LECTIONARY SERMON FOR JANUARY 18 2026 (on John 1:29-42)

Posted on January 15, 2026 by peddiebill

What is your  “AHA” MOMENT from this Sunday’s reading from the gospel of John?

I suspect there will be some among us this morning a bit vague about the meaning of the second Sunday in Epiphany. The church scholars remind us that the word  epiphany (comes from the ancient Greek ἐπιφάνεια, (epiphaneia), literally translated as a manifestation or a striking appearance, but for the rest of us …a sort of an “aha” moment when suddenly ideas seem to click into place.

I was once asked an intriguing question by a Minister from another Methodist Church who was using his long service leave to find out the variety of ways different church congregations round New Zealand were “being the Church” to the community. Instead of asking the typical questions about the size of the worshipping congregation or the age cross-section of those on the roll, what he most wanted to find out was how involved were our congregation members in living out their faith in the community. How many were being Church away from here?A tricky question…and one I could only partly answer…even for myself.

While I guess some come to our Church without any intention of changing the pattern of their lives when I started to list just some of the examples I happened to know of, I was surprised just how many were helping outside our worship services.   In my home congregation this included: Those who offer hospitality to strangers, those who give time and resources to help needy people – those who help with trust investments so that investing can help others, food parcels, gifts to the leprosy mission, the birthing unit, Christian World service, and all those individual efforts eg our farm day, those who help with the Friendship Lounge and so on.

Yet we can never get too comfortable. The comedian Flip Wilson had a standard stock reply to anyone who ever asked him about his religious affiliation. “I’m a Jehovah’s bystander” he would say proudly. “They asked me to become a Jehovah’s Witness, but I didn’t want to get involved.” When I first encountered this answer, although I laughed at the time, I have since come to realize that there is a sense in which Flip Wilson’s religion may yet turn out to be the biggest denomination of all.

Certainly, if measured by size of congregation, some individual Churches appear very successful indeed, but attendance as part of the crowd may have little or even nothing to do with participation in the principles of living that a particular Church claims to be teaching. In the same way attendance at a top sports event may indeed measure side-line popularity, but is a very poor indicator of how many among the spectators are actually players of the observed sport.

Some of the older members of the congregation may even remember a time back in the nation’s social history when Church attendance was almost taken as a given, because with no Sunday trading, no Sports events permitted on a Sunday and strong social expectations for Church attendance, Church in effect was the only game in town. Although Church members looking at today’s dwindling congregations may look back with some nostalgia to those days, the theologian Marcus Borg has a different view. He looked at the decline in mainline churches over the previous forty years and said:

I quote (and this from Borg’s book entitled: “Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary” P303)………

“The good news in this decline is that, very soon, the only people left in mainline congregations will be the ones that are there for intentional rather than conventional reasons. This creates the possibility for the Church once again to become an alternative community rather than a conventional community, living into a deepening relationship with a Lord rather than the Lords of Culture. This is exciting.”

In the events portrayed by the gospel writers at the start of the faith we now claim to follow, intention not convention was called upon at every step.

Today’s reading is relatively straightforward and to the point. It lists a number of these aha situations, each centred-on intention rather than convention. I doubt if the participants described in the gospel writer John’s account later realized why they had been affected to the point that it made a difference. However, as Mark Twain, that master of homespun philosophy once put it: “You cannot rely on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus.”

John the Baptist had been anything but following convention when he accepted the task of telling the Jews that in order to show they were ready for the coming of the promised Messiah they would need to behave like gentiles converting to Judaism and have themselves baptized in the river Jordan. We can only imagine how annoyed the Priests and Pharisees became at when they saw Jews participating in John’s baptism. Each of those being baptized were then at risk.  They were in effect stating, by their participation, that they were living in a time when the convention of their existing religion had not been true to its principles.

Notice too that the choice John offered was very different from our modern equivalent of confessing “we have gone astray” which is sometimes nothing more than inviting people to shut their eyes and say AMEN to someone else’s prayer. Which is certainly easier than not only undergoing an undignified and unpleasant dunking but also have been risky in terms of endangering your future by annoying your religious leaders and community.

Jesus himself not only reportedly made his own intentions abundantly clear with his own baptism, but did so in such a way that it was clear to his observers that he was setting himself outside convention. When John the Baptist pointed to him and reportedly called him the Lamb of God it might even be that John had suddenly realized by that stage, by Jesus’ acts and words, that he might even be a probable Messiah.

John the Baptist was so affected by his encounter with Jesus that (according to the gospel writer), he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and found in this confirmation that, unlike his own Baptism offered with water, that Jesus would be the one to baptize in the Spirit.

To me (with the wisdom of hindsight!) Jesus had also apparently recognized that gaining followers was not simply a matter of offering explanation in an intellectual sense. We cannot be certain what had been in his mind, but by requiring action instead of offering pat answers to their questions the net result was to give the disciples a new way of seeing.

Two of John the Baptist’s disciples were so struck by John’s reaction to Jesus, their imagination was roused.  They responded as if they saw Jesus as a Rabbi. Accordingly, they asked him where he was staying. Notice he didn’t answer directly but instead said come and see for yourselves.

This appeared to have given them an even clearer view of Jesus as someone really significant – and they went off to fetch the man Peter who was eventually to become the leader of Jesus’ disciples. Whether or not Peter would have dropped everything to follow if Jesus had not quickened his imagination by renaming him Cephas (meaning “the rock”) we can never know. What we do know is that according to the Gospel writers, Peter’s experience of Jesus changed him from being an observer, to that of an intentional participant. His imagination was awakened – and he now saw things differently.

Now for the more difficult part….. Well strictly speaking it only becomes difficult if we accept the challenge to learn from this passage and then try to apply what we have learned for our own individual situations.

Listen now to Henry Thoreau “It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.” And don’t forget what we see now isn’t the same as it would have been for those first disciples.

If we were for example to think of ourselves as the modern equivalent of the disciple Andrew, whose main contribution appeared to have just as it was with today’s reading, namely that Andrew was often the one who introduced people to Jesus.   But had you noticed, this is modern times? Straight away we come up against a small problem. Jesus is no longer present in the flesh.

So where is this Jesus we would like people to see? After all, for those we folk bring – the only flesh and blood they will encounter is that of his modern day interpreters and followers. In short, they can only encounter Jesus by proxy in nothing more or less than those like us. And I guess for most of us that is an uncomfortable responsibility.

We are by no means all John the Baptists, or a Peter the rock, or an Andrew the introducer. Yet for all of us, flawed as we are, whether or not others will see part of the Christ in us, that will ultimately depend not on hearing us sing choruses or hymn of praise, nor on the conventions we follow, but rather on the areas of life into which our intentions take us.

Remember Thoreau. It is not what they look at (or, let’s be truthful…. rather….. not what we hope they will look at) which matters. It is what they actually see ….. in us! And unfortunately, if they stick around, it will not be simply meeting us in the controlled, safe and regulated environment of a Church setting – or a service of worship.

If the first disciples had to come and see Jesus in his own local setting, surely those who come to see his modern-day representatives are going to have to settle for doing the same.

We may well prefer that the Church should post advertisements to invite people in to meet the minister who can then organize a meeting with Jesus by proxy through his or her sermons? But isn’t better to admit that we probably all know that the poet Edgar Guest had it right all along when in one of his poems he wrote : “I’d rather see a sermon than hear one any day.”

Like it or not, if we want to throw in our lot with Jesus, our present lives are the sermons that will be seen. Since Jesus was able to summarize all that was important into two simple interrelated commandments, love God and Love your neighbour as yourself, perhaps the quality of our lived sermon will be discovered in how well we are able to live our love for neighbours – because in so doing we live our love of God.

Most of us have not been to theological college – but don’t forget, neither had John the Baptist, Andrew, Peter or even Jesus himself.

By the law of averages, we are unlikely to start with the right characteristics to make us likely successful disciples. Even some of Jesus’ original bunch might not have scored too well in that department. But it is not our eloquence, or education we are measured by when it comes to discipleship.   Perhaps there are two parts to the focus needed for our own epiphany – first to see ourselves as we really are, then to look outside ourselves and see the genuine challenges set before us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lectionary sermon11 January 2026 on Matthew 3:13-17

Posted on January 11, 2026 by peddiebill

A few days ago, in Churches and religious gatherings around the world, congregations were singing lusty joyous carols. Joy to the world….. Or was it perhaps: While shepherds watched their flocks by night.…. ? The last verse to that one goes:

“All glory be to God on high And to the Earth be peace Goodwill henceforth from heaven to men Begin and never cease.”

So how are we doing in the goodwill department now we have witnessed the dawning of a New Year? The Russians (who for the most part are Baptised members of the Russian Orthodox Church) are sending drones and rockets to the towns and cities of the similarly baptized people of Ukraine. There are religious disputes in several countries in Africa. The US government sold weapons to Israel to drop on the Muslims of Gaza.   The Israelis want to continue their forced resettlement of Palestinians despite what happened in Gaza and despite the protests of the UN. Everywhere there are refugees on the run from wars amongst the opposing believers of different forms of religion.  Two fundamentalist Muslims shot a group of Jews at Bondi Beach, but it was a fundamentalist Christian who in his mosque attack shot all those Muslims a few years back in Christchurch.  

What happened to Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men?  And why was it just the men?   After 2000 years waiting, in many places in the world the goodwill doesn’t seem to extend to women. So instead of enjoying the continuing goodwill begun that first Christmas and singing that it will never cease, here we are, reading about the record number of homeless in New Zealand, nervously waiting for the next act of mindless violence in the community.   Perhaps tomorrow we will again be opening our news feeds on the computer, reflecting in sad despair at the burgeoning refugee camps and wondering when the next shooting at a shopping mall or school in the US is going to hit the headlines.

