Wendy and I have been watching World on Fire – Its a BBC mini-series that follows the hidden lives of ordinary people from Britain, Poland, France and Germany during World War II.
I presume there will be future seasons, but this first season introduces us to the early advances of the Nazi’s with their invasion and occupation of Poland, and then their subsequent invasion of France and the devastation that these invasions caused.

The series also helps to reveal the something of the evil (for the want of a better word) of the Nazi threat and ideology.
On Remembrance Sunday, when remember those who fought and died in the second world war, we often speak of expressing our gratitude because they fought for our freedom. But what exactly do we mean when we say that. What is the shape of this freedom that they fought for, and how can we honour the legacy they have left for us?
As one reflects on a TV series like World on Fire, it reminds us of the kind of freedom they fought for:

The freedom that they fought for was a freedom from living in a society based on intimidation and fear. In the World on Fire series one sees how ordinary German citizen's, many of whom had a distaste for Nazi ideology were forced and coerced in submission through fear and intimidation. In the series we see how neighbours were made to spy on neighbours and workers on their fellow workers and colleagues and then reporting back to the Nazi authorities. 

The freedom that soldiers fought for was a freedom from living in a society based on intimidation and fear.

It is indeed a very worrying aspect of the current state of British politics where politicians on both sides of the Brexit debate are being intimidated on the streets and receiving hate mail and death threats. It reveals that the seeds of Nazi ideology were not something peculiar to the German people, but in fact live in the hearts of every human being who uses fear and intimidation to get their way. If we are to preserve the freedom that soldiers fought and died for, we need to nurture a political landscape that is free from fear and intimidation. The kind of society I believe that Christ invites us to create is one where we win people over with our love and good deeds rather than by coercion, intimidation and fear.

Secondly when one reflects on the story of World on Fire, it reminds us that those who sacrificed their lives on our behalf fought for a world where might is not right. In the TV series one sees how Nazi ideology was built on the theory that might is right, that somehow, having power meant that the felt justified using that power in whatever way they pleased, killing with impunity, even people who posed no threat to them.

The freedom that soldiers fought for was a freedom from living in a society based on intimidation and fear.

It is not right that anyone should dominate another simply because we are stronger. It is not right to invade another country just because one has the power to do so. It is not right to impose one’s own system of values on another simply because one has the power to do so or to use violence against another because one disagrees with them.

Our passage from Luke’s Gospel gives us a vivid picture of this when Jesus and the disciples face opposition from the Samaritans. James and John are working on the principal of might is right. If someone opposes you, then you have the right to use violence against them. Inspired by one of the Old Testament stories of Elijah, they say to Jesus, should we call down fire from heaven upon them to destroy them. But Jesus is not interested in their culture of violence and domination. The text tells us that Jesus rebukes them. One translation says he corrected them. I like that translation. The word rebuke is quite a harsh word. Jesus corrected them and they simply went on to another village.

Jesus lived for a world where violence and dominance would be no more. The hope as expressed in the Old Testament where the weapons of war would be beaten into agricultural implements.

Henri Nouwen, a popular Christian writer wrote: “For Jesus there are no countries to be conquered, no ideologies to be imposed, no people to be dominated. There are only children, women and men to be loved.”

Thirdly, reflecting on the World on Fire series, I believe that soldiers who fought and died in world war 2 fought for a world where it is ok to display weakness and where people who live with weaknesses and disabilities can be honoured and protected. The Aryan pursuit of racial perfection meant that Nazi ideology looked with disdain on all who were weak, even to the extent of feeling it was ok to exterminate them. In the TV series, we encoutner an ordinary German family whose daughter had epilepsy. Over the course of the series it becomes apparent that any children with some form of disability or weakness were identified for special medical treatment. But what this really meant was that they were identified to be euthenased in order to protect the Aryan gene pool from weakness.

The apostle Paul reminds us that the way of Christ is a way that honours weakness. That somehow it is in our weaknesses that God’s strength and power are displayed. And in the words of Leonard Cohen, it is often through the cracks of our imperfection that the light is able to shine through.

Jesus powerfully demonstrated the way where might is not right as he sacrificed himself in crucifixion. In the light of the cross we discover that there is something about human weakness and vulnerability that is saving and redeeming in a way that the way of violence can never be.

Fourthly, the TV series World on Fire reminds us that those who sacrificed their lives in the second world war fought for a world where no racial group or nationality should consider itself superior.

In the TV series, we are reminded of the Nazi ideology of the superiority of the Aryan race. And from this so-called position of superiority, they believed that they could act with disdain and impunity against any they considered inferior, whether Polish, French, Jewish or people of African descent.

The Nazi superiority complex and their obsession with strength grew out of the ashes of German humiliation at the end of the First World War and in the treaty of Versaille. What ever the origins of this Nazi Superiority complex, it had devastating consequences, not just for the Jews, but for anyone who they considered inferior. In fighting against the evil of Nazi ideology of Aryan superiority, those who died in the second world war were in effect fighting for a world where no race or nationality should claim superiority over others. In Galatians, Paul asserts that the message of Christ is one where we are called to go beyond the human distinctions we make between different people, a world in which we are no longer bound between the false distinctions of Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Slave and Free, a world in which we see every human being as someone equally precious in God’s sight and for whom Christ died.

