean there is an absence of conflict within the world.

‘My followers you will need commitment; be watchful. There will be division, even within families.’ Jesus then outlines what might happen in families. . . and this gets really close to the bone.

Father against son; son against father
Mother against daughter; daughter against mother
Mother in law against daughter in law; and daughter in law

Notice however, that here there are very particular points of division within families. It was not just the “kids are squabbling” or a marriage breakdown between husband and wife. The division is between generations.  You see the family, and the clan, the grouping of families, held the power in then Palestinian culture. That power was exercised between the generations. You just had to do what your elders said: your trade, who you married etc. There indeed are cultures today that operate on the same basis: it is what that is expected from one generation to the next generation.

Jesus was contending that there would be clashes in families because people will want to follow him. What would happen for those people who would follow him?  Well, whether they were young or old, male of female, Jew or Greek, prostitute or a an upstanding citizen – they were accepted and loved by God; they were all the same in God’s eyes. You, as an individual, were recognised as being worthwhile. But – meanwhile – that same individual in the context of the social structures, like of the clan or the family – may have had no power; particularly in the relationship between the generations.

Today our great culture wars have a similar basis. In the West we recognise, because of our Christian heritage – universal principles that give rights to all people, to young and old, to male and female. Whereas other cultures, other religions – hold themselves over and against this view. It is the right of the clan or religious grouping to say what is right. Of course there are many other factors as well; but we can see the real challenge Jesus was offering within his own society. This kingdom of God he promised is based on the respect and love of all, on a personal commitment to follow him, and transformed life. It would clash with the social structures of the power of families and the clan.

What does this all mean for us today – here in Carlton?

First understand that it is God’s will to experience the kingdom of God: where we all can enjoy that peace which passes all understanding; where as children of God we can all feel valued, and we can all know what it means to be redeemed, saved – reconciled with God through the cross of Christ. We rejoice in our baptism.

However, as Jesus suggests, our baptism can clash with values around about us. Jesus is talking just to his disciples here – he is being realistic, quite stark. His kingdom values will find opposition within the world. He wants his disciples at the outset to know this. He wants them to be committed, he wants them to realise that there will be opposition to them, their lifestyle and their priorities. There is the promise, the goal – but the journey will be difficult. But then the goal will be worth it. That ggod given hope will draw us forward.

I am all sure you all have your Christian heroes. Mother Theresa, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Oscar Romero; or your hero may come from scripture – like Stephen or even Paul who suffered for the sake of Christ. People form that great cloud of witnesses. I am sure these lives encountered division. In fact most of those I have mentioned were martyred – killed for their belief. This is Jesus’ reality check. Look you may not be martyred here – but for your troubles, you could have a difficult times. So at work you may just have to indicate – no I am not joining in with that, it is not acceptable; or within the family, the behaviour of a family member is just too difficult – against kingdom values. Jesus is saying if you believe in something – it will have its costs; believing in him,, will have its costs. Commit yourself to a vision of resistance, and yet profound hope and be inspired by those who have overcome such division.

Dr Michelle Foster, Melbourne Law School

The first of these ‘Carlton Conversations at the Clare’ was host to Michelle Foster, a refugee lawyer from Melbourne Law School. She was in conversation with Melbourne Uni chaplain Wes Campbell, who interviewed her about her background and upbringing and what led her to become a legal academic passionately defending the wretched of the earth who find precious little sympathy in contemporary Australia.

Foster described herself as naturally optimistic, which contributes to her staying power. Her hopes were raised with the advent of the Rudd Government and its efforts to reverse some of the immigration policies of the Howard years – such as the Pacific Solution and Temporary Protection Visas – which had made Australia an “international pariah.”

But her expectations were far from fulfilled. Mandatory detention continues, and the thousands of off-shore islands which the Howard Government ‘excised’ from Australia’s international legal obligations remain rights-free zones for anyone washing up there.

Dr Foster painted a vivid picture of Australia as almost alone in a region of non-signatories to the Refugee Convention, explaining why refugees who make it to Indonesia are afforded no protection there; no status or support, no means of making a new life. And so they venture on to a country purporting to uphold their human rights.

Most Australians do not appreciate that the vast majority of asylum seekers arrive by plane, not boat, and live peaceably in the community awaiting determination of their claim. It is a breach of the Refugee Convention to penalise them on the mode of their arrival. However they arrive, most are eventually accorded refugee status; and all of them dwarf in number compared with other categories of immigration. ‘Boatpeople’ should simply not figure in the population debate.

And so Michelle Foster’s struggle continues: defending the Refugee Convention from its critics, and inspiring a new generation of law students with her vision of a decent and just world in which people fleeing persecution are met with compassion and protection.

Carlton Conversations at the Clare continue on 19 August with disability advocate Rhonda Galbally explaining what she believes and why.

In subsequent months, we’ll hear from peace activist Rev. Simon Moyle (16 Sept), historian and philosopher of science Kristian Camilleri (21 Oct), and Indigenous musician Jessie Lloyd (18 Nov).

Bookings: 0423 407 499 or australiadreaming@carlton-uca.org

Look out for these and other Australia Dreaming events at http://carlton-uca.org/australia-dreaming/

Isaiah 1:1, 10-20
Psalm 50:1-8, 22-23
Hebrews 11:1-3, 8-16
Luke 12:32-40

If one was looking for a title to this sermon today, it could be “Purses and Sacrifices”, or if you were here last Sunday, you might also call it “Possessions: The Sequel”.

In the gospel, back at the beginning of Luke 12, Jesus had been asked to adjudicate on an inheritance dispute. He declines, but perceives that in this well known situation of “where there is a will there is a relative”, the real issue is greed and a fixation over money and possessions. This attitude derails a person from a fulfilled life. He tells the story of the rich fool, who despite his obvious wealth dies with nothing; a hollow sort of death. However, as we found last week our relationship with our possessions can be problematic and ambiguous. Our life has to be able to deal with the material, stuff and possessions. Their manufacture and sale are the very basis of our economy, and an equitable distribution of material things and services is indeed a critical measure of justice. Jesus’ teaching points to the idolatry we show towards possessions, our abundant vice of greed, and it is not about absenting ourselves from the materiality of the world.

Yes, there will be material things in our life, but it is getting that balance between things and our spiritual life which is important. As Jesus says, here in Luke 12:33 “make purses for yourself that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven.”  In other words, your true treasure will be you spiritual life.

So today we will look at this other side of the spiritual material divide – what are these “purses that will never wear out”. What is the nature of our spiritual life? Is our spiritual life, or the profound questions of what we believe and what gives meaning, simply reduced to ritual and what I might call religious practice – like coming to church? Surely that cannot be what Jesus was concerned about?

In our reading from Isaiah, the prophet brings a word of the Lord at 1:11:

“What to me are the multitude of your sacrifices  . . I have had enough of burnt offerings!”

In a strange sense, even though we have never remotely even contemplated offering a sacrifice, these words of the prophet are connected with this spiritual treasure we are to seek. As I said, “purses and sacrifices”.

