View or print as a PDF

Pentecost 5
23/6/2024

Job 38:1-11
Psalm 20
Mark 4:35-41

---

The opposite of faith is not unbelief but fearing the wrong thing.

‘Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing’?

Until this week, the assumption of perhaps every thought I have ever had about this question – and probably every sermon I have heard on it – is, Yes, Jesus does care – of course, Jesus cares. The evidence for this is that he stills the storm. Is this not what care would look like: noticing and acting?

Let’s affirm that Jesus does care, while allowing that closer attention to the story undermines confidence in too easy a ‘Yes’ in response to the desperate question, Do you not care? Or, perhaps more to the point for those in that boat and us in ours, we might enquire more deeply of this story just what the care of Jesus looks like.

Crucial to all this is that Jesus has to be woken up in order to be made aware of a storm which has scared the b’Jesus into all his friends. The disciples presume, not unreasonably, that one has to be conscious to care. And so, pun (w)holy intended, they effectively ask, For Christ’s sake, Jesus; how can you sleep at a time like this?

The gospel’s answer to this is that it is precisely for the Christ’s sake that he sleeps – not because the Christ is tired and needs to catch up on his rest but because there is nothing present of sufficient moment to warrant him waking; there is nothing to worry about.

This is too much, of course, if the story were about a few blokes in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that were all that the story told, then there is plenty to worry about and plenty to do, and the disciples are right to be holding on very tight with one hand and bailing frantically with the other. But this is not the point of the story – the point of telling the story.

The storm is not stilled to demonstrate that Jesus cares and will meet our sense of what we need. The wind and the waves are stilled in order that Jesus might be heard – a still, small voice cutting through the wild night. He needs to be heard, not to deny or do away with the wild and frightening things, but that those things be relegated – be put in their right place – in the hearts and minds of the disciples.

And what is it we are to hear? What is it for which the storm is stilled?

‘Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?’

By this Jesus does not mean, “Can’t you fix this yourself?” Of course they can’t. ‘Have you no faith?’ means, “These are only wind and waves.     Fear. Only. God.”

The care Jesus demonstrates here is not that he will still the storms about us. There is no promise in the story that the storm will be stilled. Jesus will himself soon succumb to a perfect storm of fear and suspicion, and a few of those in the boat will perish in other religious and political storms over the next 20 or 30 years. Many interpreters of this passage see this story, in fact, as written specifically for those later situations, as an answer to their pressing question: Does God care what is now happening to the church?

God does care what is happening to the church, but in the sense of, “Why is my church timid? Why does it cower?” Does it imagine that hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword will separate it from me (Romans 8.35)? We are again in the space we have visited the last couple of weeks – Adam and Eve, suddenly afraid when they notice their vulnerability (a vulnerability which was always there), and then our own disorientations and sense of vulnerability as a few reliable foundations have shaken and buildings fallen, and we’ve had to take wing until we find somewhere else to nestle into again.

Have you no faith? Why the so timid, fearful?

The stance Jesus takes before the wind and the waves is the same stance he takes in the face of the cross: there is, finally, nothing to fear here. It is scarcely pleasant – it will sometimes even be hell – but if God was indeed crucified on that ancient Friday, then hell is not beyond God’s attention, and hell doesn’t change that, finally, we belong not to the devil but to God. All this is true all of the time – as the funeral service puts it – in strength and in weakness, in achievement and in failure, in the brightness of joy and in the darkness of despair.

We. Belong. To God.

The ‘climate’ – what is going on in the world around us – is not a indicator of where God is or is not.

Notice that, in this way of thinking about the story, it matters not one jot whether Jesus could actually command the wind and the waves. For all that we have said, the story is irrelevant if we seek evidence about whether Jesus was a miracle-worker or not. We notice most of all the calming of the waters and the wind, and much less the word which the calming makes it possible to hear: Do not cower here; have you no faith?

This is the hard part of the story, and not the miracle. And so at the end the disciples fall back in terror, now at Jesus and no longer at the storm. The shock is not merely that Jesus commands the storm, but that he has no fear of it. For the story, these two things are the same.

And so Jesus says not to us, You could have done this yourself, had you the faith. He declares rather, If the god I am is God, your life is not to be a fearful one. Faith is knowing what or whom to fear, and what not to fear. The opposite of faith is not unbelief but fearing the wrong thing. Faith is knowing what does, and does not, own us.

We will likely be afraid on high seas, for all the obvious reasons. The storm might be a threatening diagnosis; the unbearably quiet house brought by bereavement; the loss of a job; missiles lobbed from over the border; public embarrassment; the impending divorce (or even the impending marriage!).

We will likely be afraid in such situations for all the obvious reasons. Yet, in such storms – wild or still – Jesus asks, And what is it about this place you know but is not obvious? I am with you always. You are mine. You are mine.

In all such things, you are – together in the boat, as a community of love and mutual support – more than conquerors through the one who loves you. There is nothing to fear but that we might fear what is unworthy of fear.

Do not be afraid. There are more important things to do.

View or print as a PDF

Pentecost 2
2/6/2024

1 Samuel 3:1-20
Psalm 139
Mark 2:23-3:6

Sermon preached by Andrew Gador-Whyte

---

Why do we come to church? Well, one of the reasons is to listen in order to learn to speak. To learn to speak in imitation of Christ. To learn to speak for, even on behalf of, Jesus Christ in the world. In other words, we come to church to learn how to blaspheme.

More on whatever that is supposed to mean in a moment. But first, let’s consider our passage from 1 Samuel. We often recall this as a cute story about the childlike openness of the young Samuel’s faith. And of course, this passage is very much about childlike openness to God’s calling. Jesus has a lot to say about that. Faith is always a gradual learning to listen with simplicity. Faith is the habitual opening of ourselves to hear God’s voice – in the ordinary ways God speaks to us, and with a willingness to be surprised by the miraculous.

And in fact, each of us is in Samuel’s position. All the vivid appearances of God like this in the Old Testament point us towards God’s coming in Jesus of Nazareth. And the baptism that we share is a baptism into a shared prophetic ministry.

But clearly this passage is also about God’s judgement against the blasphemy that has become established in the holy place. ‘The word of the Lord was rare and visions were not widespread.’ There is something seriously awry in the life of the nation. The temple at Shiloh has become a place of exploitation and immorality because of the actions of the sons of Eli. The sons are presented as hardened criminals. God will judge them, and will also judge Eli who said the right things but did not act to restrain them.

What’s clear here and throughout the Bible is that there is a close connection between blasphemy in the strict sense and injustice in national life. Blasphemy in the most basic sense is the misuse of the Name of God, it’s the subject of the Third Commandment. It’s irreverence or untruthfulness in speech and worship, and like the sin of idolatry it has far-reaching implications when it has become established in the life of God’s people. What is done in speech about God, is done to our sisters and brothers. Think of Isaiah’s railing against fraudulent weights and measures. Or James exposing the blasphemy of sympathetic words with no intention to act for the other’s good. Or Jesus’ anger at those standing in the way of their neighbour’s healing on the sabbath.

Blasphemy is not a ‘religious’ sin. Misuse of the name of God and disobedience of the law relating to worship are a sign of disordered priorities, of abuses allowed to take root in a society. God’s indignation against blasphemous practices at the temple is not a petulant taking of offense by God. It’s a judgement against those given authority to serve at the heart of national life, but who are abusing and misleading the people. It’s a judgement against the refusal of the gift of God, a gift we must acknowledge our complete dependence on.