Today the lectionary gospel reading finds us celebrating the Baptism of Jesus. I want to suggest that first, as with Christmas, we are fond of using over-blown statements about how the coming of Jesus means our world is transformed and giving thanks for the start of his mission.  We talk as if claiming it transforms the world without stopping to ask whether or not we as individuals are also needed to encourage his coming. How else might it continue to affect the everyday world. In the same manner, I wonder if we are also often guilty of treating the topic of baptism casually – assuming perhaps that since we got baptized just as Jesus got baptized, we are thereby well on the way to becoming Christians and everyone benefits. As with Christmas, could it be we are making some assumptions without seeing our part in what comes next?

It kind of reminds me of the well-known story about the little girl who started crying after she was baptized? The minister asked her why she was upset. “Because,” said the little girl, “you made my parents promise I would be raised in a Christian home. But I want to live with them!”

In a way it is entirely understandable we don’t necessarily understand what baptism is about. There have been many different types of baptism through the centuries and even the experts in Church doctrine have been divided about what it is intended to mean.

An additional problem was that for the early Church, baptism was being offered for different reasons. The Jews of the time said that only the unclean gentiles needed Baptism when they were demonstrating they were renouncing their old ways to become Jews. John the Baptist told his listeners that even the Jews needed baptism in that they too needed to renounce their old ways so that they in effect would be proper Jews, and hence ready for the Messiah.

It therefore followed that Matthew’s account had John telling Jesus he wouldn’t need baptism. In retrospect, Jesus’ insistence that he too needed baptism made a kind of sense even if he were only signalling the official start of his mission in faith. It has also been noted that part of the symbolism might also be that he totally identified with the others being baptized. And yes, I concede some have tentatively suggested their suspicion that Jesus was sufficiently human to consider himself to be a sinner in need of repentance. True this is not widely accepted, but we might at least acknowledge the possibility.

Although Matthew and the other gospel writers don’t say so, for those familiar with the customs and scriptures of the Jews, there is a further possible symbolism in that some of the priests and high priests were ceremonially washed and there were pools set aside in the Temple for that purpose. To the Jews this had a scriptural antecedent.   For example in Leviticus 8:6 we’re told that, in accordance with God’s instruction — “Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water.” Then, later, during that ceremony Moses “poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and anointed him to consecrate him.” Leviticus 8:12

The early church offered several variants for Baptism, including sprinkling with water, the baptizing of whole families regardless of age, and usually associating this with initiation into the faith. About the only aspect of baptism which appeared common to all the forms of baptism is that it was intended to mark a new phase of life.

While the varying layers of meaning associated with baptism offer different things to people at different stages of different faith journeys, this in itself is not a serious problem. Indeed, discovering new dimensions of chosen symbols brings a faith to life and looking back with new perception on a chosen sacramental act has the power to open us to new meaning.

Where unfortunately it can and actually has gone wrong in the past is –  if we come to believe that there can only be one correct form. At its worst, what was intended as a public demonstration of a step forward at the beginning of a new journey can then become disciplinary dogma, used to confine actions which ensures little more than the establishment of power for those who wish to control others, particularly those who wish to act as arbiters for judgment on who is entitled to salvation.

To show just how lacking in compassion dogma can become we might remind ourselves that Anabaptists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were persecuted for daring to suggest that adult baptism was needed even for those who had been baptized when they were too young to have understood what was happening. Thousands of Anabaptists were executed at the decree of some traditional Church leaders, and by a cynical and cruel imposed irony, this was usually accomplished by drowning, which their judges insisted on calling a third baptism.

One perhaps more common way baptism becomes inappropriate, is when it is presented as a ceremony disconnected with what follows. We might acknowledge for example the large number of Christening ceremonies carried out at the request of families who have virtually no other contact with Church teaching other than for the traditional hatches, matches and dispatches.

Jesus’ baptism was not a religious ceremony disconnected with the life that followed. Indeed, if it had been, it would long since have faded into oblivion. Because his baptism marked the start of a relatively dramatic period in which ordinary people had their lives transformed, and because it also marked the start of new ways of challenging outworn conventions and nationalistic faith, we might then notice significance in the ceremony Jesus chose to begin his ministry. Had there been no mission, no concern for the nobodies of his society, no challenge to a close-minded priesthood, no crucifixion and no new life for the Church as a consequence of the dimly understood event we now call the resurrection, why else would we be concerned about Jesus’ baptism?

Yet there is a caution here as well. His baptism is not our baptism. Indeed, if the truth be told, we have no way of knowing with certainty even which of the gospel accounts of his baptism was most accurate – nor indeed exactly what was in Jesus’ mind when he stepped into those waters.

We do know that our own Baptisms, if indeed they have already happened for all those present today, were almost certainly arranged for different motives. And not all Churches have a common view even today. But what we also know, is that baptism – or for that matter – whatever your preferred action you undertake to signal the start of your own faith journey – only takes on meaning if it is followed by steps in that journey.

This is the second Sunday in the New Year and yes – all is not well in the world. Yet we assemble with the intention of affirming the lead of the one we follow. Jesus taught a new way of relating to one another, our neighbours … and even our enemies. Each of us has, however briefly, no doubt considered Jesus’ proscribed way – and through our baptism, or confirmation – or whatever our chosen symbolism may be – we may have already signalled our association with his teaching.

The only way baptism will eventually have meaning for ourselves and those we meet is first to start – and then continue to attempt to live his teaching.

Christian faith is not simply listing and affirming statements of belief as a superficial exercise of intellect. It is primarily about establishing relationships with God encountered in creation and in acts of love, forming and improving relationships with neighbours, living according to ethical standards and in serving others. Of course we cannot expect to transform the whole world, stop all conflicts and force others to live with peace and goodwill. What we can do is acknowledge we intend to make a start and realize that the nature of our journey, good or bad, will be our personal witness.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lectionary sermon for Christmas 2, January 4, 2026 on John 1:1-18

Posted on December 26, 2025 by peddiebill

The Light for Those Who Choose
Today’s passage from the gospel of John is powerful in its poetic imagery, and yet it should also remind us of a potential sticking point for many.

When the writer of the gospel of John likened the life Jesus brought to humanity as the light of life, he never got anywhere near saying “mission accomplished”.  Some will know of another John,  John Newton, the one-time slave trader who himself had fallen about as far from grace as it is possible to fall. Eventually he woke up to what the coming of Jesus actually meant and put it this way: “There are many who stumble in the noon-day, not for want of light, but for want of eyes”.

John’s notion that Jesus was the personification of God encountered in creation is indeed an imaginative way of saying that Jesus, through his very being, presents a new revelation of the mysterious God forces behind the universe. It is of course a view restricted by human limitations. Notice that by having Jesus constrained in the flesh to represent God, should not encourage us to call a halt to the search for some better glimpse of reality in what the astronomers might one day be able to show in a faraway heaven. Nor for that matter, do we need to insist that Jesus is “divine” in the traditional sense. Don’t forget John and the other gospel writers go on to present Jesus as a man whose life in effect has the potential to make total sense within our human centred world of time and space.

For the other gospel writers, Jesus does this through the way he lived, the way he acted and the way he died.  Yet John’s poetic revelation introduces new ideas which take us beyond the prophets. But Gospel writer John, in his imagery, has noticed something else as well, which I guess we would prefer to gloss over. Most Christians make a big thing of the way Jesus is welcomed while he is still in the manger. For many this is what Christmas is all about. Yet when we think of the subsequent teachings and attitudes Jesus came to represent, not everyone welcomes the light….and sometimes this includes the very ones who claim to represent Jesus.

Attempting to atone for victims of violence in Church based institutions in this and many other countries should be faced lest others’ crimes help shape our own image.  

What was it John wrote? 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him.

When the dimly understood God of the Old Testament is “Earthed” in the form of flesh and blood, at best we should also note for each generation there can only be a potential transformation. The Jews in Old Testament times had assumed that in time God will accomplish everything and all we have to do is sit back, carry through the rituals of worship and follow the rules.

That things in those days often didn’t come right was seen more as a failure to get everyone to conform in order that they might get back into favour with God…. and if outsiders needed to be hurt in the process, well that was just the price the outsiders had to pay for being non-believers.

When Jesus brought his hope of peace and love, or at least hope for those who would listen, he turned this around and gave the responsibility back to those who would accept his teaching. His was an ethical faith. As Ian Harris once put it, “The human (and not just the human Jesus) became the locus of the divine”. He took the emphasis away from the supernatural, and, in the process, encouraged personal responsibility.

Harassed by enemies? It isn’t an external God that will need to deal with that situation. Rather look to our own personal patterns of forgiveness. Obsessed with worries about self? – love your neighbours. The Gospel goes on to insist the rich man has nothing if he cannot care about the poor man Lazarus at his gate.    To John, Jesus’ was a light that could search out humanity in the prostitute, see the good in the heretic, reach out to touch the untouchable leper and even care about the thief on the neighbouring cross. Do those of us who would follow him think he would expect less of ourselves and our attitude.

These were radical ideas. They are still radical ideas. The light was uncomfortable for many who would be followers and they were all to ready to return to the comfortable conformity which insists on a passive admiration of Jesus who might then become progressively other worldly and too divine to have anything to do with daily living.

Perhaps we should be more insistent that we notice the illuminated bad as well as the illuminated good in what we as the Church have accomplished and are continuing to accomplish. Of course there is the helpful application of Christianity in freeing slaves, encouraging charity and saving our communities from the worst of their excesses. Those enjoying human rights, health, and education have much to thank Christianity for. But there are also those nasty bits where Christians have steadfastly refused to allow the light to shine.