Lastly, I believe those who gave their lives in world war 2 fought for a world in which our differences should be honoured.

In the most recent episode we watched one sees the Nazi obsession with social control, right down to trying to control what kind of music people could listen to. As they invade Paris the Nazi's begin to shut down jazz-clubs and arrest jazz musicians. Jazz was outlawed for a number of reasons. It was seen as undisciplined and advocating individualism, as well as being 'black' people's music. On the World on Fire, we see also that jazz was outlawed because jazz musicians plucked their stringed instruments thus supposedly causing harm to their instruments.

Those who gave their lives in World War 2 fought for a world in which our differences should be honoured. Where we do not have to agree on everything. Where we do not have to all listen to the same kind of music. Where we can affirm the right of others to hold differences of opinion and practice.

The issue of same-sex marriage is understandably a hot-topic in Northern Ireland, and particularly in light of the implementation of the Westminster legislation a week or so ago. On BBC radio ulster about a week ago, there was a discussion between a number of religious leaders, which happened to include the Rev. Chris Hudson, the current moderator of our own denomination who many will know has long advocated for the LGBT+ community. It was good to hear him affirming that not everyone in our own denomination is of one mind on the issue. But it was the voice of a spokesperson from the Evangelical Alliance however which really stood out for me. While he affirmed the fact that he remains diametrically opposed to same-sex marriage, he also affirmed the right and freedom of others, like Chris Hudson to hold and practice a view different from his own, because in doing so it was affirming the right to religious freedom for himself as well. I felt that there was a lot of courage and wisdom in his statement. We fight for the religious freedom of others even when we disagree with them, because in doing so we fight for our own religious freedom as well.

The alternative is to lay the seeds of a new kind of Nazi-ism where one group seeks to impose their own opinions on others.

Ellen de Generes in the context of a very divided America was recently criticised for hanging out with George W. Bush. She responded with the following statement: ““Here’s the thing, I’m friends with George Bush. In fact, I’m friends with a lot of people who don’t share the same beliefs that I have. We’re all different. And I think that we’ve forgotten that that’s OK that we’re all different. When I say, ‘Be kind to one another’, I don’t mean only the people who think the same way that you do, I mean be kind to everyone. Doesn’t matter.”

And so today, we honour those who fought for the freedoms we have today. The freedom to respectfully disagree. The freedom to enjoy jazz music if that is our preference. But also the freedom from a world of fear, intimidation and domination based on someone’s notion of their own superiority. A world where we are free to honour the weaknesses and disabilities in ourselves and in others, and where we do not need to hide our weaknesses and disabilities out of fear of others.

And it all begins with you and me: Gandalf, in the Lord of the Rings says the following: “Some believe that is it only GREAT POWER that can hold evil in check. But that is not what I have found. I have found that it is the small every day deeds of ordinary folk that keep darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.”

Luke 19:1-10

This week I came across a news article by British writer and activist Priya Basil entitled: Make yourselves at home: the meaning of hospitality in a divided world.

The article begins with these very powerful words:

“We all begin as guests, every single one of us. Helpless little creatures whose every need must be attended to. Creatures who, for a long time, can give nothing or very little back, yet who – in the usual run of things – nevertheless insinuate ourselves deep into the lives of our carers and take up permanent residence in their hearts.”

It is quite a profound thought that the experience of unconditional hospitality goes right back to our experience in the womb where a space is created for us within our mother’s bodies and then our experience of hospitality shown to us as we are born into this world.

The writer of the article goes on to suggest that becoming a mature adult in this world requires that we all make a general shift from being a dependent guest to having the capacity to become a competent host. Somehow, the act and practice of hospitality touches something of the very core of our humanity.

The article explores the power of unconditional hospitality and suggests that the act of welcoming and feeding strangers can help to transcend borders and break down barriers between people.

In the article the writer (who comes from a Sikh background) makes reference to her own family experience of hospitality with their Muslim neighbours. Hosting each other for meals in each others homes became a way in which religious and cultural barriers were broken down between them and for genuine friendship and caring to grow between them as neighbours. Sharing meals in each others homes turned them from strangers into friends.

Perhaps the reason the article caught my eye is that Jesus knew very well the transforming power of hospitality in his own life and ministry. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is pictured eating meals with people. IN Luke’s Gospel alone – which we have been focusing on this year – there are 10 scenes in which Jesus is pictured eating meals with people, and that's apart from a number of parables which are set in the context of a hosted meal. And what is most striking is that Jesus practiced sharing meals with an open table – which was quite unheard of in most Jewish religious circles where table fellowship helped to define who was in and who was out, who was acceptable and who was unacceptable. But all were welcome at the table of Christ... saint and sinner alike.

Jesus ate meals with the hated tax-collectors (collaborators with the oppressive Roman Empire), he ate meals with prostitutes, those considered by others as morally unclean and unacceptable. I don’t think we take on board just how radical that practice was. Just imagine if a minister today here in Northern Ireland began to regularly host meals with prostitutes, what an uproar it would cause in the local newspapers. He ate meals with lepers, (in Matthew and Mark’s Gospel he is spoken of visiting the home of Simon the Leper). He ate meals at a wedding banquet. He ate meals with his betrayer and deserters. At the last supper, Judas is present with Jesus at the table, along with Peter who denies him and all the disciples who desert him. He eats meals with his religious rivals the Pharisees, as we see him dining with the self-righteous Simon the Pharisee. He ate meals with uninvited guests, the women of ill-repute who gate crashed Simon the Pharisees home as washed Jesus feet with her tears and dried them with her hair.