In the one baptism we have been adopted into, we share in one prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministry. That is, of course, Jesus’ ministry, which we have been made members of. In baptism, we have been met, like Samuel, by God speaking to us face to face. Jesus has given us an authority we did not choose for ourselves, an authority which we will have to grow into and live out of our own integrity and adult exercise of conscience.

What we are all baptised into is a shared life of learning truthful and reverent speech: of holding one another to account for truthfulness and reverence. Reverence in speech has often been conflated with politeness, but, actually, the Bible is never polite. And likewise, reverence can be confused with deference to an unjust social order. But true reverence in speech is the confidence that our speech is not ultimately our own. Our words are ours to use in the worship of God in the marketplace, the workplace, the law court, the home, the Lord’s house. And reverence is the confidence that, by the grace of God, our ordinary words can be God’s gift for our neighbour’s healing and growing into maturity.

There is no part of our lives where God cannot be trusted to be at work, revealing himself, redeeming the time, standing in judgement over and against our untruthfulness. For much of our lives, the way we hear God is not from God coming and standing before us, as he appears to Samuel. We ordinarily hear God speaking in and through our neighbour. God wills that we encounter Christ, scripture, sacrament not through the Self-Serve, but as a gift given through our sisters and brothers. Here we train one another up in the grammar of truthful speech.

What Jesus tells us is that our culture needs us to maintain an absolute respect for the truth. Think of his words about simplicity and truthfulness in speech: ‘let your yes be yes and your no be no: anything else comes from the evil one.’ Our world needs us to maintain a profound reverence for the world not as a final end in itself, but as the fragile and complicated place God claimed to be his cradle.

Our world is, we continue to discover, a blasphemous world – a world needing to be redeemed by reverence for the truth. It’s a world in which hospitals and refugee camps have been treated as targets. Where euphemisms for killing are piled upon euphemisms. Where freedom of speech is asserted as a licence to abuse and spread lies. Where there is no proper respect for secrets and the sanctity of the interior life.

It’s a world in which anti-vaxers or pro-vaxers, or more tragically, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli voices, have been taken to be blasphemers and treated as though they had forfeited a claim to the basic generosity that structures society. We are part of a world where blasphemy is taken for right speech. We are people of unclean lips, and we live among a people of unclean lips. This is the world to which we have been yoked as apprentices in a prophetic vocation. This is a world that needs us to keep learning the grammar of reverence for life.

So then – what then do we make of Jesus the Blasphemer? Jesus repeatedly transgresses the law. He heals on the sabbath. He touches the infected, he socialises with people who are not in a state of grace. He overturns the tables of the temple traders changing secular money into sacred. We read the Gospels in a serious voice, but Jesus’ parables are often funny, ironic, irreverent in exposing our hypocrisy and hardness of heart. Jesus is held to be a blasphemer in claiming to be greater than Moses, the Son of the Blessed One, I Am. And it is precisely as a blasphemer that Jesus is condemned to death.

The New Testament does not give us an easy formula for reconciling the givenness of the law and the cavalier way Jesus transgresses it. We can only witness Jesus’ freedom here as authoritative reverence and truthfulness, bringing to light our darkness. Jesus’ blasphemy reveals that much that is held as sacred in the world is idolatry, lies, self-projection, or simply violence.

As with Samuel, the risen Jesus meets us face to face, speaking our name. And seeing the risen Christ, we recognise that we had been so profoundly enmeshed in the worship of our own security, that we refused the gift of God that is the blasphemy of Jesus of Nazareth.

But God will not allow our refusal of the gift to have the last word. Because, we can trust that, most often through our sisters and brothers, Christ will call us by name as he called Samuel, confronting us and calling us into service.

Visions are not widespread in our blasphemous times. But we may open ourselves to the grace of God, who trains us through our life together to speak with truth and reverence. Which may, of course, be to speak with laughter, with irony, with irreverence in a culture where euphemisms and lies justify the buildup of weapons. Speak, Lord, for your servants are listening, and teach us your holy blasphemy.

View or print as a PDF

Trinity Sunday
26/5/2024

Isaiah 6:1-8
Psalm 29
John 3:1-17

---

“Whom shall I send? ”, cries the God of Isaiah’s vision. And the wannabe prophet responds, “Here am I Lord. Send me. ”

This is often read as a text for missionaries, even for the mission of the church as a whole. God seeks voices to testify to God’s truth, and Isaiah’s enthusiasm serves as the perfect motivational text for the individual wondering whether she is called into the ordained ministries or for a church wondering whether it needs to be jolted into action. God’s “Whom shall I send?” seeks the willing response, “Here am I, Lord. Send me. ”

So far, so comfortably pious. But Isaiah’s vision continues in the verses which follow those we’ve heard this morning but to which our reading rarely extends. “Go then”, said the Lord, “and say to the people”… What?

• That they should be a diverse community?
• That it’s time for a restructure?
• That God will wipe away every tear from their eyes?

Nah. Go then, said the Lord, and say to the people:

“Keep listening, but do not comprehend;
keep looking, but do not understand. ”

Make the mind of this people dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes,

so that they may not look with their eyes, and [not] listen with their ears,

and [not] comprehend with their minds, [so that they may not] turn and be healed.

“I send you to them”, says the Lord, “so that they may not see, may not listen, may not understand. ” This is not what we expect…

And it gets worse. Then Isaiah said, “How long, O Lord? ”

¹¹ …And [the Lord] said:
‘Until cities lie waste
without inhabitant,

and houses without people,
and the land is utterly desolate;

¹² until the Lord sends everyone far away,
and vast is the emptiness in the midst of the land.

¹³ Even if a tenth part remains in it,
it will be burned again,

like a terebinth or an oak
whose stump remains standing
when it is felled. ’

In view of all this, there comes to mind the question of Nicodemus in our Gospel reading this morning: How can these things be?

How can it be that we must be born again?

How can it be that God is not tame?

How can it be that our part in the mission of God might just be to proclaim and enact until the land is utterly desolate?

It’s not for nothing that these verses are rarely included when Isaiah’s vision pops up in the lectionary. The lectionary sometimes seems to want to protect us from the more difficult biblical judgements. Or, perhaps, the lectionary wants to protect God. If we leave a few verses out, we can stitch a couple of fig leaves over God’s confronting nakedness, because a God whose proclamation doesn’t improve things would seem to be a useless God; better to cover that uselessness up by not reading a few things.

How can such things be? Is ministry not about trying to help the people to hear, to see, and to understand? Is mission not about making a discernable difference – an improvement? Do we not seek to avert the encroaching desolation and emptiness?

It is in the thick of the choking incense, ears filled with the shrieks of the burning seraphim, and dripping with perspiration from the scorching heat of the altar, that Isaiah cries out, “Send me, Lord”. But this is not to say that the smoke lifts or the noise or heat subsides. The powerful Assyrians are coming, and Isaiah’s ministry will be to ride the wave of the Assyrian onslaught to its very bitter end.

If we claim Isaiah’s “Send me” for the mission of the church itself, is the call on us to ride out some coming desolation? To put it more pointedly, who would be a minister of the gospel or a member of a congregation in a mainstream liberal Western denomination here and now, in what looks very much like the twilight of the church, quite apart from what’s happening in the wider world?

“How long, O Lord?”, cries Isaiah. And the Lord replies, Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and churches without people.