Our Church histories tend to gloss over the realities where many of Jesus’ followers have not reflected his light in their actions. When for example the first Roman Emperor to insist on the importance of the Christian Church, Theodosius, it was a case of become a Christian or else. When he had the pagan statues destroyed, he even executed children who played with the broken fragments. And I am afraid that the previously persecuted Christians all too often then became the persecutors.

I remember a few years back encountering a group designed for those prepared to open themselves to acknowledge past and present weaknesses of those claiming Christianity as a faith called “Victims of the Christian Faith” by Kelsos, which lists the countless groups of victims of violence in the name of Christ over the centuries. It is simply an uncomfortable fact that the so-called Christian perpetrators were committing these crimes against a wide variety of people whose only real crime seemed to be that they were different from the self-declared “Christians”.

Among this sad list of multitudes murdered in the name of Jesus were those who followed different versions of Christianity, those who were reluctant to convert, those falsely accused of witchcraft, Jews, Muslims, pagan worshippers, indigenous tribes and, what is more difficult to accept, all probably only killed because the perpetrators were certain Jesus the Son of God would have approved. It is a very dark and extended – and even a current chapter on a history we would prefer to forget. I am not sure that we are wise to do so.

I would encourage those with internet connections to read this sad summary of human blindness – The name again: Victims of the Christian Faith by Kelsos, and while you do so, just reflect on the truth in a simple statement by Martin Luther King who said:
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

There is one absolute certainty and that is if we wait for God to accomplish all those tasks we have set aside for the too hard basket, this New Year will be pretty much the same as last year. It is not our assurance to others that Jesus, God of Very God is the answer to their very human problems that resonates, it will turn out to be our personal human response to such problems ourselves that has the potential to be the significant witness. The old African proverb should give us pause for thought: “I cannot hear what you are saying because of who you are.”

Yet if on the other hand we allow the full light of Christ’s teaching to show up the path ahead, then we can start to understand why John talked about those who received him seeing his glory.

As the population has grown and the potential to use the world’s resources has increased the options for our future, it should not be just the negatives we see. That which truly honours Christ is not – and probably never has been – the declarations of belief, the slogans of faith, wish lists in prayer – nor indeed, even beautiful church music. Surely it is more important that the light has the potential to bring changes in the emphasis to our relationships and responsibilities. Amongst us as we know there are those whose daily lives are a witness to these changes.

Just as Jesus widened his mission to include treating all about him with respect and consideration, we are invited to do the same. How we treat our fellows, regardless of gender, of position, regardless of religion or ethnicity or country of origin, will show how just much the light we reflect is the authentic light of Christ. How we treat our environment and the efforts we make to ensure that our world is passed onto our next generation in better condition than the one we received will say far more about the values of our faith than the form of our worship or size of our Churches.

John tells us the divine has become incarnate, and by implication the confining walls of our everyday existence are momentarily parted to let in the shafts of a new light. This light transforms – allowing us not only to see Jesus in a new way, but if we will but look, see ourselves in a new way.

In John’s words, the word became flesh and lived among us. In this season of new beginnings, will it tun out to be true for me? And will it be true for you?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Lectionary Reflection for December 28 2025(Christmas 1) on Matthew 2:13-23

Posted on December 26, 2025 by peddiebill

NOT JUST A FLIGHT OF FANCY

The problem with real-life Christmases is that although many of us will encounter genuine wonder and joy in re-running the Christmas story, the real world out there has some unpleasant realities.   There was that recent attack on a Jewish celebration at Bondi Beach in Sydney and a belligerent protest by some fundamentalist followers of Destiny Church against a Sikh festival in Auckland New Zealand.   It is unlikely families in the Ukraine are all happy because it is Christmas.   Refugees from a host of counties still flee for their lives. The women’s refuges in this country are traditionally full at this time of the year.   Every year it seems genuinely good people suffer in many places round the world. It seems as if nothing changes.

Matthew talks of a world like that.  But for those of us who imagine church-based Christmas should be sweetness and light, we have to be grateful to Matthew for the way he follows a sense of wonder for the coming of Jesus with the grimmer realities. True for church goers we may well have been following through Matthew’s story in the last couple of weeks.  We had the angels, a Virgin Birth and even the wise men and a guiding star…a good story, filled with awe and wonder and even with a touch of magic. Now in today’s reading suddenly Matthew switches the mood of his story from pure wonder to pure horror.

Herod is furious. Sounds like any of a number of modern-day dictators.  Learning that he has been tricked by the wise men, who, despite their previous promise, evidently have no intention of coming back with information about a potential king being born in the area, Herod now in effect throws his toys. He flies into a rage and sends his soldiers to kill all young male infants in the neighbourhood. Joseph and Mary are warned and flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt. As it happens at least some modern bible scholars happen to claim that this story seems unlikely as literal history. In the first place it seems at odds with the parallel story in Luke which has no flight to Egypt, and in the second place, none of the detailed contemporary histories of Herod record such an event. On the other hand, even if Matthew were recounting this story almost as if it were a parable about Jesus, it still offers more than a typical “midrash” or pious legend.  Today we have to be honest and admit the grimmer bits are inescapable and our real world is not transformed, even at this Christmas.

Matthew’s version of Christmas is still important because it seems to give a realistic view of what historians describe the time into which Jesus was born. The misfortunes which befell many of that time created more than enough refugees to have the commentators on the Bible passages finding parallels with previous ages.

Even if Matthew was only intending his story as parable, it is still plausible for the age. The Romans’ occupation and the dark moods of King Herod can but only have exacerbated the vast number of refugees almost constantly on the move. The Jews in particular seemed to be singled out as easy targets and historians point to the large population of Jews scattered to the cities of neighbouring countries. For example, Alexandria in Egypt was claimed–00 to be host to something like a million Jews at the time of Christ.

No matter what we decide about Matthew’s story of Herod, we have plenty of evidence to confirm to us that Herod was a dangerous neighbour. He may not be independently confirmed to have ordered the murder of the infants of Bethlehem, but child murder was very much part of his character. For example, he had three of his own children murdered on the grounds that they may have been plotting against him, and for good measure had one of his ten wives executed for adultery.

The Emperor Augustus is said to have remarked about Herod that it would be safer to be Herod’s pig that to be one of his sons. As an aside we might note that since the Greek word for pig (hys) sounds very close to the Greek word for son (hyos) we might assume that this was intended as a pun to entertain the Roman nobility who spoke fluent Greek at the time.

The second reason why Matthew may have wanted to stress the flight to Egypt was because some of the prophecies Matthew quoted drew a parallel between Jesus and Moses.

So Moses took his wife and his sons and set them on an ass, and
went back to the land of Egypt. – Exodus 4.20

This is very close to Matthew’s rephrasing for Joseph and his family flight to Egypt

And he (Joseph) rose and took the child and his mother, and went
to the land of Egypt.

For Matthew’s readers, the image of Jesus as a new Moses returning to lead his people out of their bondage would be readily understood symbolism. After all, there we had the infant Moses saved from almost certain death and brought up in Egypt so that he might rescue his people…. and now here in Matthew’s parallel story, Jesus saved from almost certain death to be brought up in Egypt that he might rescue his people.

For Matthew’s contemporary readers listening to the words of this gospel at a time when once again the refugees were fleeing Israel, this time from the wrath of the Romans after yet another Jewish rebellion had failed, there must have been those wondering if God had not only abandoned them but had deliberately set about destroying them. The modern parallel of God deliberately destroying is revisited by the religiously credulous time after time in the aftermath of each new major disaster.  Perhaps we need to learn when Matthew pulls back from this conclusion.

Maybe Matthew is trying to teach as an alternative that when disaster threatens, for some who take wise action there may still be a way through.

Although other gospels may fail to highlight Joseph and Mary and the baby Jesus as refugees, to fail to notice refugees is hardly a new phenomenon in the Bible lands. This is why Matthew’s account is a challenge for us today. There is still another dimension beyond our typical Christmas with its tinsel, not to mention piles of presents under the Christmas tree.

In practice much of what we do seems designed to take us far from the challenges of the real world where many will miss out. Certainly, for many, Christmas is a time of joy – that is true – but don’t forget the joy is supposed to be about one who will come with a message that can make a difference to the problems of the real world. We may need to emerge from the Christmas celebrations with the intention of being part of the good news. We may need to be reminded that there came a time when baby Jesus embodied his message, and that if we claim to be his followers, we too, have to learn to be part of the same message.    Putting it bluntly, Jesus’ mission only continues through the words and actions of his followers. We are hardly true to the message if we pretend that the problems are not there. Matthew does not shy away from that part of Christmas. Perhaps we might learn to do likewise.

Yes, Jesus may well have come as Messiah that first Christmas two thousand years ago but surely the joy at his coming would be interpreted as forced and artificial if a good proportion of His followers saw no urgency to make any difference to those who suffer today. But here is the point. If we claim Jesus came to transform lives, whose fault is it if we pretend measure Christianity by the numbers claiming to be members of his Church?

Face it, if many continue to suffer, there is not much point in blaming Jesus if at the same time we as his followers are not doing our best to be his eyes and be his hands in a world where pain continues to be part of the Christmas season.

This of course should not be taken a judgement on all Christians today. Certainly, there are still those who work tirelessly on behalf of those who suffer. On the other hand, accepting responsibilities for doing something in response to the situations we encounter is individual in nature and just because someone in our immediate circle is doing something in response should not provide the excuse for total inaction on our behalf. We cannot be followers of the Christ child by proxy.