Jesus practiced a radical and open hospitality where all were welcome and no-one was turned away.

And that brings us to our Gospel passage today:

The story of Zacchaeus revolves around an act of hospitality as Zachaeus welcomes Jesus into his home. Or is it the other way around, where Jesus invites himself over to the home of Zacchaeus. What is interesting, is that while this act of hospitality happens in Zacchaeus’s home, the impression that one is given is that it is not Zachaeus who is the host, but rather Jesus himself. It is Jesus who creates a space for Zacchaeus more than Zacchaeus who creates a space for Jesus.

While it is Zacchaeus who seems to be seeking Jesus at the beginning of the passage, it turns out that it is Jesus who is doing the real seeking. It is Jesus who is seeking this lost and shunned little man called Zacchaeus.

And like the article that I read this week suggests, this moment of hospitality, as Zacchaeus makes a place for Jesus in his home, and more significantly as Jesus makes a place for Zaccaehus in his presence and in his heart, it is a transforming moment. It is a moment that breaks open Zacchaeus’s heart as we begin to see the flood-gates of God’s grace and mercy flowing through him:

What might this story tell us about communion?

1. Although it is we who bring gifts of bread and wine / grape-juice to remember Jesus, it is Jesus who is the host of the meal. It is Jesus who invites us into his presence.

2. Secondly, the story communicates to us that there is a place for each of us at the table of Christ. There is a place for you. No matter how unworthy you feel, and perhaps also, no matter how unworthy someone else may have made you feel. There is a place for you at the table of Christ. As Christ calls Zacchaeus by his name, so Christ welcomes us as he calls us by name.

At the table of Jesus, there is a place for you.

I must admit that I am incredibly grateful to be part of a church / denomination where the table of communion is open to all. It was the same in the Methodist tradition that I grew up in. I am often intrigued by Church traditions which place conditions on who can come to communion. To me it seems that it undermines the spirit in which  Christ.

At the table of Jesus, there is a place for you.

3. Thirdly, when we truly receive the unconditional hospitality of Christ and become his guests at his it has a transforming effect upon us. It opens our hearts to the need of others. It breaks through the defenses of our hearts and allows the generosity of God’s spirit to flow through us.

The other significance of Zacchaeus’s name is that it means “pure”. Zachaeus is regarded as impure by others, a notorious sinner. But Jesus sees beneath the impurity that others see. Jesus sees Zachaeus’ original purity as a child of God, made in God’s image. In Jesus presence, Zachaeus is able to become what he truly is deep inside. He is enabled to touch the pruty within that he had lost sight of and that purity expressed as love within begins to flow outwards as generosity to others.

At the table of Christ, as we are welcomed by Christ’s unconditional hosptiality, we are invited into the purity of Christ’s transforming presence that enables us to touch the original purity within us too.

4. Fourthly...The Zacchaeus story calls this experience by the word: Salvation. Salvation is not just about getting to heaven one day. Salvation is about allowing the movement of God’s grace and mercy to move within us here and now. According to this story, salvation is a very practical and down to earth matter that even affects our attitude towards our money.

Salvation, the opening of Zacchaeus’s heart comes not because of his worthiness. Not because of his effort to achieve salvation. Salvation comes to his home as a result of Christ’s gift of unconditional hospitality.

At the table of Christ, as we receive Christ’s unconditional hospitality, we become recipients of God’s salvation, the movement of God’s grace and mercy within us and through us that will inevitably open our hearts with grace, love and mercy towards others.

On Sunday we had the privilege of having Rev. Ian Gilpin from the Comber Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church leading our Sunday morning worship.

During the children’s address he got one of the children to break a pencil and then asked her to try with a few pencils together which became impossible to break. Rev. Gilpin reminded the children that when we are alone we can break very easily, but when we are part of a loving and supportive community like a church we are not so easily broken.

During the main sermon, Rev. Gilpin addressed the question: “What does a Non-Subscribing Presbyterian believe”?

He said that it is a question that is often asked, especially by visitors who come to the Comber Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church to visit the grave of Thomas Andrews, himself a Non-Subscribing Presbyterian and the British businessman and shipbuilder who was the naval architect in charge of the plans for RMS Titanic and who died heroically in the Titanic’s maiden voyage and he did his best to save as many woman, children and men as he could, encouraging them to get into life-boats and put on life-jackets.

Rev. Gilpin reminded the congregation that the origin of the Non-Subscribing Presbyterians in Ireland came when certain Presbyterian ministers refused to adhere or ‘subscribe’ to the Calvinist Westminster Confession of Faith because they disagreed with some of the beliefs represented in it, but also because on principle they believed that no Christian should be forced to ‘subscribe’ to what amounted to a ‘man’-made creed as a test of faith to determine whether one is a Christian or not.

A testament to this courageous stand taken by many Presbyterian Ministers and their congregations against the imposition of the Westminster Confession of faith is enshrined in the NSPCI Constitution when it gives freedom of conscience in matters of faith and doctrine with the following words:


I. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Rule of Christian Faith and Duty under the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.

