Luke 13:10-17 “What is true holiness?”

When I was visiting my brother and sister-in-law in London earlier in the year, my sister-in-law Sam gave me a book of wisdom stories. In the book there is a wonderful story from the Sufi tradition that is entitled “True Holiness”. It goes as follows:

A holy man was walking by the river considering the nature of true holiness. He was a precise man, who liked to keep the letter of the holy law, and considered it his holy duty to help others do the same, quickly identifying the failings of others and offering them a corrective word. He studied and prayed very hard so that he would become as perfect as possible.

One day as he walked by the river reciting his prayers, he heard floating across the river from afar the holiest of prayers of his order. The prayer - as was the custom - was repeated over and over again, in order to induce a holy trance in the reciter.

But on this occasion, the prayer disturbed the holy man. Whoever was saying this prayer had failed to learn it correctly. The syllables of the first words of the prayers were in the wrong order. Clearly, the getting wrong of an important prayer such as this, was going to be a hindrance to the pilgrim across the river in his quest to achieve paradise.

At this opportunity to do “good work” by correcting this misguided worshiper, the holy man found a rowing boat and set out across the river to find the man who was mangling such holy and beautiful words.

As he was paddling across the lapping waves of the river, his mind began to wander as he considered the possibility that one day he himself might achieve such a high level of saintliness that in the future, he might be able to cross such a river by simply walking over the water rather than having to cross it by boat... and maybe this act of correcting the misguided worshiper across the river might help to bring him closer towards that goal of supreme holiness.

As he continued to row, the mangled prayer broke through once again into his consciousness, disturbing his thoughts and his holy ambitions. The sound was coming from an island in the river. He drew up to the small island, moored the boat, and walked up a short gravel path where he found a small simple cave. Inside he was much surprised to find another holy man, from his own order, praying.
“Brother” said the now perspiring rower, “I have taken the trouble to row all the way across this river to draw your attention to the fact that you are mis-saying your prayers. You are saying “Yee Moo Yen Zaa” when you ought to be saying “Yen Moo Zaa Yee”.

“Thank you” said the hermit as he welcomed his unexpected visitor bowing respectfully towards him. “I feared that might be the case and I am most grateful to you for the trouble to which you have put yourself. Would you care to repeat the correct form of the prayer once again so that I may follow a more enlightened path?”

The holy man with a bit of irritation in his voice, offered once again the correct version of the prayer, and then returned to his boat. As he paddled across the river he reflected on the nature of good works and the duty of those with superior understanding to restore and to help those less advanced souls in the world. Acts of saintliness such as this were the signs that one was indeed on the true path towards holiness and perfection.

While still lost in these thoughts of his own superior holiness, he was surprised to be disturbed by a voice calling out to him.

“Wait a moment please good sir!” came the voice across the waves.

Looking up, the holy man saw the hermit walking rapidly towards him across the waves, “I’m terribly sorry to bother you again,” came the voice, “But im afraid my memory is short and I am not the quickest of learners. Did you say it was “Yen Zaa Moo Yee” or “Yen Moo Yee Zaa”?

“Yen moo zaa yee” echoed the holy man numbly, this time a little less confidently than before.

“Thank you so much. May your good deed be richly rewarded.”

And so saying, the hermit turned, and walked lightly back across the water.

******

As this little story invites us to think more deeply on the nature of true holiness, who in this story is the real holy man, So our passage from Luke’s Gospel today raises a similar question and as it does so, it reveals the conflict of two religious perspectives:

The story takes place on the Sabbath, the weekly Jewish Holy Day of Rest, commanded by God in the 10 commandments. On this particular Sabbath Day, we find Jesus teaching in a synagogue where he is met by a woman who for eighteen years had been bent over, unable to stand up straight. Seeing the woman, we read that Jesus calls her over to himself, he puts his hands on her and immediately she straightens up and praises God.

In response to the healing, we read that the Synagogue Leader, the resident minister one could say, is indignant. According to the Synagogue leader, Jesus has profaned the Holy Sabbath. Six days God has given for work, but the seventh day, the Sabbath, is meant to be holy.

For the synagogue leader, his concern for observing the letter of law, over-rides his compassion. For him the priority is the 4th commandment “you shall do no work on the Sabbath” which over rides his concern for the woman. For him, compassion is secondary. The law is primary.

But for Jesus, his priorities are the other way around. Jesus’s concern for compassion over-rides his concern for observing the strict letter of the law relating to the Sabbath. His compassion for the woman who was crippled over-rides his concern for the Sabbath law. It is not that the Sabbath would have been unimportant to Jesus, (he was after-all in the synagogue), but when faced with real human need, his priority was compassion over law.

The religious and spiritual revolution that Jesus brought to the world of his day was one that placed love as the supreme value in life. For Jesus, the whole point of religion is that it should point us in the direction of love.

For Jesus, true holiness was to be found supremely in love.

Jesus’ supreme emphasis on love, led St Augustine, about 300 years later to make the following controversial statement: “Love, and do what you like”. In King James English “Love and do what thou wilt”.

It sounds a bit dangerous. Wouldn’t a statement like that lead to anarchy.

But that wasn't his point. The point that St Augustine was making is that when you truly act out of a spirit of love, out of a deep respect, care and concern, not just for one’s own well-being, but also for the deep well-being of others, you wont be able to engage in outrageous and unruly and undisciplined and destructive behaviour, because all your actions will be constrained and guided by love.

St Augustine was in his own way restating the point that the Apostle Paul made in his letter to the Romans: :

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Our passage today presents a clash between two religious perspectives on holiness:

“When Jesus saw the woman, he called her forward... he put his hands on her and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

Indignant, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not the Sabbath.”

During the week I saw a meme on Facebook that went something like this:

“If your religion makes you hate, then it is time to find a new religion.” I think in light of this story of Jesus, it could also be rephrased: “If your religion does not help you to grow in love, then it is time to find a new religion.”

Amen.

Luke 12:49-56
Luke’s Gospel contains some of the more difficult of Jesus sayings. Our reading today represents one of those that many Christians would struggle with.

“Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, not peace but division!?” He then goes on to say that there will be divisions even between family members, father against son, son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother. Mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Well, I guess Some might not find that last one so surprising.)

When we read these words of Jesus, they are confounding. Isn't Jesus meant to be the Prince of Peace? Didn't Jesus say, Blessed are the peace-makers?

Luke’s Gospel especially has sometimes been called the Gospel of Peace. The theme runs throughout Luke’s Gospel. When Zechariah bursts into song at the birth of John the Baptist who will prepare the way of the Messiah, he speaks of how God will guide our feet into the path of peace. When the angels announced his birth at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel, didn't they sing out “Glory to God in the Highest and Peace on earth to people of good will”. When Simeon meets the infant Jesus when he is presented to God in the Temple, Simeon says “Now Lord, as you have promised, you may dismiss your servant in peace”. When Jesus sends out the 12 to preach in pairs, he instructs them that the first thing they are to say as they enter a house are the words: “Peace be upon this home”. When Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey, in Luke’s version the crowds say “Peace on earth and glory in the highest”. In Luke’s Gospel, instead of the crucifixion of Jesus being presented as the Passover lamb as it is in John’s Gospel, Jesus death according to Luke is presented in the mould of the Old Testament “peace offering”. Lastly, in Luke’s Gospel, the first words Jesus speaks to the disciples when he meets them as a group after his resurrection are the words “Peace be upon you”.

And so when we read these words of Jesus from our passage today, they are confounding. How is it, if the whole message of Luke’s Gospel is meant to present Jesus as the bringer of peace, in the middle of Luke’s Gospel Jesus says these confusing words:

“Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, not peace but division!?”

To uncover what Jesus might have meant by these words, I would like to tell three stories. You might have your own stories: The first two are from South Africa.

Beyers Naude was a Dutch Reformed minister in South Africa, a descendant of Dutch and French Huguenot settlers in South Africa. He came from a well-respected Afrikaner family that were pillars of Afrikaner nationalism. As a young minister in the Dutch Reformed Church he had preached his support for Apartheid using texts from the Bible, but as he grew a little older, he grew more and more concerned about the injustices he saw happening in South Africa with the treatment of Black South Africans often literally as third class citizens in their own country and how the economic system was destroying black family life, tearing families apart as families were forced to live in one part of the country while husbands and fathers were forced to spend most of the year in another part of the country working on the mines. After the massacre of peaceful protestors in 1960 in Sharpville, Beyers Naude who was now the moderator in his presbytery, began publicly to raise concern over the injustices that he was seeing. As he began to speak out for real peace and justice in South Africa, rooted in his faith and understanding of Jesus, he began to receive more and more opposition from his Church and fellow ministers. In 1963, when opposition had grown too strong against him in the Dutch Reformed Church as well as his own congregation he preached his final sermon in the Church where he had been ministering for 4 years. At the end of the service as he came down from the pulpit he symbolically took off his preachers gown and went to the door to greet the members of the Church as he normally did after a service. Some walked past him with tears in their eyes, but many walked past him without even looking at him.

He and his wife and his family became ostracized by the Afrikaner community and his own Church family for what he regarded as his obedience and faithfullness to the Gospel of Jesus. Wanting to bring peace to South Africa he felt the pain of division caused by the stand that he took.

The second story is about the minister who I grew up under for about 15 years, the Rev. Ray Light. He was ministering in a well-to-do white Methodist Church in Pretoria. Wanting to build relationship and friendship he invited black minister colleague and his wife to come and share a meal with them at the Church Manse where he lived. In the course of the evening, the meal was served on the crockery and cutlery that belonged to the Church, the same crockery and cutlery that they would have used when hosting meals with congregation members who came to visit from time to time. In South Africa at the time this kind of thing was just not done. Somehow for fear of some kind of contamination, black people would never be allowed to eat or drink from items that would be used by white people.

When members of the Church heard about what had happened, the Ray Light and his wife Edna were completely ostracized from the Church and the wider community. The only people in the neighbourhood who gave them support during that period of their lives was a Jewish family that lived nearby. None of their Christian friends or neighbours would even speak to them.

Seeking to be reconcilers and peace-makers in their community, in accordance with their faith in Christ, brought division from their own congregation.

As Bill Schlesinger put it a comment I found on this text: Division happens. It happens when we choose to embrace others that some reject.

And then a last story...

In January 2015 a news story broke about a Catholic Priest from County Tyrone who was then ministering in the Diocese of Palm Beach, Florida in the United States.

When Father John Gallagher was informed that a fellow priest had been showing pornographic images to a fourteen year old, he quite rightly reported this fellow priest to the police.

But instead of being praised or even just supported by church authorities for acting with decisiveness and courage in reporting the matter to the police, Gallagher was ostracized by them instead. The locks on the parish house were changed so that he could not get into his own home, and he had to end up living for a period with a friend. The bishop then placed him on medical leave.

This continued, even after the accused priest had admitted to what he had done and that he had a previous history as a pedophile. At one point a local police chief was so concerned at the Irish priests treatment, that he wrote to church leaders to complain about how the whistle-blower was being treated.

Acting according to his conscience by identifying and reporting a pedophile priest to the police, Father Gallagher found himself in opposition to those within his church who wanted to keep things secret and who didn’t want to admit publicly that such abuse was happening in the church.

While Jesus is described as the Prince of Peace and that his coming is meant to bring peace on earth, clearly Jesus knew that being a real peacemaker, can bring opposition and division from within one’s own community and sometimes even sometimes within one’s own family.

When Jesus says: “Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division,” it is a deliberate statement, a hyperbole, meant to get us thinking, and that will help us as his followers to realise that sometimes standing for peace, and standing for what is right can bring opposition and division.
It is why Jesus says in Luke’s Gospel that every day we will need to be willing take up our cross if we wish to follow him. Amen.

Luke 12:32-48
Did the idea of the second coming of Christ originate with Jesus himself? Or did it originate within the earliest Christian community?

One has to acknowledge that the idea of the immanent Second Coming of Christ was a major idea of the first generation of Christians.
In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, the earliest New Testament book to be written, Paul reveals a very strong belief that Christ would return in his own life-time. In one of his Corinthians Letters written not too long after, he even encourages people not to get married because in his mind the end was so close. But in later letters Paul seems to have modified his views on the matter and it receives less and less attention in his writings. In his later writings, instead of speaking of Christ coming again, he more and more speaks of his own death and wanting to be with the Lord.
We are therefore left with an important question: Did the idea of the immanent return of Christ originate in Jesus himself? Or was it an expectation of the early Christian community that they had then read back into the story of Jesus?
I would tend to agree with Marcus Borg who believes that the teaching on a literal second coming of Christ that would happen within the lifetime of the first generation of Christians was in fact an idea that originated in the early Christian community and not Jesus himself.

They had seen in Jesus the fulfillment of the promised Messiah they had been hoping for. But there was also a sense of in-completion. The promised Messiah was supposed to finally put things right in the world, and this had not yet happened. And so it was natural for them to believe that Jesus would return in order to bring his work to completion.

What Marcus Borg would say is that the belief in the second coming was then read back into the Gospel stories of Jesus, like our passage today.

It is important to remember that the four Gospels as we have them are not simply four eye-witness accounts.

Most scholars would acknowledge that the four Gospels were only written down between 40 and 70 years after Christ. Before they were written down many of the stories of Jesus would have been told and re-told in sermons and sometimes reinterpreted in order to communicate the meaning of Jesus to a new situation.

Analysing and comparing the 4 Gospels, especially the differences and discrepancies between them have led scholars to suggest that each of the 4 gospels were written for four different communities, seeking to interpret the meaning of Jesus for the unique circumstances of that community. From this perspective the four gospels are therefore not pure eyewitness accounts, but rather four interpretations of the life and meaning of Jesus.

While there is surely material in the Gospels that goes back to the earliest witnesses of Jesus life and ministry, there are clearly also layers of interpretation as well as ideas that reflect the understanding of the Gospel writers and compilers themselves.

Scholars like Marcus Borg would suggest that parables like this one we have read today, about the second coming of Christ, would most probably have been one of those layers of interpretation introduced by the writers of the Gospels.

Luke's Gospel, written in about 80-90 AD, would have been aimed at a 2nd or 3rd generation Christian community who were struggling with the fact that Jesus had not yet returned as first generation Christians had expected.

The essence of the parable is of a servant who thinks his master is taking a long time in coming back, and therefore begins to abuse his position and to eat drink and get drunk when he should have been on duty doing his masters wishes.

For a community who was beginning to question and perhaps even lose faith because Christ has not returned as they had first expected, the parable would have been a call to faithfullness and a reminder that even if the master is taking longer to return that expected, he could still come at any time.

For me, the biggest indication that that this parable is a major reworking by the Gospel writer himself, is that it contains imagery that could probably be classified as abusive and even violent as it refers to servants being whipped and beaten, and even, being cut to pieces. This kind of conduct would today be labelled physical abuse and assault and a gross human rights violation.

This language I believe and out of character with the overall teachings and conduct of Jesus himself. Either Jesus has a split personality and is capable to swinging from positions love, kindness and forgiveness, to ideas extreme and brutal violence, or one might conclude, these verses are the work of the gospel writer. As some would say, the worker of a lesser mind than the mind of Christ.

If the community of Luke were struggling with the fact that the anticipated Second coming of Christ had not yet happened, what are we to do then 2000 years later and Christ has still not returned as the first generation of Christians expected in their own lifetime? Do we just ditch the whole idea of the Second Coming of Christ?

I believe that within every human heart there is a deep longing and a deep hope that one day this world will be put right. That the injustices of the past and the present will somehow be resolved. And I do believe that the overall thrust and meaning of the Christian message speaks deeply to that hope, the hope, that as one of Paul writes in one of his letters to the Corinthians, that one day, God will be all, and in all, even if at the present it does not seem that this is the case.

And so, while I would not take Paul’s language in his letter to the Thessalonians literally, in a different way, I still believe in the second coming of Christ. I don't believe that literally Christ will come down in the clouds with a trumpet blast. But I do believe that the God who has been made known in Christ, will one day bring all things to completion. That as Rob Bell would put it, in the end, Love will win.

I would also agree with a friend of mine who used to say that in a very real sense, we are the second coming of Christ. Christ does indeed come again into this world, through each of us, in the lives of every person who seeks with faithfulness and sincerity to live out the teachings and love of Christ in this world.

Whenever a person acts in a completely selfless way in this world: Christ comes again.

Whenever a person acts with a heart of great compassion in this world: Christ comes again.
Whenever a person acts with real understanding (what we might call wisdom): Christ comes again.
Whenever a person acts with humility, kindness, generosity or honesty... in this world: Christ comes again.


And so I am a believer in the second coming of Christ. Not perhaps as many fundamentalist Christians would believe it.

And if God’s love as revealed by Christ really is at the heart of reality, then I do believe that one day, in God’s love, everything will finally be put right in this world and in this universe and that in the end every tear will be wiped away.

I need to be careful that I do not go on too long. But I do wish to make reference to that verse in which the unfaithful servant will be cut to pieces and assigned a place with the unbelievers. As I said earlier, I believe that these are the words of a lesser mind, and not the mind of Christ himself. But I believe that the mind of Christ can help us to re-interpret those words to find a deeper meaning to them.

To be cut to pieces is a powerful symbol of a life that is painfully broken and fragmented. Whenever we lose awareness of our Centre, the Divine Centre within us, and get lost in the world of outward things, our lives become fragmented and fractured. It can sometimes feel like we have been cut into tiny painful pieces.

And so the central message of this passage remains for us in symbolic imagery: the call to be watchful.

And so, this week, when you are beginning to feel fragmented, as though you have been whipped and beaten and perhaps cut into pieces, may is be an invitation to make time to discover our centre again in God, that centre that can help us to return to a sense of wholeness and one-ness. And when we do so, may it also be that Christ might come again into this world through us, through our hearts, in our words and through our actions. Let us pray.

Luke 12: 13-21

Today we continue to follow the lectionary passage set for today. As you may remember, the focus for the lectionary this year is the Gospel of Luke. One thing you will see fairly quickly if you read through Luke’s Gospel is that it has quite an economic emphasis to it. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus has quite a lot to say on issues of wealth and poverty, and that is where our passage takes us today.

It is a passage that starts with a dispute over a family inheritance. A family member comes to Jesus wanting Jesus to tell his brother to give him his share of the inheritance. It is obviously a situation where one brother has taken the whole inheritance for himself and has failed to share it with his brother.

Jesus refuses to get involved in the dispute and rather responds with a one-liner:

“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; true life does not consist in having an abundance of possessions.”

Another translation that really stood out for me when I was preparing for today goes as follows:

“ ... a persons life is not made secure by what he owns, even when he has more than he needs”.

Jesus then goes on to tell a parable which is critical of a rich farmer who had a good harvest. Not knowing what to do with his excess wealth, he decides to build bigger barns to store all his wealth. But that very night, he dies and has to answer to God for his life.

On Tuesday when I sat down to look at this passage, I asked Wendy’s opinion on it, which I found quite helpful. As some of you may know, Wendy grew up as a Jehova’s Witness in South Africa. She left them at the age of 18.

As Wendy listened to the parable she immediately began to share how this passage was interpreted by the Jehova Witnesses when she was growing up. Based on this passage (along with other passages), members of the Jehova’s witnesses were told not to build up pensions for themselves because the end of the world was near and God would judge them, like the rich man in this parable for not trusting God and for not believing whole-heartedly in the second coming.

Today, Wendy knows of members and ex-members of the Jehova’s Witnesses who are now in their 70’s who don't have a proper pension and who have to rely on children and family members to pay their rent and buy them groceries.

In doing some research online, I see that in more recent times the Jehovah’s Wtiness organisation had a shift in policy and has begun to tell their members that saving for their retirement was a wise thing to do. But for many it remains a catch-22 because members are still told that that the second coming will happen in their lifetime in which case saving up for a pension doesn't exactly make sense anyway.

This very literalist interpretation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their subsequent shift in policy cautions us against making extreme or even just literal interpretations of passages like this. It is a reminder that there is an extreme way of reading this passage that in our current industrialised developed world would be irresponsible and dangerous.

What then do we make of this passage. How do we wrestle with this passage in a way that is not reckless to our families and yet seeks to deal with this passage with some degree of integrity?

Firstly, the criticism of the rich farmer in this passage has some validity to it. The parable doesnt criticise him for having storage barns. The problem comes that when his wealth increases, he fails to look beyond himself. Instead of sharing his excess wealth with those in need his concern remains just himself. It reveals a stunted spiritual growth.

As one reads the Gospels, it is clear that for Jesus spiritual growth always goes in the direction of expanding our hearts and our concern for others. It always moves in the direction of generosity.

But in the parable of the rich farmer his heart has not enlarged beyond himself. He is locked into a completely self-concerned mode of being. When his wealth increases, instead of considering others, he simply builds bigger barns for himself.

Growing up as a Methodist I was always inspired by the example of John Wesley when it came to his teaching and example regarding money.

His advice to early Methodists was summarised in three simple phrases:
Earn as much as you can

Save as much as you can
Give as much as you can.

“Earn all you can”, John Wesley suggested that here is nothing wrong with earning money if it is done in a responsible, just and ethical way. He felt that Christians have a responsibility to be productive members of society.

“Save all you can”. Part of this was to make sure that Methodists had money for a rainy day. This was at a time when most Methodists came from the poorer classes in a time when there were no social services. Save all you can. But for John Wesley, “save all you can” was also a call to avoid living extravagant lives which he felt was out of sync with the teachings of Jesus. It was a call to a life of simplicity. Distinguishing between needs and greeds.

“Give all you can”. This was perhaps the crux of his teaching. John Wesley believed that ultimately, the reason we should earn all we can and save all we can, is in order that we might give all we can, that we might bless others with the fruit of our labour, especially those in need rather than simply building bigger and better barns for ourselves like the rich man in the parable. One colleague used to say that our purpose as Christians is not to earn a living, but rather to earn a giving.

What was really impressive about John Wesley is that he lived his own advice.

Charles Edward White, in his book “Four Lessons on Money from One of the World’s Richest Preachers” tells the following story about John Wesley that changed his perspective on money:

[Wesley] had just finished buying some pictures for his room when one of the chambermaids came to his door. It was a winter day and he noticed that she had only a thin linen gown to wear for protection against the cold. He reached into his pocket to give her some money for a coat, and found he had very little left. It struck him that the Lord was not pleased with how he had spent his money. He asked himself: “Will Your Master say, ‘Well done, good and faithful steward?’ You have adorned your walls with the money that might have screened this poor creature from the cold! O justice! O mercy! Are not these pictures the blood of this poor maid?”

Perhaps as a result of this incident, in 1731 Wesley began to limit his expenses so he would have more money to give to the poor. He records that one year his income was £30, and his living expenses £28, so he had £2 to give away. The next year, his income doubled, but he still only lived on £28 and gave £32 away. In the third year, his income jumped to £90; again he lived on £28, giving £62 away. The fourth year, he made £120, lived again on £28, and gave away £92 to the poor.

Wesley preached that Christians should not merely tithe, but give away all extra income once the family and creditors were taken care of. He believed that with increasing income, the Christian’s standard of giving should increase, not his standard of living. He began this practice at Oxford and he continued it throughout his life. Even when his income rose into the thousands of pounds, he lived simply and quickly gave his surplus money away. One year his income was slightly over £1,400; he gave away all except £30.

I cant say that I have managed in any way to emulate John Wesley in this regard. If anything, I am a terrible failure in comparison. But it is an example that continues to inspire and challenge me. I also think it is the kind of perspective that can help us to wrestle with this parable of Jesus today and reminds us that true life consists of more than having an abundance of possessions.