If we go back now to Matthew’s account of today’s gospel, we might notice a strange twist at the end. We can certainly understand that the family of Jesus would have been reluctant to return to Bethlehem despite the death of Herod. By all accounts Herod’s son was every bit as ruthless as his father and it made perfect sense to settle further away in the little hillside town of Nazareth. The problem comes when Matthew, ever ready to find parallels for Jesus in the prophecies inserts the words: 23There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.” (or in a number of translations “Nazarene”)

The truth of the matter, as William Barclay points out is that there is actually no such prophecy – or at least not in the part of the scriptures often referred to as the Old Testament.

As an aside, as Barclay reminds us, the ancient writers often used puns and plays on words. Accordingly, Barclay suggests that here Matthew may be intentionally playing on the words of Isaiah in Isaiah 11:1 : “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.” The Hebrew word for branch is Nezer which in turn looks and sounds virtually identical to the Hebrew word for the word Nazarene which seems to have been Netser and which presumably means Matthew is saying for the scholars in his audience that at one and the same time that Jesus was from Nazareth (the Netser) while in another sense he was being Isaiah’s promised Branch or nezer from the stock of Jesse, the descendant of David, or if you like, the promised Anointed King of God.

It is an interesting metaphor which implies a question. If Jesus was indeed a branch from the stump of Jesse, how might we who wish to be part of his mission, become grafted into that same stump? Now that is a challenge for our reflection on the Christmas season.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on a Sermon for Christmas Day based on Luke 2: 1-20   (modified from a sermon I offered a few years back).

Posted on December 23, 2025 by peddiebill

A nativity scene with a manger and animals AI-generated content may be incorrect.Among the decorations we have seen over the last few days I guess we have noticed that some churches and homes have set up charming settings depicting the manger scene.  True, that is at least one way of honoring the coming of the Son of God.
Just one point though. Did you realize back in Jesus’ day there were options in the way Jesus was perceived.  At least there was according to the Roman historians. Back then “Son of God” was one of the titles given to the emperor Augustus. When the Romans wanted to show the amazing power and hence the required respect and adulation, they would use terms like the Son of God – but of course for them it was to signify the grandeur for a strong military commander or ruler. That being the case, let’s look again at how Luke talks about the birth of Jesus, thinking about what it says about Jesus as the Son of God.
It is almost as if Luke is rubbing our noses in the contrast of this baby with the grandeur of the birth of a Roman Emperor or top king. There is of course a sense in which he is using the poetry of the story to get the essence of what he is trying to convey. Some modern theologians claim that part was not factual reporting. Yet now is not the time to worry about whether Luke has made a mistake with which census is being reported, or how he knew about the angels and what they said.
What seems clear is that Luke considered Jesus was important enough to be called Son of God.  Yet this Jesus, Son of God is apparently portrayed perhaps born in a shed or cave – and what is more born to an unmarried teenage servant girl. Shortly after the birth we learn that Mary and Joseph are forced to flee as refugees with the baby Jesus. Hardly an ideal situation.
Born where?… in an animal barn or cave….and laid in a crib or manger. Yes, I know we’re used to seeing charming tableau of the scene in shops and in Churches but “charming” is not the word for a manger. Luke might have chosen other things to talk about – but he must really have wanted us to notice the manger bit – because he mentions a manger three times. This manger or a crib is a food trough for animals…… straw? Could have been – and no doubt together with other vegetable material but also, dirt, and I guess insects.
But when you look into that manger or crib – what do you imagine you would see on that first Christmas?  Don’t forget the story includes the shepherds coming to pay homage – but in passing we might also remember that by tradition other visitors included the wise men.
There is a traditional fable – which comes out of the writing of the early Church. This story concerns the so-called three wise men. Yes, I know the Bible doesn’t name them or say how many there were, but Christian tradition puts the number at three and gives them the names which according to the 6th century mosaics found at Ravenna in Italy. By tradition you probably already know these were: Melchior, Balthazar and Caspar. There are a number of great stories about the wise men or Magi. The one version that appeals to me about these three wise men has it that they were actually men of very different ages. Melchior was the very old man, Balthazar was the middle aged one and Caspar was the young wise man. When they arrived at Bethlehem at the cave of the Saviour’s birth, Melchior as the oldest and wisest went in first – and there was this old man to meet him. Melchior immediately felt at home and together they spoke together of memory and the things they had found in life for which they were profoundly grateful. Next in went middle aged Balthazar and he encountered there, not the old man – but a middle-aged man with whom he felt a great bond. There they talked of what it means to have responsibility and how best to exercise leadership. Finally, it was the young man’s turn – and what did Caspar find. No old man – no middle-aged man – but a young prophet – and with him the two spoke of reform and the promise of the future.
Then the three wise men gathered outside the cave, talked of what they had seen – then re-entered the cave – this time with the gifts. There they found not an old man, a middle aged man or a young prophet – but simply a 12 day old infant.
Afterwards they puzzled about what it meant – and then they understood. At each stage in life there is a form of the saviour that relates both to age and experience.
The writer who told this version, the priest William Bausch, points out that it is as if there needs to be a better connection between the experience of the wise men and that of ourselves  than that between ourselves and with the shepherds in the setting of that first Christmas. The shepherds had it all done for them. An angel went and told the shepherds exactly where to go, and lest they should doubt that he was an angel he had a chorus line of heavenly angels backing him up. This heavenly messenger told them exactly what they would find when they got there – and yes – it was exactly as they expected to find. was even an angel there to confirm they had come to the correct place.
When the shepherds set out home why would they need to have doubts? The whole deal was handed to them on a plate.
I don’t know about you – but for me I don’t find myself as directly led as those shepherds. I constantly need direction. I have doubts and do not always understand what things of faith mean.
I relate better to those struggling Magi – always searching and wondering – in a real world of vindictive Herods – who these days are just as likely to be after our children with false advertising which panders to materialism and greed.   Ours is a real world of real conflict, where there is hunger and disease like AIDS and kwashiorkor, where there is want and lack of justice …. Forget the shepherds with their heavenly choir, these Magi were in the same type of world that is closer to our problems.. It would no doubt be great to be like the shepherds with clear angelic guidance so that we might have a clear line of connection to Jesus – and the answer to all our fears including the fears of meaninglessness and even death. Yet that is not my experience, and I suspect for some of you, not yours either.
It might be great to be led to an idealised saviour who is all powerful and magic – a ruler who can crush the enemy – and who feels no pain. Yet I find Luke’s version of a vulnerable infant in a world of dangers and surrounded by less than perfect doubters and weak followers. To me that is a much truer picture. If the wisest like the Magi needed to seek help in finding this saviour, we should be able to identify with that. It does at least mean there is room for our doubts and questions.
We do of course have the choice. We are told constantly we should be part of a mission-shaped church.  Looking around at the the numbers in the community who clearly find the Church irrelevant we can see why we should be concerned for mission. Yet our mission is hardly likely to have much relevance if it is not grounded in a saviour who is rather than one who might be. Angelic choirs are great for mood and Hollywood escapism. Mission-shaped to my way of thinking is mission that faces the real problems in the company of real people it shouldn’t be up to us to manufacture a false and separate religious experience and setting.
Just as there was an alternative Son of God to the Roman emperor version, we are reminded this Christmas about what might mean for us. The baby is no ordinary baby – yet started life in the most humble of circumstances and surrounded by difficulties and dangers right up to the end .   Jesus offers a clear alternative to some very real issues – and his own experiences give his claim an authentic setting.
When we notice the world offers famine, cruelty, aggression, uncertainty, insecurity, interracial tension and intolerance, the traditional Christmas message of peace on Earth always needs to be more than a platitude. The hope is that just as Jesus moved into his neighbourhood to grow up with a plausible alternative.  Do you think  today those wise enough to seek out an encounter with that same Christ would in their turn be prepared to do the same.
Jesus brought a new way of understanding people in their actual situations. We may start by only noticing the manger and perhaps only then see a tiny vulnerable baby – but as that baby grew in understanding – so too our understanding can grow.  Don’t think it was only for the Magi.  

This is why we may need to shift our understanding from the traditional valuing presents above all at Christmas – to valuing the actual presence of the other.
The most important step in noticing this Jesus – is to notice that we too must become part of the tableau. It is one thing to passively observe – as outsiders – sing the carols and admire the baby. It is quite a different matter to interact with the one we find in the crib, valuing the same things he eventually valued. Don’t forget the peace he talked of will remain an unrealized ideal until there are those prepared to extend the peace on his behalf.
The perspective that finds a place for living relationship becomes gospel. It is gospel that starts with noticing the crib is more than scenery. It is gospel that discovers the baby and what is more, a baby in an uncomfortable setting – and as the baby grows, we too might find an expression for: “… my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives”… our viewpoint will mean more if it, is growing and developing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Lectionary sermon  21 December 2025 (Advent 4a) on Matthew 1:18-25

Posted on December 17, 2025 by peddiebill

I suspect if each of us in this gathering today were put on the spot and asked to choose the most important part of Advent that was worth celebrating, there would be some very different answers. 

We can’t go too far into our individual religious journeys of discovery before we realize encounters with new ideas over the years means admitting to ourselves that our ideas have changed.  What is more, just like every other form of learning –even if we feel we are making progress, we should start to realise at best it is a journey that is incomplete.

How many here this morning have changed our views about how we think about the first Christmas as we have grown in maturity?   Since our personal journey goes at a different pace for each one of us, does it matter if we don’t all agree on what it means?

Perhaps we need to distinguish between what puts different people in the mood for the festive season.  For example, which parts of the Christmas customs are helpful to retain the most valuable parts of our faith?  While I like light displays on houses and the floats in Christmas parades – if we remember the signs of the approaching baby Jesus, who then grows up and becomes the Jesus who taught us to care for one another – maybe the best way to celebrate his coming is in the way we too grow to the point where we too can really care  for others.