II. That it is the inalienable right of every Christian to search these records of Divine Truth for his [or her] own instruction and guidance, to form his [of her] own opinions with regard to what they teach, and to worship God in sincerity, agreeably to the dictates of his own conscience, without privation, penalty, or inconvenience inflicted by his [or her] fellow-men [or women].

III. That the imposition of Human Tests and Confessions of Faith, and the vain efforts of men [or woman] to produce an unattainable uniformity of belief, have tended to restrict the sacred right of private judgement, and to prevent that free inquiry and discussion which are essential to the extension of religious knowledge.


A Non-Subscribing Presbyterian is therefore a person who affirms the democratic Presbyterian system of church governance, but who does not subscribe or adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith (or any other human-made creedal statement), but instead seeks to be a follower of Jesus, to his or her best understanding of what that means, from reading and reflecting on the records of the Old and New Testament as his or her conscience dictates.

Luke 17:5-10

In 2017 and author called Melody Briggs published a book called “How Children Read the Biblical Narrative: An Investigation of Children's Readings of the Gospel of Luke”. To put it in non-academic language, she read the gospel of Luke to a group of children and then recorded their responses to it. It sounds like a fascinating experiment.

In that book, she describes the reactions of a little boy called Fishy when this parable was read to him. According to Melody Briggs, Fishy declared that this story was a part of Luke that he “didn’t think was right” and protested, “I think the servants should be treated well”.

Fishy’s reaction reveals the difficulty of the parable for modern readers. It also reveals just how vastly different the socio-political context of Luke’s Gospel is from our own today.

The social world of the parable reflects a very different world from the world of a modern human rights based western democracy. It reflects a stratified, hierarchical social world that many westerners would find not just alien but also unjust and reprehensible just as wee Fishy did in Melody Briggs’s book.

By the same token, it would have to be admitted too that not so long ago that some of our own ancestors would have interpreted the social world described in this parable as being quite socially acceptable.

It is quite a shock to consider that slavery was still legal according to UK law until 1833. That is really not so long ago.

This parable would almost certainly would have been used by many a Christian slave owners to justify slavery. It would have been seen as justification not only in their owning of slaves, but also in justifying a stratified and hierarchical society where they believed that God had ordained that some were born into a life of privilege and other human beings were born simply to be servants and slaves.

In reading this parable we therefore need to be sure not to gloss over too quickly the real dangers and difficulties this parable poses in reinforcing some of our unhealthy and unjust social systems.

But it also poses some real theological difficulties. If one takes the parable as a description of how God relates to human beings, then it certainly paints a pretty stark and grim picture of God as a domineering, uncaring, authoritarian slave owner. In the NIV version, the Greek word Doulos is softened to mean: “servant”. But the word actually means a bond-slave, someone who belongs to another; without any ownership rights of their own. Is God really like a slave owner? Does God really regard us as worthless and unprofitable slaves?

The image of the slave-owner in this passage stands in stark contrast with the image of God that Jesus paints in the parable of the prodigal son, where God is pictured as a loving father who takes great joy in us as his children and even gives us freedom to make wrong choices.

The parable is also in fact quite contrary to the image of Jesus himself. Christians call Jesus Lord and Master, and yet in John’s Gospel, Jesus, the Master takes off his outer garment, wraps a towel around his waist and takes on the role of a common servant in washing his disciples feet before a meal.

This parable even stands in stark contrast to another of Jesus parables earlier in Luke’s Gospel chapter 12:35-37 where Jesus speaks of a master who returns and finds his servants watching for when he comes. Truly I tell you, says Jesus, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them.

Luke 12:35-37 describes an almost polar opposite scene to our own parable today.

In Paul’s letter to the Galatians Paul writes that We are no longer slaves, but God’s children, and since we are God’s children, God has made us God’s heir. We are heir’s to God’s throne! In other word’s, God does not treat us like an authoritarian slave owner would treat worthless and unprofitable slaves.

In almost every way, the life and example and teaching of Jesus and the witness of Paul challenges the social structure and values of this parable. Modern industrial psychology would also suggest that the best way to get the most out of labour force is do do so with praise and encouragement, making people feel valued and valuable, as indeed we are.

Probably for all these reasons, there are some Biblical scholars who would dispute whether this parable really was a parable of Jesus.

Having been critical of the social values reflected in the parable, I would like reflect on the core message of the parable itself. In the end the real point of the parable is not about reinforcing unjust social relations. Whether the parable came from Jesus or whether it came from the writer of Luke’s Gospel himself, heart of the parable is about fulfilling one’s duty as a follower of Jesus.

We live in a culture that highly exalts freedom, breaking free from whatever restricts our freedom. While the concept of fulfilling ones duties might have been an important one in previous generations, today the word has largely fallen out of favour. Is there still value for us today in this concept of fulfilling our duties and obligations in life. Or should our absolute freedom in life trump all other values?

As I wrestled with the question, it struck me that there is strangely also a freedom that can come to us when we fulfill our obligations and when we do our duties without expecting thanks and praise in return. There is a reward that comes to the parent who does his or her duty towards their children when on the inside it might sometimes feel like a burden. There is a reward that comes in life when the piano student fulfills her duty and obligation to practice. There is a reward that comes in life when we fulfill our obligations and duties towards our employer by showing up at work day after day and putting in an honest days work.

There is a reward that comes in life, even strangely one might say from paying our taxes. We receive the benefits of living in a well functioning country.