Let us however, first look at sacrifices.  What are they? Why are they relevant to our spiritual journey?

Today we usually just associate the word, “sacrifice”, with the idea of having to give up something. It was a sacrifice to come to this service today – I could have been snuggled up in bed keeping warm, or whatever. People make sacrifices for their children. It is what loving parents do. One has to sacrifice something to achieve a particular goal: a new education qualification, weight loss – whatever.  Of course, this  is not what Isaiah was talking about. His concern was about religious practice and ritual – which in a sense is also giving up something.

In Hebrew the word for sacrifice is zebah – meaning literally, a killing or a slaughter. A sacrifice was literally the killing of a living creature. Remember that amazing, and troubling story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice, to kill, his son Isaac. That story, and sacrifices generally, are rightly today viewed as being barbaric and inhuman. However, in Old Testament times they were very important. Indeed much of the book of Leviticus is about sacrifices – the different sorts of sacrifice, who could offer them, and when and where they should take place. Some sacrifices were seen as being gifts to God; others were seen as a means of releasing life – whether for the benefit of God, or for the worshipper. You see, it was the Hebrew belief that it was blood which contained life. So a sacrifice, which obviously contained blood, was an offering of life, the very basis of life, to God. Any sacrifice – whether it be a burnt offering, or peace offering, a sin offering, or guilt offering was about the restoration of the relationship between the worshipper, or worshippers and God. “Here is life – our life – given over again to your life.” The sacrifice – the ritual act, would restore life. We are talking here of something profoundly deep and spiritual.

So, as an important aside, we can easily see how the first Christians, who were good Jews, could see that Jesus’ death on the cross was seen to be a sacrifice, the supreme sacrifice. And why there is so much talk of blood  – certainly in the sacrament of Holy Communion. One of the great images of the Christian tradition is that Christ is the Good Shepherd; but the Good Shepherd, the shepherd of the sheep, becomes in fact the lamb – the lamb of God, the very creature sacrificed to restore the relationship between the worshipper and God. Jesus’ own blood – not the blood of a lamb – the creature sacrificed at the time of Passover – brings about reconciliation between God and each one of us.

However, back to Isaiah. The trouble with sacrifices, says the Lord – is that this ritual killing and burning of animals, is that they have become just that, rituals. Worse – empty, hollow rituals. Rituals that were to be performed on certain days of the years – without any particular enthusiasm or change in heart of the person who was making the sacrifice. This was the word of the Lord that the prophet uttered. I hate your empty sacrifices; I can’t stand your burnt offerings. The language is strong. In fact I defy you to think of stronger language. “They are an abomination” – there is no stronger word of hate than this. How can you possibly think that there could be reconciliation between yourself and myself, says God, just through a hollow ritual. If you like, a complete failure of the spiritual life.

God cannot stand such empty behaviour. Again and again the prophets rail against such ritualistic behaviour, empty and long prayers and the like. Jesus similarly reserves his greatest condemnation to the “hypocrite” – especially the scribes and Pharisees – who heap ritualistic requirements on people, and all along within their heart, there is no love, or grace or compassion. They are spiritually dead. They do not have purses which will never wear out.

Isaiah is quite clear – the outward signs of the religious life will not save you. Rather, it is within. Look at yourself, Isaiah says:

“Wash yourself clean

Cease to do evil

Learn to do good

Seek justice

Rescue the oppressed

Defend the orphan

Plead for the widow” (Is.1:16.17)

Forget your ritual; rather have integrity in your life, acknowledging the needs of the world around you. Show love and compassion. Today we might say –walk the talk.

And clearly this is where Jesus’ talk of purses fits in. He also wishes to challenge our behaviour – and calls us to strive for the kingdom; for the kingdom of God. It is not through hollow sacrifices, or false piety, or through our possessions; but through seeking the kingdom of God. This kingdom you seek, and which God wishes you to attain, does not have the same values as this world. It begins however, with your spiritual life and what you believe and why. . . and that bubbles out into how you live your life – in the world.

Last Thursday week we began our Cartlon Conversations@The Clare – a part of our Austrlia Dreaming project. Forty five were there. I knew about a third of the folk – which meant about two thirds of the folk had just come along. Our speaker was Michelle Foster, a human rights lawyer, spoke eloquently on refugee law and the current debate about asylum seekers. Yet even she acknowledged it was difficult to get behind why she was such a passionate advocate in this area. Was it her family up-bringing, was it her Catholic education? It did not seem to be a spiritual driver – or perhaps it was?It was hope and not fear.

We all are very poor at articulating what we believe and why. As Wes Campbell asked that evening, why are we able to put our feet on the floor each morning when we get out of bed? Why was Michelle able to do this?

Isaiah’s answer was – it is not because you just act religiously. It is much more than performing the sacrifices required at different times and places. You are actually to believe something and it shows. In the simple, powerful phrase

“You learn to do good.”

In the time of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah– people were suffering, people were oppressed, people were crying out for justice, and all that was done was that the leadership of the nations killed a few beasts. And that was it.  What do we say – fiddling while Rome burns; shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic; style over substance. They just didn’t ‘get it’ that this was not indeed the spiritual life; a restored relationship with God. This was not God’s will. The prophet did not necessarily criticise these people because they did not know what to do. They however had to stop and look around them, and out of their belief “learn to do good, seek justice” – for God’s sake, don’t be disconnected with the world round about you. .  . even in matters of spirituality.

I am not saying, nor do I think Isaiah is saying, the observable religious life, rituals of themselves are bad, or in his terms, all sacrifices are all automatically bad; but our sacrifices, our worship, our very presence at a church needs to first be connected and grounded in our faith and conviction of who God is, and who Jesus is for us.

So do we believe that Christ, indeed reconciles us with God?

In the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving in our service of Holy Communion – which itself can perhaps be reduced to just a spiritual ritual, we remember and relive the fact that by Christ’s blood we are restored into relationship with God – we also pray

“Father – accept us, as we offer and present ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a holy and living sacrifice.  . . .”

At the end of the day this is the challenge; this was the challenge of the prophet Isaiah: in our own lives are we a holy and living sacrifice? As Jesus might say do we have a purse which does not wear out – and because of that we show and share that treasure in heaven with others and here in Carlton.

We began with possessions and things of the world. They are not everything. A spiritual life is required. However, even a spiritual life can’t be lived disconnected from the people and things of this world. It needs to be shown in action.

“Learn to do good

Seek justice

Rescue the oppressed

Defend the orphan

Plead for the widow” (Is.1:16.17)

Somewhere in the midst of all of this you will have a purse that does not wear out. A treasure in heaven.

Hosea 11:1-11
Psalm 107:1-9, 43
Colossians 3:1-11
Luke 12:13-21

Jesus says  – Luke 12: 13 “ Take care! Be on your guard against all kind of possessions.”  Then later the apostle Paul says in his letter to the Colossians “Set you minds on things that are above. Not on things that are on earth.”

The teaching of scripture is pretty clear. All that stuff we have, or aspire to have – can derail us in the pursuit of a fulfilled and meaningful life. The prophets of the Old Testament  and in the teaching of Jesus himself have this common theme: greed and the avaricious pursuit of wealth is idolatrous. It is easier for a rich person to pass through an eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of God; recall the rich young ruler who was told to sell all his possessions and give to the poor – and he went away sorrowful. Today we have the story of the person who we have come to regard as the rich fool.

I always think of the late Laurie Connell – when I think of this story. Laurie was one the main actors in the infamous WA Inc saga in the 1980’s of greed and corruption – Alan Bond was another. Laurie however, was a key player. At one stage, at the height of the greed and frenzy, he acquired then chose to bull-doze, six perfectly good mansions in the exclusive suburb of Peppermint Grove that overlooks the Swan River. He then would build his own larger mansion.  Well he got caught out, but more significantly, he died suddenly. And even up to a couple of years ago when we last lived in Perth, there is this eerie cleared area of land on a headland overlooking the Swan, that still stands empty. A tribute to a rich fool.

In the story of Jesus – it was  a barn which our wealthy person seeks to pull down, and then build larger ones. However, that night he was to meet his maker: “You Fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?”

So the conclusions are obvious. And this just a quick sample from the commentary series I often use:

1. The parable challenges our preoccupation with possessions. It exposes the ultimate emptiness of our materialistic lifestyle.

2. The parable sketches the failure we believe we can be self sufficient. Our fool can provide for himself – he does not need the security of support from others or even from God.

3. The grasp of greed is exposed. Greed, as the moral antithesis of generosity, is shown to be bankrupt, and the rich fool’s ultimate downfall. Greed eats away any compassion we may have for others.

4. The hollowness of hedonism is also exposed. The rich fools revels in his prosperity so that he could “eat drink and be merry.” His daydream is to spend his life maximising his own pleasures – without work or commitment to others. There is a sort of juedgement on this.

So there we are – end of sermon.

Such teaching is core to our understanding of the Christian faith. It is where vows of poverty come from for some of those involved in religious service, and why we all are encouraged to live simply so that all may simply live. There is something corrupting about wealth, money and possessions – they do divert us from considering others and worshipping God. This is all very true.

It is also true that if we were to undertake a survey of this congregation – or Christians generally across Australia – they will not be greatly different to their surrounding culture or broader Australian society. They will still live in same sort of houses and have the same sort of car and possessions whichother Australians have. Christians will like collecting stuff, like others like collecting stuff. Indeed it is an oft observed phenomenon – especially where the starting point is at a low base of socio-economic standing  – Christians will rise through the ranks, and become wealthy.  In the nineteenth century the gentrification of members of the Methodist church here in Melbourne, who began as poor immigrant workers and rose to good middle class citizens is well documented. John Wesley’s dictum of earn all you can, save all you can, and give all you can was taken to heart.  Certainly in contexts where Christianity is a minority religion – say in Indonesia or in India – it is the Christians who are wealthier; wealthier than the surrounding population.

What is going on? Indeed some of Christian brothers and sisters go so far as to say that the more possessions one has, the more one is blessed by God. . . not I might add a view I endorse.

I will confess – that at this point I am going to sound just a tad wishy washy – and say, the message  here is simply about getting the balance right.

I think we can be in danger of getting  swept up in the extravagant hyperbole of Jesus’ stories. The rich fool and Laurie Connell are however, not your average citizens.  And by any measure we all, whether good card carrying Christians or not, would be outraged by their behaviour. Although I guess I have to be careful here – because at some point envy kicks in; certainly in a celebrity obsessed culture we have – that even these over the top characters – may be people we might aspire to. Beware the aspirational voter.

The trouble is though, we can take the spiritual dimension in this story too far; and seemingly deny the practicality of the here and now. . . and our very  real association and link with possessions and material things. There is a tussle between not having enough spiritual insight or spiritual practice and one’s possessions  – and at every turn  our relationship with God and our following of Jesus must win out, and have priority.  However, we be careful we do not down play “the world”, “the material”, or crudely put possessions. Our faith relates to the here and now and the material, as much as it might be “pie in the sky when we die”. It is also steak on your plate when you eat.  The central teaching of the church of the incarnation  – that God became flesh; that God is here present in the world; that the proponent of a new way of living, this kingdom of God – lived and breathed here; surely tells us that the material world is significant and has to be taken into account. . . in us assessing what is a full life. But the question is how?

The Christian faith has some very concrete dimensions to it. Take justice. If nothing else  – and it is other things I would admit – it is about fairness in access to material things. The material things could be services like water, clean water, or health and educational services – but it then moves into housing, or material comfort, or what about enjoyment and pleasure  that may relate too sport or entertainment. Are poor people to be condemned because they too aspire for a certain standard of housing and a range of possessions we might take for granted.  . . and they thus may at the same time forsake their spiritual well being?

Who was it? – Bill Clinton I think – who said in the midst of an election campaign. “it’s the economy stupid.” And indeed the health of our economy is very important. . . But what an ambiguous fact – at least in our society. The economy’s major engine, only engine,  is personal greed, or as we say the profit motive. Since coming to Carlton, it has been this economic dimension which has been added to my thinking about how the church mmust be engaged with its local community. Yes we need to be there advocating for human rights; we need to be helping people in emergencies. Yes we do not want people to be hungry, so we feed them. We are appalled that there are homeless people in our midst. And these are all areas of work we are engaged in. However, how do you move people from poverty into well- being; and being socially included within our society.  Well – they need to be able to create wealth. Simply put – people need jobs; and that greed driven economy  of ours needs to work well, and hopefully justly, to deliver for them.  Jobs are needed to feel valued and worthwhile – and in turn these  jobs can contribute to this thing called the economy.  But also jobs will help people to be financially secure, to have some wealth – have some possessions. So here we are as Church of All Nations are intentionally seeking to find people work, and at the same time run a bank – so that people may have  – well possessions.  It is all a bit ambiguous isn’t it? Even Gerald and Mavis promised to love each other whether they were richer or poorer.

And so when do we trip over that line of having enough possessions? Seven new barns is obviously over the top. Would this story of Jesus still apply if we said our rich fool could have perhaps one or two new barns. Should we measure our possessions with those in the Kenyan or Ugandan refugee camps? Our Horn of African neighbours are stupendously wealthy on that analysis, or is the comparison with others in Carlton or in the broader Australia community?

At the end of the day it is not about money or wealth, or possessions in itself. It is all about orientation and attitude towards God . . . towards this kingdom of heaven, Jesus proclaimed for all.  Possessions, personal possessions,  are not necessarily evil and wicked. They have to be factored into some rather complex equation. So one’s sense of justice will force you to consider questions like – should a certain range of things be owned by all of us, or just by us as individuals. So what about private hospitals and schools, or roads – or are these so important, we should all own them? Are there limits to wealth – shall I call it a super profits tax? Or, how should we relate to possessions because of the environmental impact of owning those possessions – like cars, and power hungry consumer goods. Was this not the plot of the Copenhagen Conference last year – how dare we in the West require growing economies to tow the line on emissions, when we never did, and because of that, we got all our possessions.   Of course if the world’s environment collapses, why worry about any possessions?

So I am saying there are significant questions we have to ask, and ask as Christians about possessions . . and limiting to wanting them. However, we do have them – and we should not naively say we don’t need them.  . . and everything is spiritual anyway.

What we do need however, is to have clarity about our priorities in relation to the whole of our lives and our life together. Perhaps it’s a pity these issues are not being discussed in our current federal election – so see Building an Economy for Life.

However,

Seek ye first the kingdom of God.

Amos, 8:1-12
Psalm 52 God’s judgement and grace
Colossians 1:15-28 Paul’s message of reconciliation
Luke 10:388-42 Martha and Mary

Paul writes:

Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God; in him the fullness of God was pleased to make a home.

In the name of the reconciling God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. AMEN

Have you ever found yourself reading someone else’s love letters? Perhaps accidentally, or maybe published correspondence of a famous person; or maybe the overheard telephone conversation in the tram.

It can be embarrassing to be taken into another person’s intimacies.

Believe it or not, when we read from the letter to the Colossians, we were overhearing a love letter.

But we should not be embarrassed – it was written to be read aloud.  It is hard to take it in – the language is so rich.  In the original Greek, the sentences are long, one thought tumbling after another.  The translators of the New Revised Standard Version have broken it into shorter sentences.

Powerful and passionate.  What else would you expect from a lover?  This is no carefully written text; it is a passionate love song.

True, some want their love songs to be kept simple: like Paul McCartney’s song:

‘You’d think that people would have had enough of silly love songs. … Some people wanna fill the world with silly love songs. / And what’s wrong with that?’

There is nothing wrong with that!

And some appreciate his simple, light instrumental backing.

Now, I am no opera buff, but I venture to say that in this letter we are taken into something much fuller, closer to opera, to the full orchestra, to the full throated song of lovers whose arias soar, whose song expresses an impassioned love that fills the whole world, the cosmos.

Or if you are not into classical music, consider the power of Queen’s music, in ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, for example!

When we are listening to such songs, we don’t expect to understand every word; rather we are carried into the passion of the lovers, and the power of their song. That is the best way to approach this letter. In fact, part of what we have heard here is an early Christian hymn: in verses 15-20, printed on the green sheet which we’ll say together after the sermon.

map showing the location of ancient Colossae in modern-day Turkey

This letter was first written to be read aloud to Christians in the Greek city of Colossae, and it then became a circular letter, read to a variety of congregations in the Roman Empire.

It served to link scattered congregations, holding them together as they heard it read; and, presumably as they sang the hymn. (Much as Methodists did when singing Charles Wesley’s hymns.)

The New Testament presents the letter as written by the apostle Paul. In recent discussion, biblical scholars have noticed that the language of this letter sounds different from other letters by Paul. Many have warmed to the view that the letter was not actually written by Paul, but by someone writing in his name.

Can we trust anything, you might ask! Is it right that someone should pretend to be who they are not?

We may be suspicious of that, but in the ancient world, it was quite acceptable to write in the name of an important person. To translate their thought into a new time and place. And that’s what we have here. The letter is written, you could say, in the ‘spirit’ of Paul.

We don’t know if it was written while Paul was still alive, or after his death.

In any case, it reminds us that Paul worked with others, Timothy especially, he often suffered hardship, and he wrote many of his letters from prison.

So we need not lose confidence in this letter. Instead, we can take confidence that the letter was read by many early Christian communities, and was finally included in the New Testament for us to read.

Why was the letter written? Why is it still important to us?

There was a controversy brewing. There was trouble afoot in the congregation. It seems that members of the congregation were becoming uncertain about Jesus and his power to make them free. They were being attracted to teachers who claimed to have special knowledge or ‘wisdom’.

Their message was that if they wanted to be truly free they would have to work at it. They would need to keep holy times and worship heavenly powers if they really wanted to gain wisdom and have access to God.

This might sound pretty distant from us, twenty-first century people. We don’t have much time for heavenly powers; but we are pushed and pulled in every direction by powers:

what the family needs; work and its demands; the care of our bodies; even our leisure has turned into work. These are the unseen powers that claim us.

(Consider the powers at work in fashion: eg. it leads people fatally to smoke; women force their feet into stiletto heeled and narrow toed shoes.) And because we can’t do everything at once, we rush from one thing to another, and sometimes feel as though we are being pulled apart by the various claims on our time and energy.  These unseen powers make their claim on us, and fracture and fragment our lives.

So we are not that far from our ancient Christian sisters and brothers.

And to speak to this fragmented life, the writer of the letter takes up an early Christian hymn which speaks of Jesus Christ as the image of the invisible God; in the Greek it says he is the ‘icon’ of the invisible God.  And in him this God chose to be fully present, to ‘dwell’ in him; to make a home there in Jesus Christ.

Last weekend some of us attended the conference on ‘Engaging the Basis’.  Over two days we heard people exploring the Basis of Union – that slim document of 14 paragraphs which brought the Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians together as the Uniting Church in Australia.

Introducing the Basis, Andrew Dutney, a theological teacher from Adelaide, made the simple point: for any of this to get off the ground we have to believe in God!

Believe in God. It sounds obvious. And yet for us it is so difficult.

As modern people we have learnt that there a fatal opposition here – an opposition between God and the world: either we believe in God, or we side with the world. It’s the sort of view that Richard Dawkins holds; and, to be honest, many in church congregations: God or the world.

But for the church it is a false choice.

It is obvious to us – probably more so than ancient peoples – that if we are speaking of God, we are dealing with what is unseen, invisible, untouchable. The letter we are reading today is also very clear that in dealing with God, we are dealing with mystery.

But the church does not actually start with the unseen; it takes a start in Jesus. And more, it makes the claim that in this Jewish man God is fully present; nothing is held back. In him God is fully open to us. In this one man, (2: 3) all the treasures and wisdom of God are hidden in him.

This is where the love language threatens to swamp us.

But the point it makes is not difficult. It makes one simple point: that in the entire universe, with all its powers and claims, there is one person who has a claim on us. He is the one who expresses the point and purpose of the cosmos; his has first place among all these. That is, he is supreme.

And, in other words, in him God and world are joined together. God and world are reconciled. In Jesus Christ, God has taken the initiative to act for us.

If Christians are lured into thinking there are other more important and powerful claims, the letter simply points us to him. In the hymn that we will say, and in the verses that follow, there is a sort of cascade, a raging rapid, a waterfall; not only does Jesus show the purpose of the universe, he is also the head (leader) of the church; as the one risen from the dead, he can rescue us from powers of darkness, bringing us into the light.