For me one of the best parts of Advent – this time before Christmas, is when I see people using Christmas as a means to remember people who need help.  Last Wednesday I was walking up to the Church door, and I was hailed by a woman driving past the church.   She called out – “here is something for your food bank”.     It was a packet of shortbread.    I know Advent is centred around the good news that we get from the gospels of Matthew and Luke which talk about how Jesus was coming as a baby all those years ago. Perhaps it is just our Christmas customs but somehow this seems to remind Church members to start thinking of others who might need help.   I guess this is why some congregations like ours do a bit of carol singing at retirement villages and hospitals.   In this country it is also a time for remembering to give to worthy causes.  This is the time of the year when letters in my letter box remind me about the need for the giving to appeals to help the lonely, or poor or sick people.  And for all those moans we hear about mean people in the community, we can really admire those who make time to notice children, the elderly, those in hospital  – even those who remember to invite otherwise overlooked family members to family gatherings.   

The stories in the Bible are a bit confusing. Strangely getting anything like a clear picture of exactly what happened that first Christmas is thwarted by the gospel writers themselves. The authors of the gospels were almost certainly handicapped by having little access to eyewitness accounts. In any event, writing years after the events would have made it very difficult to sort out how much was hearsay and how much was accurate. The mismatch in detail between Luke and Matthew on such matters is probably largely due to the varying sources they were obliged to work with.

The earliest gospel, that of Mark, leaves out the birth stories altogether, while the last gospel John prefers to use a poetic – almost cosmic – approach.

Today there is of course a challenge to try to reconcile modern understandings of conception and birth with the Bible accounts. These days Virgin birth seems to many, to be highly implausible. Yes I know a good number of followers of traditional forms of Christianity are still apparently committed to the Virgin birth story, yet a growing number of religious leaders are now talking of symbolic rather than literal meaning.

Matthew and Luke tell stories which suggest what happened, but since their accounts include inescapable contradictions even to the extent of providing different genealogies (both of which describe Joseph as the father of Jesus which hardly fits the Virgin Mary story)– perhaps this should make us suspect that they are each telling their version of the story to highlight different understandings as to what the birth meant. 

True the ancient creeds are firmly in place even if, to the bewilderment of those familiar with today’s scientific explanations for conception, whole branches of the Christian church still hold to what many critics say is out-dated superstition.

If nothing else this is a good reminder that knowledge in religion is intended to be a bit more than factual description, and that tradition, poetry and a sense of wonder and mystery overlay and shape our realities.

Can I add something for the historians amongst us.   When it comes to Matthew and Luke on the topic of the Virgin birth, rather than laughing at the gospel writers for their apparent naivety, it is also worth reminding ourselves that back then even scholars had no way of knowing any different.   In those days, Virgin birth was a plausible happening for the arrival of special people.  Did you know there were even written histories of the day confirming that virgin birth had happened in a number of other instances to people other than Jesus.

Some histories of the time claimed virgin birth for both Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great, and had been also described with the title of Saviour of the World. We also know that there was an additional reason why Matthew would favour the notion of Mary being a Virgin.

Matthew – clearly a Greek scholar, would presumably refer to his text of Isaiah which for him would be the then two hundred year old Greek translation which had changed the original Hebrew which said Almah….. meaning young girl… to the Greek word Parthenos …..meaning Virgin. We have no way of knowing in this instance if Matthew was treating this as symbolism to show that Jesus was special and at least the equivalent of Caesar Augustus or whether Matthew was genuinely unaware that the original Hebrew quotation gave a rather more prosaic meaning.

Some of the Bible experts here today may know that when a group of modern scholars were tasked with coming up with a more exact translation it so happens that they decided to correct the Isaiah quotation in Matthew and turn the Virgin back to young girl. When their final offering of what they called the Revised Standard Version was circulated in 1951 and 1952, it horrified traditional Church folk and both the Catholics and the Anglicans, insisted that the offending phrase be changed back to Virgin. The translators reluctantly gave in, and the mistranslation was reinstated.

I heard of one Baptist minister taking a rather more direct and dramatic course of action by incinerating the RSV of the Bible with a blow torch in front of his Sunday congregation. (We might note in passing that this spectacular act did not have quite the desired effect in that members of his congregation were reportedly so intrigued that they promptly went out and bought their own copies to see what the fuss was all about).

It is not my place to challenge the findings of the translators or arbitrate on the protests of the critics of the translation. While I am quite happy to admit a personal view that Mary was most unlikely to have been a Virgin in a literal sense, my immediate concern is that we have the grace to listen to one another before leaping to judgment.

I am wondering if instead of focusing on the so-called facts that that draw the fire of the critics with apparent contradictions and historical puzzles, if instead, we were to look at the symbolism we suddenly start to notice points we might otherwise miss. While we can delight in stumbling across weaknesses in the Bible records, ultimately it is not what Luke or Matthew makes of Jesus and his coming that will matter, it is what we ourselves might notice to make a difference to what we do at Christmas, that will set the stage for our reactions to Christmas.

For example, if we were to notice that Matthew is entering the male dominated traditional exclusive Jewish belief by setting out a genealogy for Jesus if we are looking carefully we would see, counter to custom, Matthew’s genealogy includes not only four female names, but also some known to be gentiles.   This might be a step towards realizing we are faced with a Jesus who may not be the exclusive preserve of Judaism. Further if we notice the extreme respect Matthew attributes to Mary’s status, he is underlining an attitude which Jesus will later make an essential part of his teaching. Even if Protestants don’t echo this respect by according her the status of Virgin, can I suggest they should at least come up with an alternative to show they respect the female role?

Don’t forget that when it comes to Joseph, Matthew shows a man who is prepared to put compassion for his betrothed wife ahead of the rather brutal and unforgiving laws in Deuteronomy. Is this the same compassion that will guide our attitudes to those whom society would judge?

While Matthew goes on to include some brutal realities about Herod don’t forget he also manages to inject just enough mystery and magic into his story line to remind us that Jesus is about to start a life in which true value will be found. To argue over which of his statements of mystery are justified by translation is to miss his purpose.

And yes, of course this Christmas, again there seems to have been over-use of tinsel, and supermarket jingles…. Not to mention twinkling lights in the night. But above all we might remember that the show of Christmas is not what matters. Certainly, it is a birth we will celebrate but for us the child of promise should not stay as a child. The reality we face in the coming weeks ahead calls for a child who will grow up to the adult Jesus who then challenges people like us.  Perhaps a good reminder we too will need to take the starting principles he offers and from there find what it will mean for us to have the things we believe guide us through the complexities and even the dangers of our adult lives. AMEN

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lectionary sermon for 14 December 2025 (Advent 3 A) on Matthew 11:2-11

Posted on December 8, 2025 by peddiebill

Modern Church worship is understandably focused on the way our worship leaders share the teachings discovered in the chosen readings for the day.  Don’t forget that early followers of Jesus then had to go on to find meaning for that faith in their everyday world, not simply leave it at what happens in their acts of Church worship.  The problem there is I look at today’s news often accompanied by worrying photos: those environmental disasters, victims of earthquakes, stories of unfair trade practices, refugees helpless in the face of war and famine, mounting evidence of genocide, destruction of whole ecosystems, and corruption in high places. No wonder the thinkers amongst us are left with the question as to why the Churches are typically muted in their response.  

Today’s typical church singing with lots of expressions of words of admiration for God and Jesus in our worship may well make us feel this is how serious church followers respond. Don’t forget Jesus early followers eventually understood a good part of their main response to what Jesus taught was in following his lead in terms of needed action in the everyday world.

Using John the Baptist as today’s example, if I were looking for a single word to describe his words and actions, that word would not be “religious”.  John was very much a straight talker – and from the Gospel record, some might say even unwisely so. Last week we encountered John berating those who had come for baptism because he saw them as hypocrites.

As background to today’s Gospel, we might need reminding the reason why John was now in prison was not so much that he was a religious prophet as it was in telling it as he saw it.    John the Baptist didn’t seem to soften his challenges just because in the process there might be some offended.

John’s undoing in this instance was that not only he believed Herod Antipas the Tetrarch had done something quite immoral, yet despite knowing Herod Antipas’ unpleasant reputation, actually told him so. As background Herod Antipas had been named as king by Caesar Augustus on the death of Herod’s father King Herod the Great, but the Romans had decided the Son’s power should be limited and only gave him a quarter share of his father’s territory.

Herod Antipas had set about trying to win back more power by building the city of Tiberius in honour of his current patron, the emperor Tiberius.

The immoral action which had offended John was that Herod Antipas used his attraction for his brother’s wife, Herodias, as an excuse for divorcing his current wife and marrying Herodias. Well, it is one thing to believe the king had done wrong but telling him so was quite another. It is understatement to say upsetting a ruthless king from a ruthless family by calling him immoral was not a wise career move. No surprise to any of his contemporaries then that John was now imprisoned, and, according to the historian Josephus, in the forbidding fortress Machaerus.

Remember John had been offering Baptism in the first place to prepare the faithful for the appearance of the Messiah. Now as the stories of Jesus teaching and healing in Galilee began to circulate, John appears to be a bit uncertain as to whether Jesus was in fact the expected Messiah. He somehow manages to send a message to Jesus from his cell. “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?”

Jesus’ answer? “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them.”

By referring to deeds rather than any claim he might make, Jesus focusses on what matters. After all there were others at the same time apparently claiming to be the Messiah, and such claims could only be substantiated with evidence.