While duties and obligations may sometimes feel like they are a hindrance to our freedom - family duties and obligations... social duties and obligations... duties towards friends and our communities, our countries and even our world, even towards the environment – and while at times these duties and obligations may even make us feel like worthless slaves, there is also a strange freedom that can come from fulfilling our duties.

I have an uncle who was oozing with talent. He had been blessed with an amazing sharp mind and amazing musical abilities. If he had applied himself and led a life of even moderate discipline, he could have achieved great things in his life and would have been in quite a stable position in his life right now. But unfortunately in his own words, he saw himself as a free spirit and as such, he lived a life without much of duty or obligation except to his own freedom. My uncle is in his 70’s now. He doesn’t have great relationships with any of his children because he was never really there for them when they were growing up. By contrast, my parents, like many parents in this congregation sought to take seriously their duties and responsibilities in life. Duties and obligations to their parents, to their children to their church communities and to their jobs. I can imagine that many times it must have felt like they were living their lives a little like the slaves in this passage. But when compared with my uncle who sought to live his life as a free spirit without any duties and responsibilities, I would suggest that paradoxically they have found a much greater freedom in their lives than my uncle has ever experienced.

Getting back to this parable... I don’t believe that God regards us a worthless slaves. The Christian message is meant to communicate to us the good news that we are God’s beloved children. And yet, at the same time, being a Christian, a follower of Christ means that we have freely taken on extra duties and responsibilities... in a strange and paradoxical way, even though we are God’s children, beloved sons and daughters, as the apostle Paul suggests, we have also freely made ourselves into slaves of Christ. We have of our own free choice agreed to take on the duties and responsibilities of being followers of Christ, which is perhaps what this parable is trying to express. And somehow, paradoxically in the end, that is where true freedom will lie. When we allow ourselves to become seemingly, (in the eyes of many others), worthless slaves for Christ, we discover the joy and the freedom of being the precious sons and daughters of God.

Maybe, one day, when the Master welcomes us home with the words “Well done good and faithful servant” it will be we who respond with the words: But we have only done our duty.

 Luke 17:11-19 HARVEST SERMON

I preparing for today’s sermon I came across the story of a person who described how a colleague, when ever she was greeted and asked how she was doing, she would respond with the words: “I’m grateful.”

It was her standard response. Where some people might answer: I’m fine, or I’m doing great, or It doesn’t help complaining, her response was always: “I’m grateful!”

It is an interesting response because while it is a positive response, a choosing to focus on what is positive in life, it is not a denial that there may be difficulties in life, because even when things in life are difficult, there is always something that one can be grateful for.

The person who related the story suggests that we should all give it a try: Imagine that someone asks you how you are, and then imagine yourself replying with the words: “I’m grateful!”

What does it feel like to say those words?

In reflecting on his colleague who always responded to a greeting with the word: “I’m grateful”, it taught him that gratitude is a choice. It is easy to forget to be grateful, especially when things don’t feel like they’re going so well. To be grateful is a choice.

And that takes us to our gospel passage today.

Luke tells the story of ten lepers who ask Jesus for mercy, keeping their distance, as the law dictated they must because as lepers they are objects of fear and loathing.

Asking Jesus for mercy, Jesus simply says to them, “Go and show yourselves to a priest”, because it was the priests who had the power to pronounce them clean. In the story, they start walking and as they walk, they realize they are healed. But only one turns back to give praise and say thanks. The others keep on going.

Jesus asks the question: Why do nine rush away without giving thanks. Why is this foreigner the only one who does? And, to that one who came back, he says: “Your faith has made you well”.

And so interestingly, Jesus makes a distinction between being healed and being well. Or another way of putting it, it could be said that in this story there are two moments of healing.

Firstly, there is a physical healing when they follow Jesus instructions to go to Jerusalem.

Secondly, Jesus pronounces what seems to be a second healing on the one leper who returns “Rise, your faith has made you well.”

Archbishop Desmond Tutu in commenting on this parable suggests that maybe there are two kinds of leprosy: Leprosy of the skin, an external leprosy that affects the physical body, and secondly, a leprosy of the spirit. All 10 of the lepers were healed physically, but only one of the lepers who returned to Jesus to express gratitude was healed internally.

Looking a bit more closely at the story, we see that it invites us to make a few insights into the nature of gratitude:

Firstly, as has already been said expressing gratitude is a choice. And it seems that it is the road less travelled. In the story, all 10 lepers were healed. Only one of the lepers made the choice to return to express gratitude to Jesus, the other 9 lepers, for whatever reason chose not to return. Gratitude is a choice we must make.

Secondly, showing gratitude takes effort. It is costly. It requires a change of direction. It requires making a return to the one we are thanking. It requires we retrace our steps. In the passage, the one who expresses his gratitude takes the time and the effort to return to Jesus.

How much easier would it have been for him to simply continue on his way like the others. It takes effort to return, to find Jesus and to express his thanks.

I remember as a child, when it was birthday time or Christmas time, it was always exciting to receive gifts from others. But it took great effort to sit down and write thank you notes to all those family members who had given me a gift. If it wasn’t for my Mom and Dad insisting that I sit down and write those notes, I hate to admit that it probably wouldn’t have happened.

Showing gratitude takes effort. It is costly. But it is also worth it. I have no regrets that my parents forced me to sit down and write those thank you letters.

Thirdly, it seems from the story that gratitude and humility go together. This is illustrated in this passage in the way the man throws himself down at Jesus feet. It is an act of humility. What more profound way of expressing gratitude than throwing yourself down at someone else’s feet.

Interestingly, the word humility itself comes form the word humus, referring to the rich layer of soil on the earth. It is as though he takes this word humility quite literally as he throws himself down on the ground at Jesus feet. His gratitude expresses itself in humility before Jesus.

Grateful people are humble people and humble people are grateful people. Gratitude makes us humble, because it turns our thoughts away from ourselves towards others. The arrogant don’t express gratitude, because they take everything as a right, as an expectation. It is the humble who are grateful.

Fourthly, this passage suggests that gratitude is the true expression of faith. When the man falls on the ground at Jesus feet, Jesus says: “Rise, your faith has made you well.” For Jesus, the man’s gratitude is an expression of his faith. It suggests that the heart of what it means to be a person of faith, is to be a person of gratitude. Meister Eckhart, the great German mystic of the middle ages once wrote: “If the only prayer you ever pray is thank you. It will be enough”.

Lastly, as we have already seen, gratitude is healing. It brings wellness and wholeness to the soul. At the end of the story, after the man has thrown himself down at the feet of Jesus, Jesus says to him: “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.” All ten lepers were healed physically, but only one displayed wellness in his soul.

When we say the words “I am grateful” an inner healing begins to take place. A healing of the heart. A healing of the spirit. A healing of the soul. Gratitude brings healing, not just to ourselves and to those around us. How difficult it is to deal with people who do not show gratitude. When gratitude is missing, something of our true humanity is missing. But when it is present it brings wellness and wholeness to the soul.

On this Harvest Sunday, we have gathered as a community to collectively express our gratitude. Gratitude for the gift of the earth and our connectedness to it. Gratitude for all that sustains our lives here on earth. Gratitude for farmers, for animals, for sunshine and rain, for insects and microbes that sustain healthy soil, for transporters for shop assistants and for the whole invisible chain of beings and people upon whose lives we depend, and without whom we would not be able to live. And finally, we have come to return out thanks to God, the foundation and source of life.

I would like to close with a short story:

Once there was a happy, satisfied old woman whom many people envied because of her artistry with life. She never left her house without a handful of dried beans. She did not intend to eat the beans, but rather would keep them in the right pocket of her jacket. Every time she experienced something beautiful – a sunrise, a child’s laughter, a brief encounter, a good meal, some shade in midday heat – she soaked it up, let it delight her heart, and moved a bean from her right pocket to her left one. When an experience was especially nice and even surprising, she would move two or three beans.

In the evening, the old woman sat at home, counting the beans she had moved. As she celebrated the number of left-pocket beans, she brought reminded herself how much beauty had crossed her path on that day and how much she was grateful for. And on evenings when she could count only one bean, that was still a good day – it had been worth living.

I would invite you to practice with me again: How are you today? “I’m grateful”.

And Jesus said to him: “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

Luke 16:19-31

Many Christians would read this parable as proof that there is a literal eternal hell of suffering and punishment. But is that really true?

An initial answer to that question is that this is a strange conclusion to come to, especially when we consider the true nature of what a parable is. Parables, by their very nature are metaphorical stories. They are not meant to be interpreted as literal descriptions of something, but rather as a kind of a parallel story, an allegory, a story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.

Before getting back to a discussion on hell, I would like to make a few interesting observations of the parable.

Firstly, isn't it interesting that in this parable, Lazarus the poor beggar is given a name. But the Rich Man is not.

There is something quite unusual about that in the world of ancient literature. In the ancient world, reading and writing were the preserve of the rich and the well-to-do. And so almost all literature tended to be written by the rich, for the rich and about the rich. Because of this , in ancient literature, the rich were named, but in contrast, the poor masses were simply part of the expendable unnamed masses and their lives were regarded as being of less value than those of the rich.

Some would argue that things haven't changed all that much. In our world today, it is still largely true the more money you have, generally speaking the more value is put on your life. And in our world, generally speaking, the less money you have, the less value is put on your life.

But in this parable, this whole order of things is turned upside down. In this parable, the poor beggar is given a name. And by contrast, the Rich Man is left nameless. Very unusual in the ancient world of literature.

It seems to me a deliberate story-telling device to communicate the sense that the values of this world are not the values of God. In God’s scheme of things, lonely beggars on the street are named and valued. The way of Jesus turns upside down the ways and the values of this world. This is a major theme in Luke’s Gospel. In the Song of Mary when she praises God when she finds herself pregnant with Jesus, she speaks of how God will raise up the lowly and bring down the mighty from their thrones. In God’s scheme of things, lonely beggars on the street are named and valued.

Secondly, isn't it interesting that the dogs in this parable seem to care more for Lazarus than the Rich Man. The Rich Man seems oblivious to the Presence of Lazarus. It is like Lazarus doesn't even exist to him.

Have you ever had the experience when it felt like someone was looking right through you, as though you didn't even exist. Like you were just a non-person. In highly patriarchal cultures, woman often speak of this experience of being treated by men as thought they were not real persons.

That is the sense you get from this parable. How difficult would it have been for the Rich Man to let Lazarus eat from the scraps under his table.