What kind of mission is this? Can we bear it?

We must do “something”, of course. The Uniting Church Assembly’s final report of its Act2 process has just been released with its recommendations for a reorganisation of the church. It is “something” and a response to a real problem. But there is not a lot of preaching into the desolation to be found on all those pages – not a lot of what we might call a theological realism which recognises the grim possibilities as much as those which enthusiasm can see.

– – – – – – – – – –

Negotiating all this hinges very much on what we think desolation means and, more importantly, whose desolation it is.

Consider the following Christian hijacking of Isaiah’s vocation:

I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphs were in attendance above him; …and one called to another and said. “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory. ” The pivots on the thresholds shook at the voices of those who called, and the house filled with smoke. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? ”

And a voice responded, “Here am I, Father, send me. ”

Go, then, said the Father, and become a parable. Let them listen but not understand, see but not perceive, hear but not respond. Become the sacrament of their dullness and deafness and blindness.

And then the Son asked, “How long, Father? ” And the Father said, until you are made an emptiness in the midst of the land, burned and burned again like a tree which has been cut down – until you have taken the vast, vast, vast emptiness of the godforsaken and made it our very own desolation.

And so, as love for the world, God sent the only Son to become a desolation, that all who believe in him might have fullness of life.

– – – – – – –

We fear desolation, for it is the loss of ourselves and the loss of God. And so we wince at the thought of it, and even more so at the suggestion that there is nothing we can do about it – nothing even which God will do about it. We look rather for a way out, a solution to whatever crisis threatens emptiness, and we expect of ourselves a capacity to rise to meet the threat and turn it aside.

This is the “fix-it” mentality which treats the world as a problem and our technological ingenuity – our strategies, our negotiations – as the answer.

But the world is not a problem which can be fixed; it is a mystery within which to live. Here and there, of course, we can do “something” to make a difference, and we should where we can. But what was bearing down on Isaiah’s people was not their doing (though the prophets make a causal link), just as their prosperity in other times was not God’s blessing. The mission of prophet, of evangelist and of church, is not to bring solutions to problems. It is to name mysteries. It is to bring into the mix an account of God, the world and ourselves which calls hearers to a different seeing and a different being.

The preaching of Isaiah into the desolation is not God’s condemnation of the people, and neither is it the offering of a solution to the crisis bearing down on them. Isaiah’s word is the sign of God’s faithfulness. It is God seeing us, comprehending us to the very end. The word of truth, the wisdom at the heart of creation, the secret – the mystery – of all things, this doesn’t change as those things themselves change. God is faithful: the Word of life is still spoken.

And so, in Jesus, God himself rides the desolating wave to its very bitter end in the cross, in order that we might know something other than bitterness. Because now, when we arrive at the end, we find that God is already there, in the wormwood and the gall. Our lives – our joys and our desolations – are not problems to solve but mysteries to be lived. Should we be consigned to desolation, it is already God’s own desolation. The where-it-wills freedom of the Spirit is not divine unpredictability but our confidence that nothing can be outside God.

We worry about how much we see and hear and comprehend, and so we plan, and report, and budget. And all this is OK – it is a form of prayer. But this is less important than knowing ourselves to have been seen, to have been heard, and to have been comprehended. Send me, says the Son, and we will know their desolation, so that they will know that nowhere they go is finally godless.

We’ve read the headlines and heard the dark foreshadowings of today’s prophets. If they are right, it matters not. As we pray through our many efforts to avert the next threatened disaster, we do so in the knowledge God has already been where we are going. God has been to us.

Step into tomorrow, cries the voice from the throne. Go where I have gone, and I will meet you there.

This is the God in whom we live and move and will have our being, our end and our beginning, wherever we find ourselves.

“Who will go with us, and live into whatever comes next?”, asks Isaiah’s God, and ours.

Here are we, Lord. Take us.

View or print as a PDF

Pentecost
19/5/2024

Ezekiel 37:1-14
Psalm 102
Acts 2:1-21
John 15:26-27, 16:4-15

Sermon preached by Rev. Dr Peter Blackwood

---

There are some things that are just too hard to talk about. Some things defy description. Take God for example. How can you talk about God? Our basic senses of sight and hearing and smell and so forth, they can’t perceive God, so how can we put language to the divine and how can we tell what God is like?

In the face of this great difficulty many have concluded that there is no God. Millions have come to another conclusion and their conviction has demanded that they find words to tell of their experience of the God they cannot see or hear or taste or smell or feel but who unmistakably is revealed to them, by what means, again, language struggles to make clear.

One form of language that is helpful for explaining the inexplicable is story telling. Philosophers and theologians can give us tightly packed arguments that help us understand who God is but the story teller philosopher and the theologian who spins a yarn is also the purveyor of truth.

St Luke was such a theologian. When he told the story of God coming among the friends of Jesus as a rushing wind and as tongues of fire the story teller preacher was at his best. But is that what really happened, those things Luke said about 3,000 converts in one hit? Maybe they did. John’s gospel describes the giving of the Spirit differently so one or both of them could be wrong in the details, but each is describing a truth through a story. What is the truth about God that Luke is saying in his dramatic and energetic story?

Well, Luke is starting by saying that God is dramatic and energetic. He also deals with the delicate issue of how God seems to be revealed to some people and not to others, or that some people perceive God and others make fun of those who do. So Luke tells of a house filled with wind and flames alighting on the disciples.

In this scene there is the inner group of Jesus followers who are the ones who receive the Spirit of God and there are all the others. The idea of ‘them and us’ is a very uncomfortable one for Luke who understands that in Jesus Christ God intends that all people come within God’s rescue plan. He cannot get away from the fact that some people know God and others don’t so those who do go all out to make God, who was known to them in Jesus, and who is alive in them through this gift of the Spirit, – to make God known to all other people. Luke is very particular about who this means. He includes in his story of drama and energy the strange phenomenon of people understanding speech across all the linguistic barriers. People from all nations and tongues can receive this gift. This is not a ‘them and us’ situation. This is a for everyone event. Bringing different national groups together was a vital issue for Luke. His understanding of who God is includes the idea that God made all people and desires all people to be reconciled to God and to each other. He understood that part of the task of the followers of Jesus is to make this known to all people and that God would be in that task breaking down the barriers.

So why would Luke have been so interested in God and race relations? Was it just a disembodied theological concept, that because God made all people, all people should be reconciled to one another. Why should that follow? Why not allow that different races have their different places where God put them? Let them get on with each other in their own places? No! In our experience and in Luke’s experience it simply does not work that way. Race relations were as much an issue and a threat to world peace for Luke and his world as it is for us and our world. He saw minority groups oppressed by occupying forces. He saw attempts at ethnic cleansing. He and his church experienced separation from family roots and alienation from their spiritual homelands.

Luke was convinced that reconciliation between all people was God’s will and the Spirit’s power to achieve and that God called men and women into that ministry of reconciliation.

Over the years Rob Gallacher and I have had requests to provide photos of icons for the front cover of the devotional aid With Love to the World. A few years ago I was asked for a photo for the Pentecost edition. The result is on the front of today’s order of service. With Love to the World is a publication of the Uniting Church. One of the characteristics of the Uniting Church is that it is made up congregations of different ethnicities. On a festival occasion when the church hears again the story of the power of the Holy Spirit enabling people of all languages to hear Peter’s sermon I wanted to find a way to celebrate our church’s diversity and a unity found by the pouring of the Spirit. In the icon Peter stands holding words from Joel 2:18, ‘God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh’. Peter stands on a kind of pavement made up of translations of that text in some of the languages of ethnic congregations of the Uniting Church – Tongan, Chinese, Indonesian, Korean and Tamil and Garrwa, spoken by First Peoples of Australia living near the Gulf of Carpentaria’s coastline.