We should note in passing, that even today there are many claiming to be modern day prophets, and I understand from my Doctor granddaughter most large psychiatric units have had at least one patient believing themselves to be Jesus reincarnated. Others are convinced that they are chosen by God to pass on a message, including a substantial number down through the centuries who have wrongly predicted the date for the end of the world. Almost invariably their behaviour is not consistent with their message and accordingly we would be wise to be extremely cautious about such claims.

We would not for example be very much inclined to accept that Jim Jones had been the prophet he claimed to be, particularly after he went on to have made his followers commit mass suicide.  Likewise, I guess most of us would not wish to follow a Church leader who absconded with Church funds nor should we for that matter want to seek moral guidance from one who was known to interfere sexually with children.

When Jesus describes John as more than a prophet and says that he is not one who would bend with the wind like a reed, I guess he is doing no more than relating what would be public knowledge.

I am guessing Old Testament prophets were probably better known for their ability to stand up against kings and religious leaders than they were for their piety and John was certainly in that same mould. John was a servant of the truth he had discovered and was going to speak that truth no matter how inconvenient this might have been for his personal welfare. Small wonder then if some assumed that John was Elijah returned.

And yet this is where the commentary gets puzzling.

The tricky part comes in realising that this Sunday, when we remember this exchange between the imprisoned John the Baptist and Jesus, apart from being Advent 3, the third Sunday of the Advent season, is also known as Gaudete Sunday from the Latin word meaning “to rejoice”

The problem is really a question. Did John really have much to rejoice about given his impending execution? And the more serious question. What of the rest of us now, something like two thousand years later?

Clearly, we need to be honest. Jesus’ coming did not solve all problems. For example, today there are still huge numbers who live in grinding poverty, there are still areas of the world where personal safety is threatened, places where there are refugees facing a grim and pitiless future and we don’t have to look too hard to encounter cities where the air is acrid and poisonous, and the water polluted.

When I last looked, under $2.00 per person per day was the threshold for extreme poverty as the standard adopted by the World Bank and other international organizations to reflect the minimum consumption and income level needed to meet a person’s basic needs. That means people who fall under that poverty line can be identified — and according to the international surveys, that turns out to be about 1/10 of the world’s population, in other words 1.4 billion people who lack the ability to fulfil basic needs, whether it means eating only one bowl of rice a day or forgoing health care when it’s needed most. At the same time some of us live in great luxury. What does Gaudete Sunday mean in that context?

Perhaps it is just as well that John the Baptist now has his story associated with this Sunday because if the cause for rejoicing has any meaning at all it is that when times were grim someone cared enough to speak up. Since there is widespread agreement that Jesus’ coming brought thought provoking teaching and an attitude of compassion which is a source of hope, we may need reminding that there is an urgent need for those prepared to act in his name. The alternative of leaving this teaching and set of attitudes within the walls of the Church would hardly be good news for those on the outside.

I have heard it said that the real reason why Church attendance is now smaller than it was one hundred years ago, is that for many it is now the most boring hour of the week. Certainly, if the only call for response is to expect us to drone fatuous words of praise without for one moment acknowledging that the praise should affect any of our consequent decisions during the week, then it is both boring and irrelevant. If that was indeed the case, the sooner the Church closed its doors the better we might all be.

If on the other hand the call is to use the teachings of Jesus and example of the prophets like John the Baptist to seize on the injustices of our time and insist on a change of priorities, then there may be genuine cause for rejoicing.

I suggested at the outset that John the Baptist does not come across as being particularly religious. I even wonder if Jesus himself cared much for formalised religion. This does not mean that there is no purpose served by coming to Church. Where else might we be likely to encounter the stories of practical people of faith and reflect on the thought-provoking teachings of Jesus.

But surely the real cause for rejoicing is that we too have the potential to respond to those teachings, not in history, but in the here and now. Perhaps then hopefully, inspired by those like John the Baptist, we can go out from our worship with the determination that what we learn as history will help reshape our future and the future of those like the folk for whom Jesus and John the Baptist first came.

It was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who risked his very life for what he knew to be right in his speaking up against Hitler. He is quoted as writing “We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spike into the wheel itself.”

Clearly, as an everyday occurrence, we are unlikely to be called to speak up against evil yet as we move towards Christmas, we still need to ask ourselves what part we are playing in response to Jesus coming, and at least to perhaps wonder if the example of John the Baptist or those like Dietrich Bonhoeffer should also challenge us to speak up for what we assume to be true.

It seems to me that if we only find the gospel in the deeds of those in the past then we will never find the gospel of our present. Now that is a challenge, and a gospel discovered in the here and now may even be a real reason for rejoicing.

POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER

Because I know of about 190 readers who have opted to receive this weekly lectionary sermon, it would be helpful to get some feedback as to whether or not it is helpful in its customary form.   Please don’t hesitate to express opinions (favourable or unfavourable) or make suggestions if you think important issues have been overlooked or misrepresented. If there are other potential readers who you think might appreciate some of the material, please feel free to share any of the posts on this site.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lectionary Sermon for 7 December 2025 (Advent 2A) Reflections on Matthew 3:1-12

Posted on December 3, 2025 by peddiebill

Here we are in the second Sunday of Advent expecting to get ready for Jesus to come into the story at Christmas.   So how to prepare?   The current standard lectionary approach is to start with Isaiah, then turn to Matthew’s take on the prophet, John the Baptist, preparing the people for an encounter with Jesus.

For those of us for whom Advent familiarity with figures like John the Baptist and the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah is no longer a novelty, perhaps we have almost forgotten to notice how strange they are. Yes, Isaiah was a great prophet who could weave a wonderful story with his prophecy of the coming Messiah. The only catch was that his description of the Messiah is then hard to match with the gospel story of Christ.  Putting it bluntly, Isaiah was misleading.

When the Saviour, Jesus arrived, he simply wasn’t the “Isaiah-described” sort of King. Ask yourself … In the gospel version the wolf didn’t lie down with the kid and Jesus didn’t judge the poor. Nor did Jesus strike the Earth with the rod of his mouth or kill the wicked with his breath …On the other hand Jesus still came with a message that can make a huge potential difference to a lot of people.

In any event since Baptism will come to mark the beginning of a Christian life for many– then why not have a more modern story of Baptism mark our approach to Christmas?

Given our familiar Church setting, the rite of John’s style of baptism must seem strange and archaic to those with no familiarity with its history and meaning.  Either way the uncomfortable truth is that the Matthew version of Jesus’ act of baptism raises almost as many questions as it does answers.

At the very least, the mental image of John the Baptist, wild eyed, unkempt and dressed in animal skins, berating members of the crowd before dunking them into the weedy, dirty water of the Jordan river doesn’t quite match what happens in my own church for a Baptism – nor for that matter other churches I have encountered. How does it square with that typical genteel reality of a robed minister or priest reciting a few carefully proscribed words from a standardized prayer book before gently sprinkling a few drops of pre-warmed water on the forehead of a tiny baby and then baptizing the infant in the names from the fourth century formula of the Trinity.

Can you imagine in Church if we swapped to using liturgy from the equivalent of Matthew’s reported version of the ranting and threats of John the Baptist delivered in full voice. 

For the record, we might remind ourselves John was not the first to baptize in Palestine. Please note the ritual of baptism back then was usually the dramatic symbolic step in the initiation for the gentiles who wished to convert to Judaism. It should be emphasised that baptism was not required for most of those born into the Jewish faith. Those from a family in good standing with Judaism would be presented to the Temple or Synagogue soon after birth and be expected to go through another ceremony at about age 12 before they could take their full place in Jewish society.

The understanding at that time was that baptism was unnecessary for Jews since being born into the Jewish family community was enough to begin as a member of the “Chosen Race”. On the other hand, to join that Chosen Race from the outside meant setting aside one’s old faith, which was seen as needing evidence of total commitment. Thus, the ceremony of baptism by full immersion in the river was considered to be the outward display of one prepared to renounce their previous beliefs and take on the new life and new direction.

At the time of Jesus, the emergence of small number of baptizers, including John the Baptist, wanting to baptize Jews, was part of a growing movement reflecting the desperation experienced by the Jews at the time of the Roman occupation. Their historical understanding was certainly they were a special people – chosen by God – yet the promised Messiah who had been expected to appear like King David to lead them to their rightful restored place had not arrived. Now some, like John, were now teaching that this was really because the Jews had gone so far from the ways of God that they might not even have the right to be thought of as God’s people.

Jews they may have been in name- yet as far as those like John the Baptist were concerned, what was required was for them to re-join the faithful and demonstrate their commitment by having themselves baptized. Only then would the Messiah appear.

Matthew’s version has John calling the Pharisees and Sadducees amongst the crowd “a brood of vipers”. In Mark’s earlier version of the same story, it is the crowd in general who are thereby addressed, and although we would almost certainly be shocked if a modern preacher were to address those who arrive at one of our places of baptism in those terms, it may usefully remind us that if baptism is to mean anything at all we should at least reflect on why John the Baptist thought it was needed.

Historians amongst the congregation may be aware that many years ago, the Greek Orthodox Church could not accept soldiers who were still serving soldiers as candidates for baptism, since a baptised Christian was not allowed to kill.

One story I confess I like to tell at least once for each congregation is that when the Russian emperor (Ivan:   I think from memory… Ivan the Great) once wanted to marry a Greek Orthodox princess so he offered to have his personal guard of top soldiers baptized at the same time. The Greek king (or so the story goes) objected that once they are baptized, they won’t be able to kill anyone because this is what baptism means. Ivan’s solution (if we believe the story) was to have the guards baptized but to hold their sword arm up so that the arm wouldn’t be baptised and would still be able to kill on the King’s behalf.

So each soldier was baptized but the un-baptized arm could still kill in the service of the Emperor? Baptized – yet not quite totally baptized…er..like us perhaps? Ok, I don’t think many today still accept that Baptism means a perfect life from then on.