And, more, where the world is fragmented and broken, he can bring even enemies together. How is this done? It pictures all those powers who parade and posture and pretend to be life-giving, whether religious or political. Then the letter says that Jesus puts them on trial. By going to his cross, (2:12-15) Jesus actually puts them on show, parades them and publicly shames them. He turns the tables. By being nailed to the cross, Jesus shows up the powers for that they are. And, with that, he nails them to the cross. In this way he has power over them.

Can we recognise those powers now? What about what is going on in Afghanistan?

More and more people are being killed, and when the bodies of soldiers are brought home, politicians talk of staying the course, of the role of troops in ensuring freedom, describing the deaths of young men and children and women as necessary to a new life there. Through tears, young wives and grieving parents speak of the way their dead one loved life.

Just as in George Orwell’s novel 1984, language turns on itself: in order to speak of peace, it is necessary to say ‘war’; the powers that claim to be life-giving exercise their power by producing fragmentation and brokenness. The situation is even more grim when these powers use religious language to make their claim.

Jesus Christ, by his broken body, the letter says, is the one in whom all things hold together. Jesus Christ, by his own his blood, makes peace.

The claim here is massive. And it challenges even those who gather in his name: the cosmos is his; he has the power to hold together even enemies – enemies of God; and human enemies and strangers. That is he ‘reconciles’; he pays the cost of bringing opponents together.

Why say all this? Because the name of Jesus is that love song which brought us here.

The challenge is for us to be those people whose Head is Christ, whose lives are shaped by him, ready to hope in him, to speak his name, even to suffer for him.

So today we have read the letter which calls us to join with Mary, attending to him alone, so we will not be distracted and overwhelmed by all the claims made on us.

Today we are reminded that the mystery of God has gathered us here.

Entrust yourself to Jesus Christ who has rescued us, transferring us from darkness into light.

And be reminded of all those faithful people, Paul included, who were willing to suffer so that we might come to know the wisdom and glory of Christ.

May we never be embarrassed by him, but once again take confidence in him, as he has taken confidence in us!

To Christ Jesus, the wisdom and mystery of God, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be all honour, praise and thanks, now and always. Amen

Hosea 1:2-10
Psalm 85
Colossians 2:6-15, (16-19)
Luke 11:1-13

Prayer is a core aspect of the Christian faith. Prayer indeed is a core, observable aspect of any religion. Our Muslim friends have their regular times and pattern of prayer. We have the image of Jewish pilgrims at the so-called Wailing Wall in Jerusalem – but all religions in some way or another involve prayer. Prayer is the background practice or custom to our own worship, indeed all worship.

Karl Barth the great theologian from last century, dramatically asserted that prayer is our theology. What one prays for, shapes and expresses our theology and what we actually believe. How we understand prayer, how we pray, lies at the heart of faith and how we live and act as Christians.

However, what is involved; how we understand and practice prayer – is not clear. Yes we might be able to say there are different sorts of prayer – prayers of thanksgiving, or confession or intercession – but then what is prayer, why pray? Our whole life is our prayer – isn’t it.

At the beginning of our reading from Luke, the disciples observed Jesus praying. This prompted these sort of questions and issues in their mind – so they ask for something fundamental – teach us to pray?  Teach us to pray?

Prayer was not natural thing to do – prayer for the followers of Jesus needs to be spoken about – even taught. But then at the same time prayer is a very human activity – in a sense it is also instinctive. We have all heard uttered, we have now doubt uttered the cry ourselves: “God” or “Oh my God” which today gets reduced to OMG,  at the breaking of some news, or the unfolding of some event; or out of frustration, annoyance, even joy. The word “Jesus” may get uttered in similar circumstances. Perhaps the normal take on this, is that this could just be another expletive, that could be added to a more colourful array of like words. The key is that it is an expletive. We have to say something at that moment – to fill up the space – which what the word literally means. I am not saying that the times when such words are used that this is prayer – however, just at that time we do seem to be seeking  something from beyond ourself. So when we find we are not self sufficient, or our sureties have been rocked  – because of an illness or some diagnosis, or some sort of tragedy – we seek, we grasp at, something beyond us. This is like why we pray; perhaps sometimes it is how we pray.

At times of natural disasters, or times of great tragedy – it is not uncommon for our leaders, for ourselves,  to slip into “prayer” language. Words are inadequate to describe, say, the devastation of a Black Saturday and the scope of its impact, and what we feel, and what we feel for those affected, is beyond words. All we can utter is that our “thoughts and prayers” are with you.  We are saying this is all beyond understanding – we trust, hope that this unspeakable thing can in some way be resolved; we want to make sense of it. We pray.

But how do we pray?

Our reading has Jesus give us a sample prayer – and then some teaching, stories about prayer. Interestingly the disciples in seeking a lesson on prayer – perhaps were expecting a new and better technique, concerning say, a certain body posture – proceed to get a lesson on the nature of who God is for them. They are taught something about this “beyond” in their midst. Our prayer is formed around this notion of who we are, in comparison to God. We humans are not all controlling, all powerful, fully understanding and capable. We thus look to relating with God, or here expressed as, God the Father – who in Jesus’ model prayer and his teaching, is of a certain character, and if you like has certain capabilities and inclinations.

So we have the Lord’s Prayer .  . . the way to pray.  Now in the sheet I have circulated to you I have set the prayer out, trying to explain the various versions we have the Lord’s Prayer.

The bold is the Lukan version – and it is quite short; the non bold is the version from Matthew with some expansion of some of the petitions – and the italics are the bits or translations we have inherited from Anglican Book of Common Prayer of 1662, or now the current agreed English translation. Perhaps an important beginning point is that it is not how many words that are used. As Paul says in Romans 8, it actually is the Holy Spirit which intercedes for us with sighs to deep for words  – again those cries of “God” or “Oh My God” we might utter.  Our prayer is just 36 words.  Prayer can be quite simple and yet profound.

So we come to the opening of the prayer. And if we look at the slightly longer and more familiar Matthew version we set the scene and significantly we say to whom it is we appeal beyond ourselves.

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, Your kingdom come – and we could add, Your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

This “beyond”, this “numinous”, this Spirit, God – is as close as a parent: our father. We say Father. Here in our time of need or great wonder or joy, God is not distant and remote. Indeed God is like a person – our relationship and prayer is with “our Father”. And here there should be a comment on the personal pronoun. Yes the relationship is personal – but it is plural – our Father, and later we seek bread for us – we together seek our forgiveness. There is a very strong communal element in our coming before God. We pray with others.

This God is however, not the same as us – God is not the same as who we are as creatures. We indeed pray “God be holy in the fullness of all your life. We do come in awe and praise in relationship to all who you are.”  Hallowed be your name.

Then – Your kingdom come. Perhaps the most significant and profound three words we can ever utter. Perhaps they even trump, “I love you”. Here is a call for the fullness of God to be present and evident here on earth, here in our lives, here in our community and in our relationships. This kingdom of God which has indeed begun in Christ, we pray it to be here. Jesus’ life, death and resurrection shows that this kingdom is based on love. It is concerned for justice – it seeks peace, it affirms life; the fullness of life.  In praying for God’s kingdom to come – this is what we seek in the confusion of our lives or in the fractured nature of this world, or the despoliation of our environment. This is not what we might think, and what we want – you know the sort to thing: a car parking space, passing our exams without any work, wealth and a great career. Rather we are to pray that the reign of God to be evident in the turmoil of our world and lives; say at the time of Black Saturday or the suffering of innocent people, or in our own despondency, or just the ordinariness of life.

Matthew’s version then adds – as if to reinforce all of this – “God’s will be done on earth as in heaven.” Please, this is not saying when bad things happen, say a dreadful illness or great tragedy – these events are just God’s will, or even worse obviously God’s punishment.

I think I have shared with you my great horror when I was a minister in Maryborough Queensland. There was a dreadful bus accident – 11 of the town’s civilian widows were killed, including five who were members of our congregation. I, together with other ministers, organised a service of grief and mourning the next evening. Thousands were there, television crews, the Queensland Premier, and as it happened that year, I was the chair of the ministers’ fellowship – leading worship. Then one of my more conservative colleagues prayed acknowledging that it was God’s will our town should suffer, for surely we had been evil in God’s sight.

Here in this petition – the prayer is in fact the reverse – in the midst of bad things, this should be our prayer, God’s will be done on earth.

So having critically set the scene, understood our relationship with God, our praying then changes. First we, like the Israelites in the wilderness need food, bread sufficient for each day to live on. Perhaps this could be our spiritual food – the body and blood of Jesus which we recall in our service of Holy Communion. Perhaps this is the food we need when God will be all in all – that great vision of a heavenly banquet. Or more likely, it is just ordinary food – the basics of life. It is our daily bread – not just my daily bread, and forget about my neighbour – this a prayer that each day all will be fed. All will have the basics of life. It is a prayer for justice.

Next is about our relationship with God – forgive us our sins. We are unworthy – this is the very nature of our humanity. We need to be reconciled with God. Forgive us our sins, so that we may be restored to a relationship with God. Again, with the advantage of hindsight, we see this petition has been fulfilled through the cross of Christ. However, obviously we then need to show such a restored relationship, in our own relationship with others: “as we are to forgive those who sin against us.” We are to be reconcilers ourselves.

Finally our last petition; some take it to be an allusion to the end times – when God will be all in all. Spare us harm at that point. Alternatively it could be that through life we will often be tested – such as the children of Israel experienced in the wilderness, or Jesus himself experienced in the wilderness or Gethsemane. In a sense this is the climax of our short prayer – do not bring us to the time of trial, or save us from the time of trial – in which this whole relationship will unravel and fall apart. Here we appeal to God for protection from any circumstance that might threaten that relationship. We wish that relationship to be sealed and affirmed.

So here then in this context,  as Jesus goes on to say, we are to ask, seek and knock on doors  – in our prayers. Here is the context in which we can with prayer explore, question, ferret around, grieve, celebrate – but ultimately God will allow us to find, find who God is for us. This why we can be persistent in our praying, like the persistent and shameless neighbour who keeps on waking us up at night; or that we can feel assured that we will not be sold a pup when we pray – and so we will not get a snake instead of fish, or a scorpion instead of an egg.

God is there when we pray. But again do we understand who this God is, because that will guide all our prayer. Jesus’ teaching on prayer requires the praying person to be aware of their own need before God. Jesus’ teachings assure us that prayer is effective not because of our cajoling, or because we have found the right words or posture or breathing, but because of God’s natures as a parent who loves us and wants to give to us when we are in need.

When we bring our humanity to God’s love in faith, that is prayer.

Amos 7:7-17
Psalm 82
Colossians 1:1-14
Luke 10:25-37

Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan is probably the best-known of all his parables.  It is an oldie, but a goodie! The very image of the compassionate assistance of the Samaritan traveller has entered the language and the public imagination. If a person is described as a Good Samaritan, we know exactly what they mean. A Good Samaritan is a person who has put their life on the line for another. In Western Australian the Uniting Church even one of its caring services is known as Good Samaritan Industries – and it is lovingly known as Good Sammy’s.

So when it comes to sermons on the Good Samaritan – well you can lay them end on end and they will stretch to the moon and back; and you already sort of know what I will say. Typically, the sermon will be couched as an example, an illustration of what it means to love one’s neighbour as oneself. It will be a call to compassion. Along the way references will be made to the great antipathy between Jews and the Samaritans. So our compassion is to transcend such divides. Our neighbourliness is to overcome barriers of race and enmity. This is how we are to love others as our selves. We are to go and do likewise.

There are of course may be some twists and turns we could add to the sermon. For example, we could suggest that Jesus is like the Good Samaritan. We can allegorise the story. Characters in the story can be given specific roles. So Jesus is the Good Samaritan. He is starkly contrasted with the religious authorities – the priest and the Levite who both pass by on the other side. So we might suggest, they pass by because of their strict observance of the law of Israel, the covenant. They could not relate with, touch, or come close to a dead body. This poor chap, the victim, looked dead, and so they avoided him. However, the way of Christ, the way of mercy and compassion transcends such legalism. Love overrides the rules and practices of religion.

Another feature of the story, along the way may also be mentioned: the context of the story in the Gospel of Luke. There is really a third scene to our gospel reading – a reading we will indeed have next week. So the opening scene is the dialogue with the lawyer, about seeking eternal life. The answer is then rightly given:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.”  (Luke 10: 27)

What Luke then does in his gospel is to set this parable of Jesus,  about how we are to love our neighbours, in parallel with what immediately follows – the story of Mary and Martha. A story in which the actions and devotion of Mary is contrasted with Martha, a busy doer of hospitality, or even if you like, a  busy Good Samaritan. With these three scenes we have a model of what a balanced life of “loving God and loving others” may indeed look like.

All true. Good stuff. But …, yes you knew there would be a “but”, doesn’t all this in large measure depend on from where we read this story? What would happen if we read this story, not from the position of the Samaritan, the helper, the compassionate one, but the victim – the person set upon by brigands and robbers? It is true that we as mainline Christians in the west do not see ourselves as victims, and we as Gentiles just do not get this hatred between Jews and Samaritans. And so we therefore have no difficultly assuming that this story is all about being like a Samaritan. But that would not have been the case for Jesus’ good Jewish hearers. They would have had no natural or obvious affinity with any Samaritan. They were not going to associate themselves with this victim’s rescuer. Even in Luke’s account, the lawyer cannot bring himself to name the person who was a neighbour as a “Samaritan”. He uses the circumlocution of “the one who showed him mercy”.  This story is told from the perspective of one who needs a neighbour. It comes from the perspective of the victim.  The story takes on a different complexion if we do this.

First of all the setting of this parable is well known. The 17 mile long mountainous road down from Jerusalem to Jehrico was a notorious haunt of brigands and robbers. Contemporaries of Jesus wrote about this very danger. And thus the not very surprising event took place; a person was attacked. Now note that this person who is attacked is the only one in the story whose social location is not specified. Others have a religious rank, job, or ethnic identity. He is simply an anthropos, a man, a sort of everyman – but a Jew all the same.  The violence that he receives is extreme – this is not just a robbery, it is over the top violence. He is stripped – left naked, and left to die. As one commentator says

“Knowing the road’s reputation we might have anticipated trouble, but the brutal details sober us. This man, reduces to our common nakedness and on the brink of our common death, is a figure now of the most elemental and raw human need. “ (Duke, The Parables,  40)

So as a hearer of this story we might associate our thoughts with this person. The story invites us to take us to a vantage point in the ditch, and await developments.

So we are in the ditch. And in the story there next comes that literary device which we know well. Three characters are mentioned. Think of jokes that begin “an Englishman, a Scotsman and an Australian”. Think the fairy story of the three little pigs. In this sort of story, or joke, we automatically think that the third character will resolve the story – provide the point of the story or joke. The first two little pigs are lazy and eaten by the wolf and the third is completely different.  The third character becomes the point of the story.

So here we are in the ditch. The New Revised Standard Version then says.  “Now by chance” a priest came along. “Now by chance”. What could that mean?  Another way of saying that could be “As luck would have it.” You are lying there almost dead. What would you want to happen? Another robber could come along and finish you off. No – as luck would have it – it was a priest. What a relief!  Surely for you as a victim – that would have been good news. I will be safe now. Yes there might have be religious rules that you can’t touch a corpse  – but surely this is good news. I will have assistance. And after all, there were also other religious rules about not leaving an abandoned corpse. Well it was not fortunate, this victim was not in luck – the priest passes on to the other side. There was no help. So we come to the next person – also a religious person , a Levite. Unfortunately again, same as the first. The Levite too, passes to the other side. Message – religious leaders do not help. Yep – sounds like Jesus.

Here is then the turning point in the story. Who would be the third?

Two religious professionals so far – who would be the third? I think the money would have been on a layperson of some sort. Just an ordinary Jewish person. . . . and they would have then shown up, done it differently to the religious professional. So today we might have had a minister of the word, a deacon and then a lay member of the congregation. You would have had John Evans, Wes Campbell and then Shirley Johnson. However, this story of Jesus comes out like a minister, a deacon and then a Frenchman. The third person is not in the sequence. Worse. The third person  was a hated Samaritan. For us that might have been a minister, a deacon and Osma Bin Laden, or some well known drug dealer.

This must have been a riveting shock to the lawyer, and to Jesus’ hearers. The stories categories have been totally altered. They have moved from religion, to ethnicity or race; and what is more, this person who is obviously going to be the focus of the story is actually an enemy. (Even note that Luke introduces a discussion of Samaritans in the end of the previous chapter – how Samaritans rejected Jesus and his disciples and James and John wanted to bring down the wrath of God on this village.) This was extreme choice.

Now remember you are in the ditch. The person approaching you is the last person you want touching you. I’m sure you would resist if you could, but you can’t, you are completely broken, nearly dead. The religious types had seen and moved on; this Samaritan comes near and sees – and actually is touched, “moved with pity”. Then follows a remarkable out pouring of compassion. In Greek 12 verbs follow. “Moved with pity … went … bandaged …having poured ….put him ….brought him….took care of him …took out two denarii …gave them …said …take care of him…I will repay.” Yes there are no less then twelve verbs which follow, which unpack this person’s care and mercy. Here, typical of Jesus’ stories – is extravagance; here extravagant  love. Compassion is shown as a steady, generous consistency of deeds. It is more than just a one stop – it takes care into the future; and not just the here and now. It is extravagant – and so when asked who was the neighbour – any objection over race, or ethnic hatred – is stifled at the outset. There is no doubt – even coming from a Samaritan – this is love.

The story is over – and the question then comes to the lawyer. Which of these three was neighbour? As we see, the lawyer cannot answer directly, but says the “one doing mercy with him.” And so like Jesus had previously said with regard to keeping the law, “do this and you shall live’”. Here he simply says “go and do likewise.” There is however here a profound shift. A neighbour is not the object of one’s love. This was the point of the lawyer’s question. He believed there were limits to the object of one’s love. Jesus however, in the story, makes the neighbour, the Samaritan, the subject, the doer of love.  The search for the right person, right recipient of our care, is subverted. We lying in the ditch all of a sudden had a new, amazing, shocking neighbour – who showed compassion and love towards us.  And we are told to do likewise. . . but it is hard  – we can’t associate such love and behaviour, with these Samaritans. Can it be that even Samaritans, love others?

Paul Duke observes: “The parable, an apparent reply to a question posed from a (smug) position of control and power, hurls us into a position of no control. We are set down into a horrid place of life and death need, spurned by the upright who find us abhorrent, then shocked by our enemy’s extravagant kindness.”

Duke suggests – the parable abandons us. And there in our abandonment as the victim – these could be some of our conclusions.

1. Our questions about who is my neighbour are really patronising and selfish. They just want to limit  our love.

2. We are left to ponder what it is like being in a ditch – needing any neighbour.

3. We are left overwhelmed with the wonder of extravagant love.

4. And yes we are to show love – to do likewise. We can show compassion because it has been shown to us.

There is finally something just lingering here in this story about the nature of God’s love to us. A pointer to the final mystery about our life. . . remember the lawyer’s initial question of wanting to have eternal life – the fullness of life. Again Duke writes.

“We have been joined in the ditches where we were dying, by the One we did not choose, borne out on terrifying arms that we might have resisted but cannot, and covered in costly compassion we cannot repay. In short we live now by the mercy of the Samaritan God and a Samaritan Christ.”

2 Kings 5:1-14
Psalm 30
Galatians 6:(1-6), 7-16
Luke 10:1-11, 16-20

Here is something to ponder. Has the cross, just the plain cross, become more than a just Christian symbol. Yes it is a Christian symbol, but is it actually now secular? Consider jewelry, road side shrines – those white crosses marking where someone has died, or war cemeteries. Has the cross been secularised . .  or at least its symbolism secularised?

Just a couple of weeks ago the US Supreme Court had to consider this matter. (Today is the 4th July so there is some American flavor!)  The dispute concerned a large plain cross which was a war memorial in California’s Mojave Desert. The US, at least according to its constitution, endeavours to maintain a separation between church and state. Certainly the state cannot establish any religion. So could this cross remain as a war memorial? On a split vote, the Supreme Court ruled that it could. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in speaking for the majority said “one plain cross in the desert evokes far more than religion . . . it evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles.” In other words, the cross is more than a Christian symbol.

The decision has been greeted rapturously by conservative evangelical Christians. Here was permission for a Christian symbol to be used in a public place. Here was a sign that the US was a Christian nation. God was winning the battle! This was a victory for the Christians. And perhaps quoting from our gospel reading – “the harvest is plentiful and the labourers are few” (Luke 10:2) they saw this as another sign of winning more souls for Christ.

There was a minority view also expressed in the case. Justice John Paul Stevens simply observed “making a plain, unadorned Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross secular.” In other words, it still was a religious symbol and there should be separation of church and state.

The cross of Christ features prominently in our reading from Galatians. We have here the final postscript to this controversial and fiery letter Paul sent off to the Galatians community. Up until this point, he had been dictating the letter to a secretary, or some assistant. He however, now just wants to conclude by taking over the letter himself – see I write in large letters!

A couple of weeks ago, I looked at the background to this letter. Today’s little postscript is a summary of  Paul’s argument. It is a succinct statement just to make sure that the Galatians have got the message.

Paul’s concern was that after he had been with the infant church in Galatia, another group  – a group of Jewish Christians, had convinced the Galatians that they had to be Jews first, before they could be Christians. In particular, for the blokes – they had to be circumcised. As we have seen over recent weeks Paul was furious – this was a diminution, nay more than that – a complete abrogation – of the freedom Christians have because of Christ.

So this is Paul’s last “go” at the Galatians for following these Jewish-Christian missionaries. However, how he does this is interesting. Listen to Eugene Peterson’s take on what Paul saw as being the real problem.

“ 11-13Now, in these last sentences, I want to emphasize in the bold scrawls of my personal handwriting the immense importance of what I have written to you. These people who are attempting to force the ways of circumcision on you have only one motive: They want an easy way to look good before others, lacking the courage to live by a faith that shares Christ’s suffering and death. All their talk about the law is hot air. They themselves don’t keep the law! And they are highly selective in the laws they do observe. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast of their success in recruiting you to their side. That is contemptible!””

So not only had these later missionaries to Galatia got their theology wrong (they misunderstood that Jesus actually means freedom); their motive for what they are doing was contemptible. They were just “wanting to look good before others”. What do we call it – pride! Looking good before others is an easy thing to do – if religion and faith is all about numbers, bums on seats, or observable phenomena – like how many people have been circumcised; or how many you have gained in the harvest of souls. It was their motive that Paul sees here as being a problem.

You may remember TS Elliot’s play Murder in the Cathedral about the martyrdom of Thomas Becket. Three tempters confront Becket attempting to dissuade him from his act of defiance to the King. An act of defiance which will most certainly cost him his life – and as it happens, does. He rebuffs each of their advances. But then a more interesting, subtle Fourth Tempter arrives. “What is your counsel?” asks Becket. The Tempter urges him to embrace martyrdom.

But think, Thomas, think of glory after death.

When king is dead, there’s another king,

And one more king is another reign.

King is forgotten, when another shall come:

Saint and Martyr rule from the tomb.

Think, Thomas, think of enemies dismayed,

Creeping in penance, frightened of a shade;

Think of pilgrims, standing in line

Before the glittering jewelled shrine,

From generation to generation

Bending the knee in supplication,

Think of the miracles, by God’s grace,

And think of your enemies, in another place.

Thomas is thus urged to succumb to martyrdom, but to do so in the grip of the cardinal sin of pride and the longing for vengeance.

What can compare with the glory of Saints

Dwelling forever in the presence of God?

What earthly glory, of king or emperor,

What earthly pride, that is not poverty

Compared with richness of heavenly grandeur?

Seek the way of martyrdom, make yourself the lowest

On earth, to be high in heaven.

And see far off below you, where the gulf is fixed,

Your persecutors, in timeless torment,

Parched passion, beyond expiation.

It is the temptations that are couched in religious terms which are the most powerful. It was the allure of martyrdom for Thomas. Now having martyrs is not a bad thing – however, martyrdom is not something a person believes they are choosing. That is for others to determine, it is for God to see, that your selfless sacrifice is indeed martyrdom. Death in a religious cause does not equal martyrdom.

And so also having a more overtly Christian flavor to the public square seems laudable – that’s not a bad thing. And it is not a bad thing to have more card carrying Christians around, however, with the US Supreme Court case about the cross – we risk an enormous diminution, no abrogation – of what the cross actually means if it just becomes yet another cultural symbol.

And also for the people at Galatia, as Paul was at pains to argue – the Jewish law, the covenant with Moses, were not bad or wrong things. They had their purpose – remember, Paul says the law is like a tutor who would guide you to achieve a personal goal in life. But Paul also wants to say, you Galatians have been used by people who just want to show before others how good they are. They just do not understand the essence of the Christian message. . . which is the Cross of Christ.

Again lets us hear from Peterson.

‘14-16For my part, I am going to boast about nothing but the Cross of our Master, Jesus Christ. Because of that Cross, I have been crucified in relation to the world, set free from the stifling atmosphere of pleasing others and fitting into the little patterns that they dictate. Can’t you see the central issue in all this? It is not what you and I do—submit to circumcision, reject circumcision. It is what God is doing, and he is creating something totally new, a free life! All who walk by this standard are the true Israel of God—his chosen people. Peace and mercy on them!

17Quite frankly, I don’t want to be bothered anymore by these disputes. I have far more important things to do—the serious living of this faith. I bear in my body scars from my service to Jesus.”

Paul is dramatically advocating – as we used to speak of in the 1960’s, and I think which never really understood – “religionless Christianity”. The essence of the faith – without all the moralizing! Paul wants to attack these judaisers, these missionaries, who probably were good people – because all they were peddling was religion and morality. Paul wants to say, the gospel of Christ is different. It is about creating all things news. A new creation!  It is the cross – the cross of Christ which is at the heart of the Christian message. . . not religion and rules. It is the cross which destroys pride, like we see with the Fourth Tempter of Thomas Becket. It is the cross which challenges all what we might see as accomplishments – position, wealth and power and numbers. The most insidious temptation  – the one faced in Galatia – is the temptation to boast of  moral or religious superiority. The cross destroys such boasting and focuses our eyes upon Jesus and his self giving, and the truth of God’s love for us. The truth of God’s love for us. This is why Paul, again and again in his letters says that he can only boast in the cross of Christ; nothing else.

This is why there is a new creation. The breaking in of God’s redemptive power has triggered this conflict with the old order – with the powers and the vested interests of the way it used to be. This is the freedom we have in Christ. This is my understanding of what it means being a liberal Christian, and not being, say, a conservative Christian. A liberal being a person who understands about freedom. It is all about the freedom as a result of the cross of Christ.

Of course as Paul shows this is not easy. . .and he, as always is not backward about giving advice. So he reminds his hearers that his body bears the scars from his service to Jesus. The essence of his life – is his serious living of this faith. And it is why, as Paul shows earlier in this final chapter to the Galatians – that the Christian community becomes so important. . . it is this community which has to interpret and be – this new creation. So Paul suggests a new model – to patterns of power and structure which have always been in religious organisations. For him the church becomes an extended family of mutual responsibility – bearing each others burdens and fulfilling the law of Christ. It is not by outward shows of religiosity, as the Galatians had slipped into – it is by being a faithful community of love, support and fulfilling the law of Christ.

So is the cross a secular symbol? Well Perhaps.

It however, remains at the centre of the Christian faith.