Back when the icon was painted I offered it as a prayer of thanks for a unity found in diversity. Today it is offered in a world tearing itself apart because of its diversity, where nations head towards Ezekiel’s vision of a valley of dry bones. Can current conflicts end in any other way than death? Ezekiel’s vision poses our questions; ‘[God] said to me, “Mortal, can these bones live?” I answered, “O Lord God, you know.”’ (Ezekiel 37:3)

As I use this word of Scripture to offer a word of hope from God, I am conflicted. Ezekiel offered his word to Israel in Babylon’s captivity. If the icon of Peter at Pentecost is a prayer as proclaimed by Joel declaring that God’s Spirit will be poured out on ALL flesh, then Ezekiel’s vision must address today’s world rather then an ancient time. The context for this Scripture needs translation to our time. Also, it is word that needs to be addressed to people rather than to nations and their governments. In answer to the question, ‘Can these bones live?’ God says, ‘you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people. I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live …’ (Ezekiel 37:13f). My prayer is that this be a word of hope – for Israelis and Palestinians, for Ukrainians and Russians, for all victims of aggression and their perpetrators. To them, and to us, God says, ‘you shall live.’

View or print as a PDF

Easter 7
12/5/2024

Acts 1:15-17, 21-26
Psalm 1
John 17:6-19

Sermon preached by Rev. Dr Peter Blackwood

---

It is Mothers’ Day, and so long as we know who our mothers are, we can be pretty sure how we belong in our families. Because we know who mum is we know we don’t belong to the family next door. Because we know who mum is we know a lot of things about ourselves – why our skin is the colour it is, why our language and accent is the way it is – all sorts of things.

But we don’t just belong to a mother. We are not just members of our families. We are members of all kinds of groups. We are keenly aware of some of our groups when the national anthem plays or the football siren sounds. I remember an American preacher, James Glasse, explaining how he knew who he was by knowing who he wasn’t. He and his friends told stories about the black people. That’s how he knew he was white. They told stories about the Catholics. That’s how he knew he was Protestant, and so on.

One of the strong messages I have received through my formative years and beyond is that we are all members of the human race, all equal in the sight of God, all destined under his mercy and good favour. It was pretty easy to be convinced of this, living in an upper middle class suburb of a city equal in wealth and sophistication to any of the great cities of the modern world – pretty easy living during a post war migration scheme under a white Australia policy – pretty easy living under a policy for Aborigines that advocated assimilation, a policy that my church went along with. Under that policy I joined church work parties to build houses for Aboriginal families in country towns through NSW.

Then things became confused for me. People my age were going to university and were seeing Australia’s involvement in Vietnam differently from how the government saw the conflict. A petition did the rounds of my church objecting to the visit by the rugby union Springbok team from South Africa. I was confused. I didn’t know what apartheid was. Suddenly it was not as easy as it had all seemed. Brotherly love was not going to sweep through the world and make us all God’s loving children. (I hadn’t heard about sisterly love yet.)

But at least the church was on the right track, surely. There was talk of church union. Of three denominations coming together in Australia. This must surely be an irresistibly good thing to do. To my dismay the church was divided over the issue. I was a member of the NSW Assembly, and to my horror the vote went ‘no’ and the moderator could scarcely contain his joy and I saw the sorrow on the faces of the ministers and elders who had voted for union as they lined up at the table to record their dissent from the majority decision.

It wasn’t easy any more to hope for peace and goodwill in the world or in the church. The church and the world is departmentalised.

Now, as I read the scriptures I discover it was ever thus. In Jesus’ prayer for his disciples in John’s gospel there is a distinct them and usness about it. Jesus is praying for his disciples and not for the world. The disciples are in the world but they have been given into Jesus charge and he has not lost one of them. Jesus is in the world too but he is soon to be removed from the world. The disciples will remain in the world but they will not be of the world because the world hates them, so Jesus prays that the evil one, who is of the world will not bring them to harm.

Why couldn’t John say that Jesus prayed for the world too? What was going on in John’s church that prompts the recording of this prayer? In John’s church as in any group of people, there are those people who do not live up to the group’s ideals. When some of these people aspire to leadership in the group then you get political conflict. This causes uncertainty in the group. In the church, when there is uncertainty over ideals, it calls in question our certainty of our place within God’s loving care. John’s gospel is at pains to assure the faithful that they are in God’s loving care. The problem is that within the community of God’s care there are those who don’t really belong. Among the disciples there was one – Judas Iscariot. There he was in the community of the faithful, but until his betrayal, the faithful did not know that he did not really belong.

In John’s church there were people who left the community during time of persecution. How could this be that the community of faith could have members that were not true to their membership? It was as if the true church was invisible, known only to God, for only God can read the heart. These are conclusions that a church under persecution came to so they could understand the apparent inconstancies of life around them. The church is the safe place where God’s love and care is known. The world is hostile to the church so how are we to understand God’s presence in the world? And how are we to understand signs of the world in the church? Answer: the true church is invisible except to God. The sign of the faithful will be those who love Jesus and you can tell those as the ones who keep his commandments, and his commandment is to love one another. So the church is visible in as much as we can see love in the church, but its edges may be very blurry.

Is that the only way to think about these things? Well, no. Paul saw the church as being perfectly visible. He saw sinners in the church, all they needed was a good talking to by his good self, they would change and all would be well. The church is full of saints and sinners and they all belong within God’s good grace.

The world is different today, and so is the church. The world and the church are still pretty blurry around the edges. The signs of the church are still the same. Jesus’ followers can still be told apart from the ones who love enough to obey his commandments of love. But if ever we thought that love would be restricted to within the community of the faithful, that time is not now. John taught his church that Jesus prayed for the church, and so he does, but the loving work of an inclusive church is to pray for the world.

Families will gather today to honour their mothers. They will have a sense of a particular belonging. Churches gather to honour Jesus. They have a sense of a particular belonging as they gather around the Lord’s table. They are mindful of their love for Jesus and Jesus’ love for them, and of God’s love for all creation.

View or print as a PDF

Easter 6
5/5/2024

1 John 1:5-9
Psalm 98
John 15:9-17

Sermon preached by Daniel Broadstock

---

‘Love one another as I have loved you.’

Today in our lectionary reading, Jesus recalls, or perhaps better to say, foreshadows, last week’s reading from the first letter of John. In that letter, John says:

‘Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.’

This reading forms part of what is called Jesus’ Farewell Discourse. The final series of solemn words that Jesus imparts to his disciples as they gather together in apprehensive and furtive communion with Jesus for the last time. As they begin to face the cold new possibility of going on without Jesus. As they wrestle with the prospect of being left alone in a hostile world. I can only imagine how they must have drunk in these words, memorising them, meditating on them, arguing over their meaning, parsing over them again and again for crumbs of guidance and comfort in the days ahead.

We might think of this sequence as a kind of spoken Last Will and Testament. I think it is important to see it that way because it is generally at the end of our lives that we clarify, amongst all the tumult and distraction and day-to-day ordinariness, what is really important. We distil what our lives have meant and what we hope for the future. We seek the company of those we love. We express with a decisive finality who we are. What Jesus chooses to say now, we should regard as of supreme importance. It is a final summation of who he is and what he teaches. He reveals to the disciples what previously has been concealed, and he names them as his equals. No longer servants, but friends.

And this is his final summation:

God is love. Love one another as I have loved you.

How often have we heard these phrases? If you had to distil Christianity down to its barest elements, you could do worse than those. God is love. Love one another.

How good are you at loving, friends?

I wonder if familiarity dulls us to these words and their radicalness. How can we hear them today as though for the first time? How can we access their urgency, their insistence, their revolutionary character, as they must have been for the disciples who hear them firsthand?

One way, I think, is to remind ourselves of the context in which they are spoken.

We know that the world of the first century was a universe teeming with gods. It was an intensely polytheistic place. For the ordinary Roman, or the Greek, or the Egyptian, the gods were an inherent reality of what you did and what you experienced. It was expected that they would play a role, either in favour, curse, or indifference, the small affairs of your day-to-day living, and the great affairs of your kingdom. To the gods who presided over every aspect of life, you would appeal for the success of your business, for the safe passage of your ships, for the health of your household, for advantageous and harmonious marriage, for victory in war and stability in peace.

But what were the gods like?

The most influential of the ancient gods has always been the Greek. It is they who preceded the development of the Roman gods, and whose mythology has shaped divine stories throughout history and its many cultures.

The foremost of the Greek gods was Zeus. Presiding over the pantheon of Olympus, Zeus reigned, having overthrown the Titans and their primordial parents. Zeus was the god of sky and thunder, honoured above all, and deserving of sacrifice and worship befitting his station. But Zeus was also married to the goddess Hera, and was serially unfaithful to her. Zeus was a god driven by his lust. Again and again, he would see a mortal woman and desire her. He would couple with her, and his children became the demigods. But very often these couplings were violent and brutal. Sometimes he would disguise himself to get what he wanted. Sometimes he used force. Zeus was, in blunt terms, a serial rapist.

Perhaps you have heard of Prometheus, the god who, taking pity on humanity, gave them the gift of fire. And Zeus, furious at this unsanctioned act of initiative, punished Prometheus by chaining him to a mountain and condemning him that every day an eagle should come and peck out his liver.

Or Poseidon, the god of the sea. He too was as power-hungry and rapacious as his brother Zeus, and on one occasion forced himself upon a woman named Medusa, or was then transformed by Athena into a snake-haired monster.

These were the gods of the ancient world. They were not always so brutally callous. And the mythological stories are, in part, moral tales that serve an instructive, ethical purpose as well as a religious one.

But the gods of the Greek pantheon could never be accused of being characterised by ‘love’. Certainly not in the way that we understand it, and the way that Jesus or John means it. All the love of the ancient gods was directly inwardly. They loved themselves. They loved their pride and their vanity and their desire. They loved power and they loved to exercise it.

That’s why the historian Tom Holland in his excellent book ‘Dominion’ asserts so strongly the impact that the Christian gospel of love has exercised on the Western view of ourselves and our place in the world. What a transformation it must have been for those who had spent their lives making sacrifices to the capricious and self-loving gods of the old Pantheon, to think that God might love them. Not just favour them, but to enfold Godself, by God’s very nature, into loving relationship with them through God’s given son.

It changed the world.

And it must continue to change the world, through us.

The most important thing to say about this love that changes the world, is that it is not a feeling. It is not a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain and is exhausted. Not sentimentality. Not a temporary feeling of passion or nostalgia. It is not affection. Affection and passion may accompany love, but love in this theological sense encompasses so much more than the heart that beats harder.

Love is the greatest of all the gifts of the spirit. Love is our law. It is our constitution. It is our judge and our government. It is our yardstick and our scale. It speaks in our heart in no uncertain terms, to tell us what it requires. Love longs for reconciliation and forgiveness. It insists on mercy. It is patient and it is kind. Love is not proud, but it will fight for what is right. It is not jealous, but will make sacrifices for justice. Love is revealed in Jesus, God incarnate, who shares our life in the world. It is in love that the world is made, and toward love that all things bend.

Love is relationship. It is the obligation of being created things. We love because God first loved us. So it cannot rise and fall with our mood or our sentiment. It is for that reason that it is possible to love strangers, or our enemy. It makes it possible, above all, to die for what is right, as Jesus does.

It is for the law of love that we must be known for our staunch opposition to violence against women. It is for the law of love that we must be known as enemies of violence against children. It is for the law of love that we must be squarely against colonisation and unjust war and capricious injustice. We haven’t always been good at that, but we must become better. That is how we redeem the Gospel in the eyes of the world. The law of love places us in opposition to all those things that the old gods were. It places us in opposition to all the things that the gods of our day represent. The god of money, the god of power, the god of sex, the god of profit, the god of consumption, the god of novelty. The god of self-love is like a still pond, stagnant and unclean, and rotten. Nothing grows there. But the love of relationship, love that is given and received, is a river. It has movement, it gives life. It is clear and clean. You can drink from that water.

There is no fault in the law of love. It can never lose its power. It can never lose its revolutionary character. Only we, who can fail to live up to it. We don’t need a new story. The old story is still strong. It is ever young. We just have to keep telling it, keep holding on to it, keep making it real in our lives, and it will vindicate us. It cannot fail to vindicate us. The law of love will live on after us. No institutional failing of our making can diminish it. We can only diminish ourselves as its representatives and its disciples. But through it, we may abide in the great love of Jesus Christ. That for which there is no better thing to live for.

May the spirit strengthen and renew us as we seek to live out this final will and testament of Jesus Christ the lover:

Love one another as I have loved you.

Amen

View or print as a PDF

Easter 5
28/4/2024

1 John 4:7-21
Psalm 32
John 15:1-8

---

“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love” (1 John 4).

John speaks here of the fear we carry because we do not believe that we are loved. But we need to unpack John’s logic a bit to see this.

“There is no fear in love”, he writes, “but perfect love casts out fear”. By itself, this can’t be true. Love fears losing what it loves: our children, perhaps, or our health, our identity, our independence, our beautiful and meaningful things. Our newspapers are filled with the loss – or the fear of losing – things we love, and so also our lives are filled with insurances, locks, seat belts and child safety policies. These things are not the absence of love but the presence of love’s fear. We secure ourselves in such ways in the hope that they will keep us safe.

But John continues: “…for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love”. John is interested not in the fear of loss but in our fear of God’s judgement (and our judgement of each other). The fear of such judgement arises from our freedom. Our capacity to make decisions – to choose one thing or another – carries the possibility of error and the reality of responsibility, and that responsibility brings with it the likelihood of judgement: an affirmation or rejection of what we have chosen. What if I make the wrong decision? What will God – or you – make of that?

There are certain kinds of decisions in which this hardly matters. Being wrong in daily decisions may simply cost us a bit of extra time, or maybe even thousands of dollars, but for many of us neither of these would be a particularly significant loss. We might cop a bit of flak, but being wrong on the small scale is something with which we’re quite accustomed and is often not much more than inconvenient.

But there are other kinds of decisions where it does matter and so where we do worry. Do I risk giving up my day job for something much less reliable but seemingly more faithful? Do I stay in or leave a shaky marriage? Do we close the congregation down, turn off the life support, or send the troops to war? Decisions like this give rise not only to the fear that I might lose something I love. If I make what is judged to be the wrong decision, I might also now stand exposed, accused and shamed, and so lose even more. What does John’s “perfected in love” mean here? What has love to do with such fear? How does one “get” such love, generate such love?

This is rather the wrong question; love is not a moral possibility, something we can generate to secure ourselves within that risky venture we call life. John does not say that if you love “enough”, you will have nothing to fear, so just love more. This merely restates the problem. If we fear we might do the wrong thing, we fear that we have not loved properly. The problem is that we don’t know what love is in this or that specific situation. Love has been turned into “doing the right thing”, but we can’t ever know just what the right thing is.

What, then, is it to be made perfect in love? What will break fear’s grip on us?

To be perfected in love doesn’t mean we have been made perfect lovers – that we now always do the right thing. It means rather that we have been perfected by a lover. The love which matters here is not, in the first moment, the love we generate. The love which matters has already been given: “Behold the manner of love the Father has given to us”, says John. And what is this “manner of love”? It is that we are called the children of God (1 John 3.1). There is no punishment to fear because, while our righteousness can be denied, our status as children cannot. This is love: not that we love God, but that God loves us. The love which really matters is the love that this one has for us. Perfection in love is knowing that, no matter what, this love will not let us go.

Three consequences flow from this, or perhaps just one in three modes.

First, John says to us: You are loved in this way. You are called the children of God. And nothing can change that. You do not stop being children by virtue of mistakes you make, and neither are you more God’s children by virtue of any good you might do. There is nothing to fear because you cannot be lost.

Second, John says to us: you are then, deeply, deeply free in all things. This is not a consumerist freedom of choice, not freedom to choose. It is freedom in choosing. In fear and trembling, we must say that, so far as our relationship with God is concerned, we cannot make the wrong choice. Love without fear springs from the confidence that nothing we can do can separate us from the love of God. This is the moral horror of the gospel, and our only hope.

But third, John says to us: we can only know ourselves to be free in this way by becoming God-like lovers ourselves. We can only know the freedom God’s love brings by loving in the way God loves. This is the meaning of grace, mercy and forgiveness. These are not merely nice things to do. They set aside punishment which might rightly have been imposed, and so set aside the fear of punishment.

Love like this is radically disruptive. Grace and mercy set just punishment aside. Forgiveness breaks the cycle of violence which generates the fear which makes us violent in the first place.

If Christian talk about grace means anything, it means just such a rupture of the tragic cycles within which we are all caught and by which we are tempted.

There is no fear in love; the love which perfects casts out our fear because, despite everything, it brings us to our completion as children God will not let go.

Love, then, as you have been loved, Jesus says. Become lovers with the height and depth and breadth of the love of God.

This is faith.

This is life.

This is hope.

View or print as a PDF

Easter 4
21/4/2024

1 John 3:16-24
Psalm 23
John 10:11-18

---

“All who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them.”

The notion of “abiding” is an important one in John’s writings. The Greek word translated here could also be translated as remain, stay, live, or dwell. There is a strong sense of “where we are.”

Yet this is not simply a nice idea by which we evoke a sense of cosiness with God. Most of the things which matter in the scriptural descriptions of the relationships which ought to stand between ourselves and our gods are a matter of polemic: not this, but that; not here but there; not this way, but that way. It is the same with John’s call to abide in Christ: abide here, not somewhere else. Or, let this one abide in you, and not some other.

There are indeed many places where we might abide and many things which might abide in us. Among these, the geographical options are the least interesting. Much more important is how we are living wherever we happen to be. This is, in one sense, a matter of morals – what we do and don’t do to ourselves or each other. There is certainly a strong commandment to be heard in our reading this morning: “Love one another”. And there is some basic shape given to that as well: “How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?” But the idea of abiding is as much a matter of our approach to our situation – the choice we make about where we find ourselves.

So, what kind of abiding places present themselves to us? The past is one tempting place: nostalgia for a time when things seemed simpler. Perhaps they were not simpler, but we were more energetic or had more power over the events which affected us directly, or were simply less aware of what was actually going on. Another tempting place of abode is the future – putting off making the most of where we are now, even perhaps denying justice to others now because we think that this will get us where we want to be in the long term. Whether it is nostalgia or a vision of where we imagine we are heading, where we actually are here and now is reduced to a iife we simply have to endure, either because the best is now behind us or we must wait for it to come.

Alternatively, we might desire to abide in an identity other than the one which is really ours – denying, or at least lamenting, the religious or cultural or gender or age or economic identity we actually have. This is the cry for justice, whether in economic or social or “psychological” terms. We are not acknowledged for what we think we are worth or for the effort we have put in.

Or perhaps we just don’t know where we are, but that it’s not yet the right place.

And then there are the kinds of things in might abide in us.  These are about the role we play in the story we seem to be living. Positively, Goodwill, compassion and love might abide in us. Or less negatively, selfishness, distraction, self-delusion, or fear. The difference between these two outlooks is the difference between choosing to be fully alive where we are, whatever its realities, and living as if we are is just a place to escape. It is that latter option which John addresses in his letter today: in this God, we have the power to live where we are – here, now – whether in green pastures by still waters, or on a cross.

Where we would abide – where would we live if we had the choice – is an intensely personal thing but it has to do with where we think we’d feel safest and most able to be ourselves. But life is not simply a matter of safety; it is also a matter of truth. And truth and life meet in the idea of vocation, or calling – God’s calling of us into where we actually are – and it engages every level of our lives. At the personal level, it has to do with being with the people to whom we actually are married, or with whom we actually do work, or next to whom we actually live, or with whom we share an identity as members of a church congregation. Who wants to abide with the cranky or noisy neighbour, the lazy colleague, the self-righteous or indifferent pew-sitter? Which nation wants to be in the political context of massive human displacement, bringing in refugees for whom we haven’t budgeted, who are different from us, whom we don’t understand? Which church would not choose a different time and space to be church – perhaps one of not-so-distant memory, rather than one in which congregations get smaller by one or two each year, find it harder to keep the budget balanced, find a minister, or simply keep going?

In contrast to so many of the realities of our lives, who would not choose rather to be led by green pastures and to lie down beside still waters? And, yet, the psalmist who speaks of green pastures and still waters speaks also of walking through the darkest valley, of a table of abundance spread even in the presence of his enemies, his head anointed, his cup running over. St Augustine declared that the singer of the psalms is Jesus himself. This is a helpful thought to the extent that it claims the psalms as the prayer the prayers of the one the church believes to be the true human being, the prayers of one who lives as and where it is given him to be. Green pastures or the valley of the shadow of death – these are much of a muchness when lived in and watched over by this Shepherd.

To abide in this Shepherd is to rise to a life of courage, although not bravado. There is here no call to brace ourselves, to muscle up as best we can and charge at those obstacles which seem to stand in our way. Rather, we are called to abide in a different reality – in the reality which is the humanity of Jesus himself, properly connected to the very source of life itself.

This, John says, is possible because Jesus himself abides in us. This is not a mystical or spooky reality – a merely spiritual thing which no one can see. If it were, then John would not speak of the commandment by which the reality of Jesus is proven: love one another. Love, that is, those real and tangible others who are within your reach, who constitute the place, the story, in which you live. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for those who are your particular ‘other’ .” (cf. John 13.35). By this, we will also know ourselves to be his disciples – if we have love. In this way, Jesus abides in us, as we are to abide in him.

In the end, this is all that we need to concern ourselves with along the way. What does the moment demand? Love of those with whom it is given to us to abide: to be present, to respond to the demands of the present.

This is the work of our lives. This is how we abide in him, and he in us. In this way, what the psalm-singing Christ himself knows can become what we too come to know: a life – a troubled life, most likely – shot through with goodness and mercy, a dwelling place with God all the days of our lives.

By the grace of God, may such a life be our place of abode, our habitation, our home. Amen.

View or print as a PDF

Easter 3
14/4/2024

Acts 3:12-19
Luke 24:36b-48

---

Festering
Many of you will have noticed that the Brittany Higgins-Bruce Lehrmann case returned for another of its many, many regular appearances in the newspapers this week. The case concerns an alleged rape in Parliament House in Canberra and has been accompanied by vigorous commentary from all sides about what happened and what it signifies in a culture of fear, duplicity and suspicion. The whole affair has become the kind of thing for which the word “sordid” is perhaps the most apt description.

Nonetheless, the story still claims the headlines. This is likely because it tells us something about ourselves, touching as it does upon the dynamics of power, desire, trust, guilt, safety, justice. It is a classic tale in which we ourselves are played, and we look on wondering whether it will turn out to be a tragedy or a comedy, in the literary sense: will it end low or high? We watch to learn our own prospects in similar situations: are we living tragedies or comedies?

I raise the matter today not to risk speculating or commenting on the allegation but simply because it is now five years since the alleged attack. As well as being luridly captivating, the story lingers as a festering wound. Even if a “resolution” finally comes, that wound will not likely ever be healed. This will probably be so for those directly involved but more broadly, we know that this story is neither unique nor not the last of such stories. We know these kinds of struggles, and that they will not end.

The Higgins-Lehrmann case, of course, is not the only thing in the news or our lives which has this character. This festering dynamic is replicated in most of what ends up in the news, apart from those contrived little comedies we call “human interest” stories. What is the Gaza war but such an open wound, or the Ukraine conflict or, more profoundly, the ongoing impact of colonialism, racism, sexism, or rapacious capitalism?  Whether it’s the continuing impact over five years of an alleged rape, or of the 80-odd years of the Palestinian conflict, or of the 400 or so years of Western imperialism, or of 2000 years of Christian antisemitism, it looks suspiciously like the peace we hope for is not coming. The stories we are forced to live continue to be agonised ones we hope will turn out to be comedic, but we fear will be tragic. As hopelessly pessimistic as this might seem, none of us turns on the news expecting anything other than more such struggle.

Ignorance
Let’s hold that thought for a moment as we turn to our reading this morning from Acts, in which we hear part of a sermon by Peter (Acts 3.12-19). The death of Jesus was another sordid tale now slowly slipping from public interest. Peter lays the blame for Jesus’ death unambiguously at the feet of the crowd he addresses, and then comes to my focus text for this morning:

“I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer”

The meaning appears straightforward: it is because of “ignorance” that the messiah suffers. The implication seems to be that had his audience known, they would not have crucified him. Jesus’ death now looks like an accident, in the same way that we might not notice that we put red knickers into the washing machine with the whites, delivering to us a new, rose-tinted wardrobe: “Oops, if I’d known they were in there, I would have pulled them out!” Oops, if I’d known you were the messiah, Jesus, I wouldn’t have crucified you. My bad.

The problem with this is that it suggests the error was one of not having the right information. But now, finally, the knowledge is given, and the endless, festering suffering will cease. We want to hear this kind of story, of course, because it finally resolves things: the hidden truth is now known, the confusion melts away, the estranged lovers are reconciled, the music swells in the background as the credits begin to roll and all is now right with the world, at least until the house lights come back up.

But the ignorance with which Peter charges the people here cannot be a mere lack of knowledge. One of the features of Jesus’ ministry is that it is often rejected precisely at the point that it is most appealing, most persuasive, most informative. In John’s gospel in particular, Jesus’ power and so identity are as close as possible to being irrefutable because of what he has done, yet still his opponents cannot see. Ignorance is here not the absence of knowledge; it is the inability to know. And so it is the inability to act differently, to change radically how the story will end, the inability to stop the rot, to close the festering wound. This kind of ignorance is a condition and not a matter of information. More concretely, it is the likelihood that, had we known that Jesus was the messiah, we would still have crucified him because knowing who he is would not be enough to stop us from doing so. Our capacity to crucify the image of God in Jesus springs not from ignorance but from the fact that we very often crucify the image of God in this Rachel or that Abdul.

While a lot has changed since Peter preached, a lot has not. We live in an age in which we might have expected that we had worked a few things out, that a few wounds would now be well healed. We have managed this, of course, on the relatively simple level of nature, at the level of mere knowledge. Penicillin, bypass surgeries and organ transplants treat wounded bodies very well. But wounded souls are a whole other matter, whether the souls of individuals or the souls of whole societies. While we tell ourselves that we live in an increasingly complex world, this is an evasion. Despite our sense of increased complexity and despite the promises we might have imagined the modern world would bring, we still see our troubled selves in ancient texts like the Scriptures. And while “religion” lingers as a convenient scapegoat in our modern context, this defence masks the painful reality, even where the wounds look to be religiously inflicted. Religion is one feature which distinguishes Israelis and Palestinians, but it is not why they are killing each other; religion is not why men rape, or someone might turn to alcohol; it is not why psychotherapists are flat chat treating fractured spirits. Our problem is profoundly human, not religious.

And neither is any of this about how much we do or don’t know. When Peter speaks of ignorance, he speaks of what we cannot see without the specific light of the resurrection: You could not know him then, Peter says, but now you can. You could not know yourselves, but now you can. Peter’s “in ignorance” is not that we crucified the wrong person; it is that we crucify at all, that we imagine that crucifixions heal our festering wounds, rather than exacerbate them. What are the reports which fill our newsfeeds but crucifixions, or fear of crucifixions? Our ignorance is our condition, is our suffering.

Light
This would all be utterly hopeless if Peter stopped there, for what can such ignorance do to teach itself? But he continues: In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that his messiah would suffer. The messiah suffers because our ignorance causes our suffering, and he is one of us. The messiah – the image of God – suffers because we are the image of God, and we suffer.

But while our suffering only festers, the suffering of God in the messiah changes things. God’s suffering changes things because it reveals something we cannot otherwise see. This is why Peter’s talk of ignorance and suffering arises in the context of his proclamation of the resurrection. The risen Jesus is not merely risen, not merely un-deaded. The resurrection reveals the crucifiers’ knowledge of Jesus as ignorance. To say that Jesus is risen is to say that the crucified one is risen, the one who apparently deserved crucifixion because such a thing surely could not have happened to God’s anointed.

But if this one is raised, then the resurrection is a light which reveals what we could not know, what we could not see. The resurrection reveals how very, very dark it has been, how dark it still is, and what it would take for us to begin to see.

But Peter’s proclamation is that “what it would take” has already been achieved. If Jesus is risen, then there appears now a revelation by which hidden things might now be seen, by which unknown things might now be heard, by which untouched things might now be felt, by which broken things might begin to be healed.

This light makes possible a radical re-valuation of what we are, what we do, and what is done to us. If we saw by this light, what would that mean for even the possibility of rape, or for the idea that bombs are an efficient instrument of justice, or for our assumption that a person is only what we can imagine her to be, or for the conviction that tomorrow is better secured with money than by trusting each other?

Whatever it would mean, we won’t know unless we heed Peter’s call: Repent, and turn to the God who embraces the crucified and crucifier alike, so that our wounds might no longer fester but be healed in God.

Repent.
Re-think.
Re-view.
Re-imagine.
Re-form.
Res-urrect.

View or print as a PDF

Easter 2
7/4/2024

John 20:19-31
1 John 1:1-2:2

Sermon preached by Daniel Broadstock

---

Friends as we consider our text today, I am mindful that two occasions of cultural significance have occurred over the past week. The first is Easter Sunday – the ringing day of joy and disorienting triumph at the risen Christ’s conquest over death. The second is April Fool’s Day.

I wonder what these two days might have to do with each other. Perhaps more than we might imagine.

Were you fooled this week, friends? One great example of comic deception I saw this year was a post on social media by Jim Penman, the head Jim’s business empire (responsible for Jim’s mowing, Jim’s plumbing, etc) announcing the formation of Jim’s Political Party, offering a pragmatic, practical, common-sense platform to bring down housing costs and end the dysfunction on Spring St. Finally, a man to take a whipper-snipper to the weeds growing in our political system. Very amusing!

On the other hand, I have a friend who hates April Fool’s Day. She thinks pranks are mean-spirited and the tricks and stunts of the day to be tedious and annoying. So, all through April 1 she holds herself in a state of sceptical readiness – on her guard, alert and vigilant, determined not to be made a fool of.

In our text today, Thomas holds himself in a similar state of determined scepticism. He says the famous words: “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” For this moment of disbelief, theological history has branded him Doubting Thomas.

Consider the resonance of those words. Thomas does not say that he ‘does not believe’. He is not professing an intellectual absence of belief. He is not a neutral agnostic. He is not a post-Enlightenment modernist, scorning the possibility of the miraculous subversion of nature’s laws. Thomas is not a philosopher or a physician. Thomas will not believe.

What’s going on here? We may lack conviction in all manner of things. But to refuse to believe – that is something different. There is more there than meets the eye.

It’s tempting to read the acts of the disciples as shallow theological parables. Vignettes, offering simple lessons of faith. Read superficially, Thomas offers a straightforward moral: trust God. Believe in Him. Persevere through doubt. Do not be troubled by what seems to you to be impossible, but hold fast to the promises of God.

Not necessarily a bad moral at all. Perhaps an encouragement that we need more than we realise.

But I remind myself that Jesus’ disciples are not fictional characters. They are real, historical human beings. Complex, contradictory, flawed. Subject to all kinds of influences, wishes, concerns, fears, and motivations. The Gospel writers have theological agendas in the way they include and frame their narrative, but there is flesh and blood behind the text.

Take Judas, for instance. He plays a simple role in our story. We need him to play his part in order to bring about the dramatic climax of Good Friday. But Judas too is only a man. Why does Judas betray Jesus?

The Bible suggests one explanation when it speaks of ‘the Devil’ entering Judas as he sits at the table with Jesus. Perhaps we can identify with that experience – moments of sudden, involuntary impulses to evil and to violence. Sometimes we recognise them, sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we resist them, and sometimes we give in. Perhaps Judas’ betrayal was a terrible moment of surrendered temptation. Sometimes people who have been convicted of violent crimes speak of this. An instant of almost demonic madness, in which everything is changed irrevocably forever.

Others have thought Judas an envious figure. Hovering always at the shadowy edge of Jesus’ brightness, perhaps he couldn’t bear any longer to be the second man. Jealousy has the power to drive us to places that we’d never have believed that we could go. Perhaps in the early hours of the morning, Judas would lie unsleeping, imagining himself as Messiah. Imagining the crown upon his own head. Hearing the hosannas cry out for Judas Iscariot.

Perhaps in the end it was not vice at all that drove Judas to Caiaphas, but frustrated longing. Some have seen in Judas a radical, a zealot. Maybe it was political liberation he longed for. The long-awaited uprising against Roman oppression with the Messiah, the new David, riding at the head of its army. Maybe Judas had grown tired of hearing about the Kingdom of God instead of the Kingdom of Israel. Maybe he is impatient with spiritual and moral teaching. Maybe he doesn’t want to love his enemy. Maybe he is tired of forgiveness. Maybe by leading those temple guards into the garden he hoped to waken Jesus from his slumber, that it would be the striking of the match, the first trumpet-call of a new and momentous age.

I wonder if something of this kind is taking place with our Thomas.

Doubt is so rarely a matter of indifferent scepticism. When Thomas says, ‘I do not believe’, that is not the voice of incredulity. That is the voice of pain. Those are the words of fear.  Thomas is afraid. Terrorised by that most painful wound of all – disappointed hope. For Thomas had already drunk too deeply from that cup. He had already surrendered his heart to that cross-shattered illusion. He had already wept too long for that buried fantasy. No, says Thomas. I will not endure that black agony a second time. I will not expose my heart again to the knife. I will not believe. My hopes are ash, and I will not suffer them to be reignited.

Disappointment is a terrible thing. When a long yearning for marriage goes unsatisfied. When paths that we thought would always be open to us are closed by age, or injury, or illness. When long-held, secret dreams and ambitions come to nothing. When a husband or wife with whom we expected to grow old just slips away.

The worst of it is that when once we have tasted the bitterness of disappointment we look sceptically at every cup that is then offered to us. We do not allow ourselves to trust in joy. There is a spectre that haunts our mind in the midst of hope. It arises like a ghost from the grave of past hopes long dead. And it whispers to us, ‘This is not real. It shall not last. Your joy will pass away and when it does it will subside with such a dreadful agony that you will wish that you had never known it.’ It is not a malicious thing really, but arises from a dark, self-protective corner of ourselves that knows that a heart that is entirely given may be entirely broken. For disappointment is not merely sadness. Disappointment humiliates us for having had the audacity to have been happy.

But in Jesus, the disciples’ hopes had seemed so secure, so safe. Surely this Nazarene was not one of those false saviours with each of whom Israel’s hopes had risen and fallen so pitifully. For with Jesus it was no longer a matter of hope. Their eyes had beheld his miracles and their ears had rung with his authority. The skies and waves themselves had seemed to shimmer and bend away from him in awe. And so Thomas had placed his fragile heart, whole and entire, at the feet of Jesus, sure that he would keep it safe. But then Jesus had borne it to Calvary and nailed it to the cross.

So when Peter came bursting into that room Thomas had no more heart to give. How could Peter do this to me again? How could he be cruel enough to raise a second seed of hope only to crush it beneath his heel. For if Jesus was not the one, then no one ever could be. If this good shepherd, this man whom earth and sky obeyed, this healer and exorcist, this prophet and teacher, if this man was not the Messiah, then our Messiah is never coming, and nothing will ever be good and true again.

But Thomas had merely glimpsed the beginning and mistaken it for the ending. For when Jesus strode from that empty tomb he carried Thomas’ poor heart in his hands like a delicate treasure. He had kept it safe through Hell and death and brought it out again to the sun. And in that darkened upstairs room, as Thomas touched the scars on his palms and felt his side, smoothed over with vulnerable grace, Jesus gave Thomas’ heart back to him.

May we be so bold as to open ourselves to the fear of disappointment. Not to make ourselves free of doubt, but to make ourselves vulnerable, and let the healed hands and feet of Jesus lead us again on the road of discipleship.

Amen.