Is there not a parallel with what we find today? Most of us – (note I include myself here), can probably identify activities where our religious beliefs take a back seat to more immediate concerns. Quite apart from the continued attraction of the so-called deadly sins, many Church-goers can be noticed demonstrating characteristics that put them in opposition to Jesus’ teaching.

Can you imagine a congregation where some members are into storing up riches, taking thought for the morrow and holding grudges instead of forgiving those who wrong them? I can too…

Surely most modern societies now treat Baptism in a far more cavalier fashion. For example, these days all soldiers are expected to be allowed to kill the designated enemy – and I suspect if you were to approach their commander and explain that those under his command were unable to go into combat because as infants they had been baptized, the commander would want to send you to the Army psychiatrist.

Very well then, if not for soldiers, what other context is expected to matter for baptism? Remember that baptism is also a public display of an intention not only not to kill but also a promise to live in a different way, associated with a whole new way of life. As we reflect on our own lives it is fair to ask what changed or different characteristics an independent observer would notice about us as a result.

When it comes to baptizing a small child, I don’t think it is being unnecessarily cynical to admit, at least in a typical worst-case scenario, the action of baptism or christening is typically seen as a desirable custom rather than a genuine declaration of intent.

I have on occasion put it to a congregation that if the child is baptized and is subsequently brought up as a virtual stranger to the Church, this is roughly equivalent to going along to a sports muster day, signing the child up for a football or basketball team, and perhaps even paying the club fee, then never encouraging the child to turn up as a participant for the sport. If we find that silly – why do we not find encouraging baptism to be equally silly in the case where no difference in behaviour, or action, is intended?

No doubt what happens after infant Baptism is initially a parental responsibility yet if the words of a typical service are to mean anything, the responsibility goes rather wider than that. When the congregation is invited to vow that they will support the child being brought up in the faith but then do nothing to ensure that happens it also seems to me that such words of the service become empty and that the public vow is  vacuous.

John the Baptist enjoined those he baptized “to bear fruit worthy of repentance”. This is a helpful reminder that Matthew’s use of the Greek word for repentance, “metanoia”, does not simply mean to be filled with penitent remorse – but actually suggests something closer to the Jewish equivalent word “teshuva” – meaning “turn about face” – or at least to undergo a change of mind or change of direction. We may well claim that has happened, but should still at least wonder if others might notice that the change is enough for others to see.

Although probably a majority of denominations still use the ceremony of baptism at least as a preliminary to the induction into the Christian faith, we might also pause to ask ourselves why some denominations teach it is not necessary. The Unitarians and Salvation Army for example do not practise the rite and before we, who do practice Baptism, insist that our customs are more correct, we must also be honest with ourselves in checking that we are the better Christians in the life expression of our faith as a consequence of our way of starting in the faith..

Since some can start to live their Christianity without the prior rite of baptism we might also wonder whether baptism is critical in practice and may even need to be more relaxed about which form of baptism is absolutely essential, no matter what tradition might teach us. At the same time, if we ever become aware that our course in life is not leading us in the direction our consciences tell us we ought to be heading, I wonder if we can just make out Matthew’s reported words of John the Baptist echoing faintly down through the centuries, reminding us to bear the fruit of repentance …what was it again…. metanoia, the change of direction.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lectionary Sermon 30 November 2025 , Advent 1A Matthew 24: 36-44

Posted on November 28, 2025 by peddiebill

Thinking back to my distant youth I remember encountering end-time missionaries with their dire warnings of impending doom for the unbelievers. By then the arms race was well underway. Nuclear bomb testing was in the news.    And it certainly seemed plausible that something terrible was bound to happen.   Today with President Putin of Russia sending troops, drones and rockets in a worsening war with neighbouring Ukraine and at the same time suggesting he may have to use low grade nuclear weapons, I am not sure if it is time to claim the fear of end-times should altogether be put to rest.

 I find it far harder today to share such conclusions with those whose sense of zeal and certainty seems to welcome such a set of end-time beliefs.  While I have much to learn, I now know far more about the history of failed “Bible based” prophecies and rather more than I did about the way the Bible was assembled. Because today’s passage is so commonly seriously misrepresented, I want to start with some intentionally pointed observations.

We might start with reflecting on what faced the early copyists and editors of Matthew’s text. By the time we get to encounter the text it has been copied many times and differences in the subsequent versions suggest it has been extensively edited.

Ah, the wisdom of hindsight (eg knowing the Temple had already been destroyed and the Jews driven out) which must have been powerful editorial factor for Matthew. Yet, even assuming we are reading the relatively unedited text of what Jesus had originally said, we should at least look at the whole of today’s text. The lectionary allows for a certain amount of wriggle-room.   It is perhaps unfortunate that some denominations (and that includes my own!) start by avoiding parts of the chosen readings that don’t have a good fit with their current favoured theology.

For example, if you compare the Roman Catholic lectionary reading for today’s gospel with those of the other Churches’ readings you may have noted that this time it is the Catholic version which starts one verse later. I don’t happen to know the official reason, but I cannot help but wonder that, since in the dropped verse Jesus states that “no-one knows the hour” and for emphasis adds, “neither the angels in heaven nor the Son – but only the Father”, to some this would be an awkward admission that Jesus was not in the same league as the Father.  Perhaps today’s Bible prognosticators need to be asked if Jesus himself can’t give a time, what gives them the right to their certainty.  We might also note that some copyists or editors were so discomfited by the three words “nor the Son” that a number of versions of the gospel quietly leave those words out altogether.

I guess we can at least understand their motivation. If Jesus admits he doesn’t have total knowledge about what is being predicted, he comes across as being more human than the God who is all-knowing which is a problem for some traditional Church theology.

Next we consider the setting. When Jesus uses the analogy “Just as in the days of Noah” – he is saying figuratively that this applies to those caught up in cataclysm. The Greek word, translated in NRSV as “flood” in verses 38 and 39 is kataklusmou—which we can equally translate indeed as “cataclysm”. This should give us a clue, namely that here Jesus is thought to be talking to those who are shortly to be caught in a maelstrom which of course is exactly what the early Christian Church was facing.

The early Christian church membership at the time of Matthew’s gospel numbered a few thousand at best. Those who were struggling to help their own particular tiny church survive, lived in frightening times. For the most part many would have been suffering the double difficulty of being rejected by the Jewish community while at the same time being harassed by the Romans, offended by the Christians’ reluctance to acknowledge the Emperor as a God.

As if this wasn’t enough, the scholars’ date for Gospel of Matthew, set at about 80AD, tells that the sacking of the Temple and destruction of most of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans had already happened (the Jewish war was from AD 66 to 70. In a very human setting, editing to remember to slant prophecy with hindsight may well have been a reasonable -even sensible- temptation. But whatever the reason, a very visible cataclysm was already part of the experience for the first readers of the version of Matthew’s gospel which today’s translators are left to work with.

This should offer the opportunity for us to draw at least some parallels with our own lives. Do we really need to wait for end-times to encounter cataclysm? Part of the human condition means that virtually everyone born, sooner or later will experience at the very least a “quiet apocalypse” in their own lives. For example, for many, sooner or later there will be a health crisis, remembering cancer is depressingly common especially with the elderly. Even in the best ordered family death will need to be faced, whether it is one’s own death or a death of some figure absolutely critical to the well-being of the family.

In this nation at least, there are other issues which may resonate with some. Sooner or later, most families experience severe financial pressures, perhaps in the form of unexpected redundancy, and it is common that one or more family members may get caught up with addiction or depression. If it comes to that, even nice houses and quiet neighbourhoods are no protection against marriage breakdown which is an ever-present feature of modern society.

We must also be honest, at least if only with ourselves, admitting that even if Jesus had been predicting his second coming in the near future for his contemporary followers, and if the second coming was intended to mean what the rapture predictors claimed to be the truth, Jesus was simply wrong. It didn’t happen in the lifetime of his listeners nor has it happened in that form for the approximate two thousand years which have since passed.

But what if there are some clues here to suggest Jesus may have been on about something rather different.

This coming is certainly portrayed as unexpected. The thief in the night is unexpected just as each crisis is often unexpected. Yet encountering the experience of Jesus may not be separate from the cataclysm. Parousia—the Greek for “coming”–is formed from para and ousia. Literally, the term means “being alongside.” What if “coming” (erxetai) is in the present tense, not future.

OK, we should admit we can’t be certain of his words because even if he is accurately reported, Jesus was presumably not speaking Greek, but this simultaneous coming and being experienced alongside implies that Jesus is found in each apocalypse whatever form it might take. At the same time we should reflect on the fact that nowhere in the Bible do we find the words “second-coming”. It is certainly reasonable to suggest Matthew was recording an suggested event intended to remind his listeners of the Apocalyptic Book of Daniel where in Daniel 7:13, Daniel saw “one like a son of humanity, coming with the clouds of heaven.”

The notion that Jesus doesn’t come for all may be a picturesque way of suggesting that those unprepared will fail to recognise his presence because they cannot recognise his presence in the familiar. It is only an opinion but from other things Jesus is thought to have said, being prepared for Jesus coming seems very unlikely to have anything to do with rushing to the top of some mountain to sing hymns and say Amen to the loud prayers of some self-appointed “Holy-man”.

It is for example interesting to read today’s text alongside that other famous passage on the final judgment from Matthew Chapter 25.where the confused chosen ones asked “37 …… ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Recognizing Jesus may seem an easy task, but even the thought that everyone starting with King Herod, to the religious leaders, to Pilate and even the soldiers at the foot of the Cross reportedly had the greatest difficulty in understanding who Jesus was, even when they had met him in the flesh.  Maybe if Jesus specifically claimed that it is rather in our understanding that he is present in those who need our help, perhaps we need to start by reflecting on how we approach those who are the least among us.