What does this parable say about the state of the Rich Man’s soul that he could so easily and so thoroughly block out the need of a fellow human being and even pretend that he doesn't not exist at all. The Rich Man has cut himself off.
But look by contrast at the dogs. In his deplorable state, the dogs come and lick his wounds. When I first heard this parable, I interpreted this as simply pointing to the fact that dogs are disgusting, but when I allowed the image to sit in my mind for a while the thought struck me: Isn't this the way a mother dog would treat her little pups? Licking them to clean them, as an act of care. Isn't this how dogs would lick themselves if they were wounded?

What if that is the point of the imagery in this parable, that even the dogs show more love and care to Lazarus than the Rich Man? An animal, who we regard as sub-human shows more care for Lazarus than his fellow human being. Has the Rich man begun to lose his humanity?

Thirdly, isn't it interesting in the parable that when the Rich Man dies and is on the other side, that he is still primarily motivated by self-concern. The only reason he calls out is because he is now suffering. But even in the state of his suffering, his attitude towards Lazarus has changed very little. At least now he acknowledges the presence of Lazarus. This is progress. But even in his state of suffering he is still caught up in his old way of looking at things. Although he has finally acknowledged Lazarus’s existence and even calls him now by name, he still wants to use Lazarus as a servant for his own ends. He wishes to treat Lazarus as a servant to run an errand for him, bringing him a drink of water from across the great divide. Lazarus is not yet being treated by the Rich Man as a full human being of equal value and equal dignity .

It raises a question: What if hell is not a physical place at all, but rather a metaphorical description of the state of the soul? Is it a description of a human soul that has turned in on itself, self-obsessed, self-absorbed with a distorted view of the world and others and as a result cut off from others and as a result also from God, the source of all love and true joy. What if hell is a heart whose door is closed and locked from the inside. What if release from this hell can happen, the moment we awaken out of our own self-absorbed-ness.

There are signs of hope in this parable. Sometimes suffering can have its benefits. (Not all suffering). It would seem in this parable the Rich Man’s suffering has some impact upon him. At least now he sees Lazarus as a human being with a name. In his suffering we also see a glimpse of hope that there is still a glimmer of love and care in his heart... he is concerned about his brothers. He doesn't want to see them suffering. That is a glimmer of hope. Still there is a degree of self-concern in him. In some ways our families are like extensions of ourselves. Loving our families still has a large degree of self in it. I care for them because they are my family, because they are close to me. But still it is a movement in the direction of love. Loving our families is at least a start in teaching us the way of Jesus, the way of love, that will eventually embrace all things and all people... even our enemies.

Even in Stalin, the faintest glimmer of of the image of God remained in him. Despite all his murderous human rights abuses, Stalin still showed a love for his mother. And there lies the hope for all humanity, that ultimately, no matter how much it is covered up and covered over, there is nothing that can ultimately destroy the image of God within us.

And though the door of the heart is locked from the inside, a little further on in Luke’s Gospel (18:27) , we will read that what is impossible for human beings is possible for God.

And at the end of John’s Gospel, we hear of the ability of the Risen Jesus to appear behind locked doors, perhaps an image of the Risen Christ’s ability to appear behind the locked door of our hearts and souls to help liberate us from the hells of our own making.

In the end, as I have said before, I would have to label myself a universalist in the sense that in the end I believe all will be saved.

I personally don’t believe there is such a thing as an eternal hell. In the Bible, where in English we read about eternal suffering, the English word eternal is a very poor and misleading translation of the Greek word Ainos which speaks of a finite period of time that will come to an end. In this parable, there is no indication that the Rich Man’s suffering would last forever and ever and ever. In the Bible there are many scholars who will say that is no such thing as eternal suffering that will go on and on forever.

George MacDonald, the 19th Century Scottish Presbyterian who was a universalist, believed that those passages in the Bible that speak of the kind of suffering in this parable are referring to the suffering of purification. The fire in this passage that makes the Rich Man suffer is in fact the fire of God’s love that we experience as painful when God is purifying us from all that is not love within us.

There are strong arguments that the Apostle Paul was a universalist. When Paul speaks of suffering for the unrighteous, these are a provisional suffering. They are what George MacDonald would have called the suffering of purification. Like someone suffering from an ingrown toe-nail, we will all need to suffer the pain of the great physician as he operates on our ingrown hearts and souls. But in the end, what is often missed by many Christians, is that Paul has a very clear theology that God’s salvation offered in Christ will encompass and include all.

In 1 Cor 5:22 “For as in Adam, all die, so, in Christ, all will be made alive.” Not some... all.

In Colossians 1:20. “Through Christ God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven”. Not some things, but all things.

In Timothy 2:4-6 we read: “God desires everyone to be saved” And in Ephesians 1:11 we read that God accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will. If God’s desires all to be saved, then in God’s time God will accomplish all things according to his will.

And finally in 1 Cor 15:28 Paul speaks of the day when God will be all in all.This is the final end of Paul’s Theology: That God will be all and in all.

How can God one day be all and in all, if some are burning in hell for all eternity? God will only one day be all and in all, if in the end all without exception are saved and brought into the wide embrace of God’s love and mercy.

Luke 16:1-15 The Parable of the Shrewd Manager

When I was preparing for today's sermon, I went onto a preaching website to explore commentaries and perspectives on our text for today.  The opening line of the article went something as follows:
 
Dear Preacher, it is ok to tell your congregation that you don't have a clue what this text is about!
 
And to be quite honest, it is one of the strangest of the parables in all of the Gospels.  if I am quite honest it is a parable that has always left me a little confused and probably with more questions than answers.
 
Looking at the story itself, it starts out with a Master who is unhappy with his manager. He arranges a meeting with the manager and it becomes evident that the Master is in fact preparing to give the manager the sack. 
 
But before the meeting happens, the manager senses that he is about to be fired. And so he is in an initial panic. What is he going to do when he has no job? And so he devises a plan to make friends for himself for when he finds himself out on the street. Before his master knows what he is up to he meets with a number of his masters debtors and he agrees to reduce each of their debts by  substantial margins.  He acts with great generosity to these debtors, with his masters money so that when he is out on the streets and without a job, these people will potentially be generous back to him and welcome them into their homes.
 
Perhaps the most confusing part of the parable is when the master finally meets with his manager before he fires him, he sees what the manager has done and in effect congratulates him.  He says to the manager, well, played. Probably saying: Well if I was in your position, I would probably have done the same.
 
But the question remains: What on earth does it all mean?
 
The commentary that comes after the parable is probably the first place to start when trying to assess the meaning of the parable.   The commentary after the parable is all about money and so the parable is meant to give us food for thought on how we use money as Christians.
 
The bottom line of the parable seems to be is that in the way of Jesus, the best use of money is that it should be used to build friendships and relationships. 
 
An important punchline for the parable come in verse 9 where Jesus says:  “...Use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves.”  For Jesus purpose of money is not to build little financial empires for oneself. Rather, the best use of money is to build for yourself a network of relationships, a community, on which you can depend, when you find yourself in financial difficulty.  In other words, the best use of money in the end, is to use it in the service of love.
 
But one might object that it in the parable, it is easy for the wily manager to be generous with his masters money. What if it was his own money. Would he have been as generous then?
 
And maybe that is partly the point of the parable... that just maybe, none of the money we have is ultimately ours. Ultimately it does indeed belong to the Master. Ultimately it belongs to God, and in the meantime, we are simply managers of the money in our possession on God’s behalf.
 
And maybe that explains the twist in the tail of the story where the Master in the parable praises him for using the Masters money to build friendships, because Ultimately, God, our Master, wishes us to do like-wise.
 
Money is meant to be in the service of building friendships, relationships, and communities. Which is another way of saying, money is meant to be used in the service of love.
 
That is a very different approach to money than the current general approach in the world. I think of the example of Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon. He is currently the richest man in the world, which in its own way is quite an achievement. And yet, when you do a simply search on the internet, you will find numerous new articles alleging that the labour practices used by Amazon are at best questionable.
 
Allegations include the following: People are treated like robots. In any given task, an employee is made to work to a count down. If they do not keep up with the countdown, they will lose their job. Because they are working under such time pressure, in a 10 hour work shift, it is alleged that an employee only has 18 minutes to go to the toilet or get a drink of water. And yet, if a work place injury occurs, allegations are that Amazon have proved themselves to be evasive to pay out and compensate their workers. 
 
In the USA, last year in April, the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health’s lists Amazon within the “dirty dozen” list of most dangerous places to work in the United States due to the company’s pattern of unsafe working conditions.”
 
Some would allege that Jeff Bezos and Amazon are becoming outrageously wealthy, built on the deteriorating health and well-being of Amazon’s employees.  He has built for himself the biggest financial empire in the world, but how many friends has he made?
 
When Jeff Bezos dies, how many of his workers in Amazon will celebrate him as a great human being, or will they be like the people of Zimbabwe who failed to turn up in great numbers as Robert Mugabe’s funeral?
 
The parable asks us: Are we using our influence and the resources at our disposal to build relationships and friendships, or are we simply wanting to become little emperors over our own little empires taking from others and the world and not giving back in return to those who have made us great.
 
I am always inspired by the story-line of Les Miserable, where the main character, Jean Val Jean starts out as a common criminal, thinking only of himself, and of only satisfying his own needs, desires and wants. He is imprisoned for stealing. He serves his sentence and is released. Upon release he finds himself homeless and no-one will give him a job or even a piece of bread to eat. He is bitter and angry with the world. A kind bishop invitesd him to eat with him at his table and takes him in for the night.  But while the bishop is sleeping, he makes off with all the valuable silver that he can get his hands on. The next morning he is caught by the police and brought back to the bishop’s house. The bishop in act act of extraordinary kindness and forgiveness, tells the police that he had in fact given the silver to Jean Val Jean as a gift to build a new life for himself, and as a result, Jean Val Jean begrudgingly the police set him free.
 
This act of generous forgiveness and kindness transforms his view of himself as he begins to seek to live his life no longer simply for the benefit of himself but rather for the benefit of others. In the process, as he becomes a wealthy businessman because all his energies have begun to be directed in positive and constructive ways, he uses his new-found wealth as a blessing to those around him.  He uses his money to build up his community and in the process creates a community or friends. So much so that at one point he is even elected as mayor of the town where he has settled.

Our parable in Luke’s Gospel suggests that if a wily, shrewd, worldly businessman knows how to make friends using worldly wealth, then how much more should those who call themselves followers of Christ