In short – if Jesus is right in his parables of his coming again, staying awake and being prepared to recognise the coming of the Son of Man, is not and never has been a so-called religious event. Perhaps it is rather, nothing more nor less than a sincere attempt to recognize opportunities to live the Christian ethic.

It is probably uncomfortable to many Church members to allow in Jesus’ terms that perhaps sponsoring the installation of a well for poverty stricken villagers, providing a food bank for the destitute in our own city, or even volunteering for a peacekeeping force may be closer to getting ready for whatever is meant by the coming of the son of man than lustily singing a few verses of Onward Christian Soldiers and quietly sleeping through the preacher’s well intentioned sermon.

Cataclysms can still come as they always have come, and for each of us the ultimate cataclysm may seem more dreadful in our future.

Far from impending cataclysm our Advent candles seem to offer a gentle and even ordered approach to Christmas. Today the first Sunday of Advent (at least in many churches) we lit the candle of Prophecy or Hope for what the coming of Jesus might mean. Next week we would probably light the candle of Love, then it will be the candle of Joy and finally the candle of Peace. Only then according to this ordered tradition will we be ready to light the Christ candle on Christmas day.

I like this tradition, but if we really are to celebrate the coming of Christ to the real world, perhaps we need to be more keenly aware that for many of the least of our brothers and sisters, caught in their own genuine cataclysm of poverty, pain and despair, words like Hope, Love, Joy and Peace will mean little until those who claim to share Christ’s vision for the future reach out to the despairing with genuine compassion. I wonder if we will be found numbered among those who care. Jesus of the Parousia may be noticed alongside as we light our candles. How we prepare ourselves to recognize his coming is the challenge now before us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lectionary Sermon 16 November 2025 on Luke 21: 5-19

Posted on November 12, 2025 by peddiebill

Now that our nation has reached the point where a great collection of different nationalities, religions, behaviours, clothing styles and even very different political parties jostle for our attention, it may be time to ask how our particular church in our chosen denomination is seen by outsiders.

A few years back I went through a stage of watching the Simpsons on TV. I wonder if you agree that we might be intrigued how many of the apparently fatuous remarks of Homer Simpson seem a fair representation of what in our more honest moments we suspect many people think.

Let’s hear from Bart:
‘Dad, what religion are we?‘ —
Homer replies ‘You know… the one with all the well-meaning rules that don’t work out in real life… Christianity!‘ ……

.. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves if that is the way it is meant to be, and from there, how the myriad of modern versions of the Temple contribute to this Homer-type attitude.

Well, what is not to like?    Our churches are readily recognized and even the old ones send a message that here is a place of worship.

Certainly, the more significant Church buildings are imposing. Overseas they are magnets for the tourists.   Yet today, I wonder what the church now means for the majority of folk who don’t call themselves  Christian?

For those who know something about history I suspect such structures also imply a declaration of power and even warning.

We only need to reflect on some of the better-known walls round historic cities or even religious centres to realize that the majority hardly fit Jesus’ teaching of “welcoming the stranger in our midst”.

Traditionally the famous temples of the past were often quite direct in their message that only the elect were welcome.

Think back the numerous references to the Temple in Jewish history and religious writing. We might remember Jesus himself, (as for virtually all his first followers) was a Jew with feelings of identification with the Temple. Luke implies a greater respect for the Temple than the other New Testament writers and for example, unlike the other gospel writers, Luke places virtually all of Jesus’ final teaching in and around the precincts of the Temple.

In Jesus’ day the Temple building was a magnificent structure. The pillars of the porches were reportedly some 40 feet high columns of white marble, each allegedly made of a single block of stone. According to the contemporary historian Josephus, the front of the temple was encrusted with gold plate and from a distance the body of the temple appeared to onlookers as if covered in snow. One of the most significant of the offerings was a gold relief model of a grape vine described as having clusters of grapes, each cluster standing as tall as a man.

As the religious centre for the Jews, the Temple had additional significance and although a cynic would no doubt say that it had been rebuilt principally to glorify Roman leaders, it was clear that as far as most early followers were concerned, they considered it first and foremost to be a Holy place. Jesus’ reported indignation in clearing the temple of the money lenders and his apparently single-minded intention to return to the Temple to complete his mission were indicative of how Jesus viewed the Temple’s importance.

Luke tells us that Jesus had prophesied that the entire temple would shortly be pulled down with “Not one stone left upon another”. In fairness we should also acknowledge that Luke was recording prophecy in hindsight. By the time Luke recorded his gospel, the Temple was wrecked.    The irony was the destruction of the walls and the consequent dispersal of Jews and Christians from Jerusalem turned out to be a good part of the key to the spread of the gospel.

Don’t forget the Temple in Jesus’ day had been celebration of the way to approach God. The layout was designed to put visitors in their place. Gentiles (non-Jews) were encouraged to visit the outside courtyard, but the archaeologists have discovered the sign on the gentiles’ wall which could hardly be more direct. The gist of the translation: “If you are a gentile, and if you go beyond this wall, it will be your own fault when we kill you!”

The next courtyard was as far as Jewish women were allowed to go, then it was the courtyard for the Jewish men, then an area for the Priests and finally that veiled place of mystery, the Holy of Holies, that only the High Priest was allowed to enter – and then only one day a year.

Walls to confine, to exclude and to obscure but ultimately walls that would not and perhaps should not last.

We humans do so love our significant structures. The immense effort which has gone into building great walls and huge buildings throughout the ancient world is an indicator and even a barometer of the fortunes of history. Think of the Great Wall of China which the contemporary historians of the day claimed cost more than a million lives.  the great cathedrals of Europe –the great Cathedral at Cologne took 600 years to build – and some of the great mosques, palaces and lavish tombs of the mighty rulers of the past also required great effort. Yet for outsiders, and even for insiders, the walls and buildings also serve as symbols which may obscure true understanding of the spirit they are supposed to represent.

At its most basic, the irony is if you can’t see in, by the same token you can’t see out. Here we might think of our modern Churches as well as the Temple. And if you listen to the language inside the Church services and the language used by the same people outside the Church you might be excused for thinking that there are two separate worlds and even separate existences…. I even sometimes wonder if we should think of ourselves as bipolar Christians!

Let me illustrate. Inside the walls of the Church, we use our religious vocabulary to give thanks for salvation,  Think of all those phases we use for communion. Comforting words no doubt to the initiated….

But you must have noticed out there we don’t talk religious. Not time for “fellowship” but meeting up for coffee at the town centre. Not time out there for prayers of confession. Rather: What have our politicians been up to behind our backs? Are the contractors offering a fair price? Did you watch the final? What’s for dinner?

This raises a question. If we can create this religious enclave in Church, having “done Church” on Sunday is there really any need to have anything to do with those awkward people we don’t really want to get to know outside the Church during the week? Or do you think what we should be asking about why we seem not to notice the difference? Having prayed for healing for Aunty Dolly on Sunday, we need to guard against thinking as if: having prayed, we could skip visiting Aunty Dolly in the hospital? Surely the more pertinent question is: if we prayed for Aunt Dolly in Church, what were we doing if we didn’t intend to follow it up with the hospital visit? Yet how different might it be if we return from Church to the world transformed, taking what we learn on one side of the wall to the other.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves if that is the way it is meant to be, and from there, how the myriad of modern versions of the Temple contribute to this Homer Simpson-type attitude.

True a building can increase the pride and feelings of security and place for those who are privileged to use the building, but there is always a cost. Because outsiders cannot see in they feel excluded and of course those inside, while they are there, they cannot notice what goes on beyond the walls.

I am not against the idea of Churches. I have always been struck by the atmosphere inside, the architecture and furniture and wall hangings which help us centre our thoughts and provide a place of contemplation and even wonder. Yet surely, we must remain keenly aware of what our building can do to the way we interact with those beyond the walls.

In Robert Frost’s work entitled “Walls” I was struck by three lines in the poem:
“….Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was likely to give offence”.

As far as the religious community was concerned the destruction of the Temple was tragic and according to the history books totally traumatic. The Jews who were not tortured or killed were driven out of Jerusalem and forced to interact with the world outside their city gates. And in truth it must have seemed to them like the end of the world. Yet like so many apocalyptic events through the centuries it was not the end of the world. The Christian missionaries, like so many since, were forced away from their protective Church enclaves into a world where they lived and shared their faith and actions as best they could, and we inherit their efforts.

In choosing which of Jesus’ words to recount, Luke is not pulling any punches. Not only will the Temple have to go but genuine problems and even anguish is ahead. And that is of course the nature of the real world. Some will have it worse than others. Some might be lucky enough to live tranquil lives and die peaceful deaths but when you are prepared to put faith and life on the line – in the real world, even life itself can be required. Luke finishes this section of his gospel with Jesus having just said some will be put to death, yet then Jesus comes out with this curious enigmatic statement. “But not one hair of your heads will perish. By your endurance you will win your souls”.

For the survival and spread of the faith, in the last analysis the temple is not needed. If anything, by its misuse, in Jesus day, the temple once got in the way of the next step of faith. Perhaps our Church will get in the way if we allow its walls to become part of the problem. Yet outside the security of those walls, even if the sacrifice of life itself is called for – that which Jesus calls the soul – or if you prefer – that which is most important because it is the very essence of life – is somehow won.

It is frankly beyond my knowledge and level of faith to talk confidently of exactly what it means to win our souls, yet it does seem to me that in restoring our priorities, we regain the dignity of the human condition, which at the very least is a prize worth winning.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment