I recently read a book called Resilience written by Inge Woolf whose family I got to know through photography.  The book reminded me of how important refugees have been in the development of our society. Furthermore, on rereading and reflecting on our Acts passage I was reminded that refugees were an important part of the development of the early church.  Sadly, Inge did not live long enough to complete the book and left that task to her daughter Deborah.  Very competent hands indeed.

Deborah Heart is the director of the anti-smoking group ASH and they note that she is a former lawyer, Human Rights Review Tribunal Panel member, Chair of the Consumer Advocacy Council and the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand.  She is also the former executive director of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand.

I know she was also a photographer at Photography by Woolf, that was her father’s firm.  It is currently run by her brother Simon who is also a regional councillor, and Deborah is currently chair of the Government-driven independent review of electoral laws.

At a time when the world seems filled with refugees who seem to be universally rejected and despised, it is worth knowing that Deborah and Simon, who give so much to our nation, are the children of refugees.   

It does not spell it out in the book of Acts but it’s not hard to discern that refugees, persecution and slavery were very much part of the wind and fire that spread the early church throughout the known world and even beyond. 

To understand that, we first need to understand some of the metaphors that Luke and John use and the best place to start is at the beginning, Genesis 1:1and 2 tell us ‘In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters’ (Genesis 1:1-2)

The footnote in one of the Bibles I have used makes the point that ‘a wind from God’ could also be translated ‘the spirit of God’   So right at the beginning of the Bible the story begins with the action of the divine Spirit, and wind and Spirit are interchangeable.

Wind and spirit are often a creative force in the Bible.  As well as the creation story, we can remember the breath that gave life to the bones in Ezekiel’s dream.  There is also the restoring wind in the story of Noah. ‘And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided’. (Genesis 8:1b) 

That is a divine wind of new beginnings for life on earth.  As we move on through the Bible we come to the beginning of that forty year refugee journey that formed the people of God. 

‘Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.  The Israelites went into the sea on dry ground, the waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left’. (Exodus 14:21-22)

The reference to wind as the creative force from God continue but the reference to that particular sea crossing is a good place to note that one of key story lines in the Gospels is ‘Jesus as the new Moses forming a new people of God.’

Not surprising therefore that as Luke begins to launch the disciples into his story of the young church in action he does so with the announcement: ‘And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. (Acts 2:2) 

Luke also wants to make it clear that the Spirit rested on each of the disciples. ‘Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them’. (Acts 2:3) The Spirit empowers them as apostles.

The other useful thing about the fire metaphor is that flames will ignite any potential fuel they touch.  The story that Luke is telling is about the church spreading through the known world like wild fire.

However, we also need to look at the Gospel reading, and alternative spirit transfer it presents. 

Luke tells us that all the disciples were in one place and goes on to describe the reaction of people around them. We can assume that they were outside in a public space with the crowds who have come to the festival of Pentecost. 

But in John’s Gospel, the disciples are locked away in a room and the risen Christ arrives and breathes the Spirit onto or into the disciples. 

This was the first appearance of the Risen Christ to the male disciples although he had previously appeared to Mary Magdalene, and she had reported to the others. 

John is a theological gospel and one of the important theological points John is making is that, in commissioning the apostles, the Risen Christ breathes the empowering and life-giving breath of God. 

Importantly for us this reading shows that a meeting with the Risen Christ can be a private meeting not just the public display of ecstasy that Luke described.

Both our readings confirm the tradition that God acts through the Spirit to equip and empower God’s people. 

That is something that we can all experience.  We may have had faith confirming spiritual moments in our lives at a particular time.  But we can also experience serendipitous moments when following a hunch or unexpected opportunity leads to something special and a new turning point in our lives.

We can all spend a lot of time working out a cunning plan, but often real progress has come when we have taken opportunities that unexpectedly presented themselves.  

The story of Archimedes discovering the principle of flotation when his bath overflowed is a case in point.  Although it is probably best to contain one’s excitement and not to rush through town clad in nothing but a towel shouting ‘Eureka’

In fact, the Pentecost fire storm story is filled with serendipitous events.  Firstly, Luke sets it at the feast of Pentecost when so many people from so many places were in Jerusalem.  Both Jews and proselytes.  Proselytes were gentiles who had studied the Jewish culture but didn’t have Jewish mothers and were probably apprehensive of the required minor surgery.  All these people were religious tourists who would go home and carry the Spirit all around the Roman Empire.  Traders, refugees, and slaves would take it even further.  In fact, tradition and archaeological evidence suggests that Thomas even took the Jesus message to India, possibly as a slave.

Whether the Spirit came to the disciples in the locked room or singled them out amongst the crowds at the festival of Pentecost the Spirit came to the disciples at ‘an opportune time’. 

In fact, the whole Jesus story happened at the best possible moment for the life changing Spirit to begin its journey throughout the world and into the future.  Travel on Roman roads was easier than it had ever been, the Roman Empire, just like the British Empire was a trading organisation so people were moving around the known world.  Furthermore, the language of trade was Greek so missionaries could make themselves understood. 

Something that is really worth remembering is that the Holy Spirit can even make the most of disaster and tragedy. 

Just seventy years after Jesus’ death the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed as Rome put down the rebellion.  Some of those who weren’t killed were taken as slaves.

Others fled as refugees to other parts of the empire.  Some of those would have been followers of Jesus and would have established emerging church communities in the towns and cities were they settled. 

The tongues as of fire did not just ignite those first apostles, they ignited lives the apostles touched and the world of that time had all the ideal conditions for the fire to spread. 

We can look at the big picture with hindsight, analyse those conditions and realise that the church spread because it came out of an established religious tradition at the right time and the right place. 

However, those involved would not have seen the big picture in the same way we can’t see the big picture in our world.  Think of the kind English woman who looked after little Inge Woolf, but also muttered with deeply ingrained prejudice ‘the trouble is you will grow up and marry a big fat Jew.’ She had no idea of the impact Inge and her children would have on the other side of the world or as Inge wrote in her book, no idea she would actually marry a delightful and talented skinny Jew.

Luke and John have both given us powerful imagery of the way the Spirit of everything those first apostles felt and learned about Jesus, became part of them. 

The imagery tells us that without knowing the outcome they opened themselves to serendipitous opportunities. Meetings on the road and making the most of disasters and forced migration.  Like us, they probably looked at events with hindsight and realised God’s Spirit was acting in their lives.  Inspired by the Spirit they wrote down some of the experiences and insights they had.  They wrote to inform and encourage others and those writings have been passed onto us.  Our scripture and our tradition bring us to the noise and excitement of a religious festival or the quiet reflection in a locked room.  Moments where we encounter the Spirit of Christ.   

Through our own Spiritual encounters, we too will feel the creative and re-creative divine breath as a burning passion to live Christ into reality in our world.

 Jesus the (only) Way?

It was 1984 and my first weeks as an independent degree student at Holy Cross Catholic Seminary, in Mosgiel, when a very intense candidate for priesthood leaned over the top of the study nook I was in. Without any preamble he said in a strident voice,  Do you believe that Jesus is the (only) way, the truth and the life?                                                                                                            

I was somewhat taken aback and didn’t quite know how to answer him. Aware that the Librarian was close by, with ears tuned in; from memory I think I shrugged my shoulders, smiled politely, picked up my books and left.                                                          

Part of my hesitation was also due to the fact that in lectures Patrick (or Paddy as he was known)  had already shown his exclusive position on just about everything.  That included his declaration that the only way to the Father was via the Roman Catholic faith. Paddy’s endeavours to re-convert we pagans to Catholicism had fallen somewhat flat in a class that included a dozen or more independent students -mostly Anglican or Presbyterian, with a goodly percentage of women.                                                           

Paddy was to end up without too many friends, as the class responded to the lecturers’ challenge to see that there are many pathways to the same God.                                                                                             

In fairness I would have to concede that there were also students at the Theological Hall, who were equally strident and full of the conviction there was only one way. Their way!  The sureness of such conviction, and the exclusivity of it continued to make me feel uncomfortable.        

Still more years later, this issue was again raised when a (now) former Pope of the Roman Catholic Church issued a very exclusive papal statement in 2000.  That set off alarm bells in most other Christian communities, as well as giving offence to members  of other religions. [Pause]

It  was a liberating experience for me when I became part of an Inter-faith dialogue, where such issues could be aired and discussed in a safe setting.  What a relief it was to be with open minded people who valued what every faith tradition brought to the table. It also humbled those of us of the Christian Faith, when we realised that others had a profound knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. In return we had only rudimentary understandings of their sacred Scriptures – if that.

So I ask this question:
Is this heavy ‘salvation’ stuff what the storyteller John
was on about with today’s gospel account?

While the John story seems to have been set within the context of a debate over differences, that debate appears to have been between those who were Jewish followers of Jesus,  and those who were Jewish followers of Jewish orthodoxy.
They viewed matters differently.  Perhaps profoundly so.

But the story’s more modern usage seems to have been taken to extremes and I’d like to consider  that this morning.

It isn’t a particularly original conclusion to draw, that during Jesus’ life he resisted questions about his personal identity. In other words, who he actually was?  When pressed, he usually deflected such questions toward the central theme of his teaching.
(i) of a compassionate God always present;
(ii) and God’s radical demands for human living – against the prevailing culture of the day.

However, it is true that when the words, I am the way, the truth, and the life… have been used, Jesus sounds rather  like a bouncer, tasked with keeping  people away from God: especially those without faith, those with not enough faith, and  those who express their faith differently.                                                                

Religious authorities and groups of every age and creed have often exercised their religion in two ways – as a weapon against others, and as supposedly protecting God from others. History seems full of such weapon stories and events: The Crusades.  The Inquisition.  The Middle East.  Northern Ireland. The Balkans. The Sudan. I’m sure you can add some more.                                                                     

And then the gospel stories are littered with protection stories: People who brought their children to Jesus, but…
Women who touched, ate with, pleaded  with Jesus, but…

The sinners Jesus ate with, but…

As one theologian has pointed out…ethnic cleansing
is really just an extreme form of this same motivation.///

So what are we to do with the words: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me…

If we are to be honest we have to confront the fact that today’s scholars tell us it is very probable that Jesus never made this claim. The words were put into his mouth by the mystic, who penned John’s Gospel.  So to understand them, we need to hear them differently.

If the words are read in the context of relationship with God rather than describing an absolute, or dogma if you like, to be believed, the words can be seen as an invitation to be on the pathway Jesus was taking; that Jesus provides a way of journeying from one place to another; exploring and doubting, becoming, rather than condemning, or hitting people over the head.

So let’s think about what Jesus is, and  what he is not.

• Jesus is not the way in the sense of being a moral guide or a model of leadership.
• Jesus is the pathway into the depths of the relationship between God, self and neighbour. The way into the mystery of our common existence.
• Jesus is the truth about that common existence.
  He uncovers what is hidden, bringing to light the dimensions of human existence.
• Jesus is life because he is the way and truth by which God, self, and neighbour, break their isolation and become one with one another. 

Storyteller John Shea puts it this way: Jesus of Nazareth was the triggering centre of an event which restructured the God-self-neighbour relationship.  This event was not only healing and transforming but mysterious and overwhelming.  

It is in that context that the words of Jesus, as suggested by John, came. I am the way, the truth the life…

And as Jesus challenged the dominant system of his day, so these words as written by the author of John’s Gospel came into conflict with the powers and principalities of his day.

In this person, Jesus, we see a concern for the marginalised and the vulnerable, which included both the poor and the wealthy.  In him there was rejection of the belief that the high-ranking people of power were the favoured ones of God.

The good news then in this statement, I am the way, the truth the life is, not so much about Jesus, but about God and us in the spirit of Jesus.  Or, as New Zealand born Bill Loader puts it in his comments on this story: 
Trust that God is the way Jesus told us and demonstrated to us.  That means two things: we can trust in the God of compassion in which there’s a place for us, and we can know that the meaning of life is to share that compassion in the world – there’s a place for all!

But then Loader’s important suggestion:
We can join that compassion wherever we recognise its ‘Jesus shape’, acknowledging it as life and truth and the only way.

Boundaries – Sermon by Martin Stewart

Over the summer I had the pleasure of reading a book called Boundaries by the Central Otago-based poet, Brian Turner.  He plays around with the idea of boundaries, asking his readers to think about the shifting nature of boundaries as well as the ones that don’t budge. 

In that Maniototo landscape, with the harsh summer sun and tough winters, the boundaries appear clear. 

If you don’t respect them then they can trouble you greatly; for the hills and the rivers will outlast any human, and they are no respecters of the boundaries of our existences. 

Turner notes how the application of boundary-frameworks produces contradictions: for instance, many locals thought that the rail trail proposal wouldn’t work, and they closed their minds to the vision of it,

but it has worked, and arguably saved the life of many of the small towns along its way; some farmers have stretched outside traditional practices and introduced irrigation and dairying in order for them to make their land economical, but others are counting the cost of the pollution of the waterways, and they feel that the boundary-lines of respect for the land have been violated. 

What are the boundaries that ought to be respected in agriculture?  I heard that Lake Ruataniwha had had a health warning for several days this year because of high levels of faecal bacteria in the water. How on earth does a lake in that area, at the top of a catchment come to be polluted?  Something is very wrong! 

How come some boundaries are sacred (like the economic notions of growth and progress) but other boundaries can be desecrated?  Is progress something that can be critiqued and stepped back from in respect of the boundaries?  Here’s a poem by Brian Turner:

Progress

1

There’s a need for a duet,
us and nature.  But as yet
we don’t know the music
nor the words to the song.

2

Nature doesn’t negotiate.

Deludeds, we only think
we draw the lines.

3

The way forward’s
back a bit
and sideways.

That would be

progress.

All of this has got me thinking about the boundaries we set, maintain, or dismiss. Are there edges that we just shouldn’t go to?  What would stepping back from them look like?  Conversely, are we so sure of some of our moral boundaries, that the suffering caused by our rigidity is justified?  Would we have been better to have taken a deep breath and given people different from us some breathing space?  But are there other areas where we should have stepped up?  Or intervened?  Or taken a stand?  How do we choose?

There are plenty of stories from our pasts about couples falling in love from across the religious divides of catholic and protestant – and families were split because of the intransigence of some of those parents. 

How long did this moral-high-ground banishment go on for?  For some it was a lifetime! What are the boundaries?  What does loosening them do?  Are our moral boundaries meant to be enshrined and rigid? 

Can’t we all identify that we have all changed our positions on quite a few moral issues over the years?

I believe that many of the walls we put up to protect the boundaries and resist change tend to look rather silly after a while.  Back in the day, the 6pm closing of pubs was designed to help support the idea of a healthy family unit, but for many it led to the disgusting cultural form called the six-o’clock swill, you know, that might still be among us in the form of the binge drinking culture prevalent in some parts of our society. 

Russians were once made to burn Beatles albums because of a perceived low moral standard.

Well-meaning people of faith once protested outside cinemas when Monty Python’s Life of Brian movie was released. 

Hundreds of marchers to Parliament once wore tee-shirts proclaiming ‘Enough is enough’

in an act of intimidation, while the majority of New Zealanders who were quietly asking for the state to back away from criminalising some people’s choice about who they loved.  I can name a number of people who were strident in their moral position about the sexual preferences of others but who changed their tune when it was one of their loved ones who admitted their struggles. 

Can you identify positions you have taken strongly that you now think about differently?  Of course you can! 

We have a couple of juicy moral dilemmas on the near horizon in the referenda on the End of Life and Legalisation of Cannabis Bills.  Once you might have assumed that Christians would have had a uniform response to both issues, but the ground has shifted and we don’t all think the same.

I’ve been thinking about some of the damage I might have been part of causing when I was younger and I took a strong position on a moral issue.  Who did I hurt?  Why was I like that?  Who coached me to think that it either has to be this or that?   Well… when you have a text saying ‘Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”’ I can understand that some people would want to shape their world into a black-and-white-Jesus-said framework.

I have come to recognise that the Presbyterian form of government – the Westminster thing, has its origins in a right old fight about who has the truth of God and who doesn’t. And the adversarial system in our church courts tends to define us by what we are against – and who we are against, more than what we hold in common.  And I think we need to talk about whether it still serves us.  In the parish I was last in we worked hard to minimise ways of working that set people against each other.  We do the same in the Presbytery now.

Our long history of adversarial behaviour manifested over time into decisions about who is in with God and who is not,who is the elect and who is not, who can be baptised, and who can’t, who can receive communion, and who can’t, who can lead or minister, and who can’t?  And I’m a little tired of it. 

I think we can do better. And in many ways, I notice, we are already behaving in ways that suggest we want to relate more constructively.

But, in today’s text, Jesus appears to be very rigid about boundaries with regards to anger, adultery, lust, divorce and oaths.  So rigid does he appear to be, in relation to lust, that this is what Matthew records him saying: ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.’

We would expect, wouldn’t we, that there would be a whole lot of honest people wandering around with only one eye, and one hand – this is a tough standard, and we are not perfect, and where our thoughts sometimes traverse can be problematic!  Do you know what I mean?

And I am sad to confess, that under a strict interpretation of this particular text, I would have no eyes and no hands.  But here I am, with two hands and two eyes, and a mouth at work preaching from your pulpit! 

And, to top it off, as I look upon you it appears that you too seem to have two eyes and two hands, and I wonder if any of us are taking this teaching seriously!!!  Is the boundary Jesus is conveying not clear?

Um, actually, it isn’t.  Because this text, like any text, looks a little unusual when interpreted in the wider framework of Jesus’ teachings.  In other places, Jesus seems to tell stories and behave in ways that are quite the opposite of a hard-line-pluck-your-eye-out moral position.

For I see Jesus showing us ‘who he is for ‘when he walked into Jericho and reached up into the sycamore tree and said to the hated Zaccheus, ‘can I come and eat with you today?’ 

And I see Jesus, kneeling on the ground, tracing patterns in the sand, while he patiently waits on the stone-throwers to lay down their weapons of ‘moral-high-ground-destruction’, and face up to their own brokenness. And I know Jesus says to the woman in that story go and sin no more and I wonder what the sin was.  Was it that she was lost and couldn’t find her way, and he was offering some light to straighten the trajectory of her life? 

And I hear Jesus calling his followers to forgive seventy times seven, and even if they met that threshold of generosity, they still won’t be anywhere near the kind of level of grace that God offers to each and every one of us.

And I hear Jesus saying we need to attend to the logs in our eyes before we try to scratch out the speck of imperfection we see in the eye of someone else.

I see Jesus constantly crossing the rigid boundaries. I see Jesus always offering me the light, and that’s what attracts me to him.  Not the moral stance on this issue or that, but how he seems to transcend our need to categorise everything so sparingly and sparsely into ‘right and wrong.’ 

He seems to have a lot more ‘both-and’ in him than we realise.  And that’s what grace is:  Crossing the divides.  Giving people a break.  Loving them to bits. 

The Apostle Paul tells us what it looks like when the Spirit of Jesus is at work, there’s an abundance of kindness, patience, generosity, gentleness, self-control, faithfulness, and there are oodles of love, joy, and peace.  That’s what I look for to know whether God is in the room. There is no law against such things, says Paul. 

I think we are to choose things and participate in things in ways that bring such life to the world.  I think our community deserves to hear the church announce this and practice this, I really do.  Could our morality be better served by the way we practice who we are for rather than who we are against? 

My observation is that what people seem to hear, more often than not, is the church telling them off,

as if Christians are society’s moral police, and the church is made up of people who have everything together.  Could we love the world as God does rather than judge it?  Could we lift up the weak and heavy laden as Jesus does and release them from the weight of their struggles?  Could we admit our brokenness a little more than we do and practice God’s unconditional forgiving love in our attitudes to others, and each other. So I stand here before you with both of my hands and both of my eyes.  But you know and I know

that if I took today’s very particular words of Jesus seriously, then I would have no eyes and no hands. 

But by his grace I stand, and by his grace you also stand, and for the love of the world, Jesus calls us to follow him. 

Choose love, he says.  Choose love. 

For in loving others you will find my life already at work in them, and in you.

Food for thought

Today we are having a think about boundaries

I have a small number of recent photographs I took of some boundary lines

This one is of a gorgeous gate at the old school in Burkes Pass

Quite a bit of effort went into crafting this beauty – humans tend to put a lot of effort into creating boundaries around property and at times one another

In this dreadful Covid-19 season, unfortunately, the virus has taken the statement of Jesus, wherever two or three are gathered, I am with you, too seriously!

Protecting our border has never been more important, and more challenging.

Anthropology Stge 3
origin of walls

predators both human and animals, cold,

then, each other

when did privacy begin and what form did it take?

Long House partitions of rocks for ‘privacy’

Hutterite sea chests = only part of their lives kept apart from the community

More sophisticated society = higher the fences

Boundaries, law, breaches, privacy act, crossing the boundaries been in the news a lot lately with quarantine breakouts and MP’s misbehaving

Boundaries are shifting, maybe tightening, but I sometimes wonder if the cries of anguish are full of hypocrisy, just hoping that the spotlight not on my secret life!!!

Wedding in Dunedin
mother of groom turned up at the first marriage prep appointment!!  I set up the actual prep with her excluded!

Iturned out home schooled two boys and attended each and every one of their university lectures with them.. yes its true!  Was she going to be going on the honeymoon???  No wonder the oldest boy shifted with his bride to the other side of the world!

You may try to contain me but I have to break through

In Germany if a prisoner escapes and caught again, no extra charge on them, it is their right to want to be free

Holy Spirit like a bag blowing in the wind, blowing free – no respecter of boundaries. James K Baxter Song to the Holy Spirit – ‘you blow inside and outside the fences’

The journey of raising children is to start with clear boundaries and it is your job to slowly release the tension and give the child room. 

between us

it started

me as your protector
boundary rider

fearful one
holding you
as you cried your tears

after the fall onto the knee
already skinned
from yesterday’s adventure

but I always had a charge

to set you child free
to release the binding
slowly dismantle the fence
and risk the loss of you
to trust the process

it was my job

to slowly release the tension

and give you room

if I didn’t offer it

you would force me to do it
anyway it was always my job to make room

and it was yours to push out

and all has gone well,

despite my instinct to cling
now it is just a wire

but with a knot as strong
as strong can be

like faith, I guess

martin stewart

Sermon by Rev Chris Elliot

Resurrection – Some thoughts and challenges to consider
It’s is a rather inconvenient fact that none of the Gospels agree on what happened on Easter morning. Depending on which version is read, we get a different order of events and a different cast of characters—is it one angel or two? Two, three, or more women, or just Mary Magdalene? Jesus drifting around the Garden, or already back in Galilee fixing breakfast?
Similar to the two birth narratives, each gospel tells a different version of the Easter events –
from who saw what first, to the number of angels at the tomb, to Jesus’ appearance; all vary.
Counting Paul, there are actually five distinct accounts of Easter, none of which were finally written down by a contemporary of Jesus, let alone an eyewitness. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15 are the earliest, written about twenty years after the event, while Mark is a further twenty years on. Matthew and Luke are dated in the 80s, while the Gospel of John most likely comes from the late 90s, or even the beginning of the second century.
Mark and Matthew both say that Jesus will appear to his followers back in Galilee. Luke insists that the disciples remain in Jerusalem and meet Jesus there. Mark has three visitors to the tomb; Matthew has two; John only one, the grieving Mary Magdalene. In Mark, Luke and John, a large stone has already been rolled away; in Matthew, an earthquake rolls it away in
the women’s presence.
Different elements, with each version endeavouring to make a different point, make it pretty much impossible to claim that we can know the actual historical events that first Easter.
Yet, along with unquestioning belief in the virgin birth, claiming a belief in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus became the cornerstone of what it meant to be Christian.
So, how do we deal with this. Taking a look at Mark’s Gospel, the earliest and closest gospel to the real action, is a good starting place. Mark doesn’t get much attention at Easter—at least not enough to invite us to wrestle with its original, abrupt, even unsatisfying ending.
Of all the Easter stories, Mark does without a resurrected body or compelling words of Jesus. And when one considers the verses added later, Mark has obviously been subjected to a good deal of editorial licence.
When we don’t know Mark’s intentions, reading the original ending of the Gospel can be a total letdown, while the other gospel accounts tell of shouts of joy, disciples running to and fro, angels giving directions, as everyone breathlessly shares the good news, He is risen!
We can almost imagine the music swelling, the singers and dancers. Now that’s a real Easter celebration!
In comparison, Mark’s original story is a meagre eight verses. Even the most conservative scholars acknowledge that Mark originally ended at verse eight. However, the later additions are not too surprising. In stopping after eight verses the reader could be excused for thinking, wait a minute, the end of this story is missing! Let’s help it along.
So, three women are said to go out to the tomb; women who followed Jesus from the beginning follow him to the end. Now it was time to prepare his body for burial. As they approach the tomb they see that the stone has already been moved. Somebody has been there before them. They’re frightened. They enter cautiously. There, a young man in white says to them, Don’t be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Go, tell his disciples…. and they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
The end. That’s it. No resurrection appearances, no shouting, He is risen! No choirs. No flowers. Simply mute, frightened people.
But what kind of ending is that? Surely one could expect Jesus to appear. After all you need witnesses to this kind of thing. And something amazing doesn’t go amiss – like walking through a closed door. You’d then gather people together for a glorious farewell. Now, that’s an ending! That’s what you would expect, and that’s what you get from the other gospel writers.
But not in Mark. Mark ends tentatively, unfinished.
Some preachers suggests that Mark is onto something here.

We all know about good endings. Endings give a story closure. Conflict is resolved and good triumphs over evil. All is right with the world. Mark doesn’t have that. Mark knows all is NOT right with the world, so his ending is a cliffhanger, not a finale – a cliffhanger to engage the imagination, to stir up discussion about possibilities.
A story is told about Mozart’s father, who roused his precocious son out of bed by going to the keyboard and playing a series of familiar chord changes. However, he would intentionally leave off the last chord. The unresolved ending drove the young musician to jump up, run to the keyboard, and play the final chord. Mark, also, left off the last chord. He left his story unresolved. Surely that would compel any follower worth their salt to jump up and resolve it— with their life. The man dressed in white said, He’s going ahead of you. Meet him back in Galilee— Galilee where it all started. Meet him in your homes, in your work, in your everyday
life, in the breaking of bread.
The image of the risen Jesus going before, leading people into the life they were created for, has been an encouragement for generations of disciples. Whatever holds us back, whether of our own doing, or through life’s circumstances, Jesus goes before us, breaking the power of situations that have otherwise left us as good as dead. The power of this conviction is
seen not in simply being convinced that something sensational happened 2000 years ago, and all we have to do is “believe.” The real power comes, when in very real and tangible ways, the followers of this Jesus become the body of Christ in the world, working to bring new life to the world, to eradicate injustice, poverty, and violence. For the practice of resurrection
is about people, personally and collectively, being inwardly transformed and empowered to transform society.
To see the resurrection as a one-off event, that happened long ago, guts it of its true power to inspire and work change in the world. We, too, are asked to take the resurrection out of the realm of ancient story and bring it to life. The reality of being human leaves many entombed by their attitudes, circumstances, or life choices. Metaphorical stones are everywhere:
the stone of disappointment, of insecurity, of poverty, of guilt. People are often sealed in by the stones of arrogance, confusion, addiction, or indifference. Almost anything that stands between a person and the transforming presence of the Divine can be seen as a stone in need of being rolled away.
One major stone that needs to be rolled away is the jumbling of what we understand by resurrection with the idea of a heavenly afterlife. Many people take comfort in the idea that they will somehow be not only with Jesus, but also with their loved ones in another life, despite the lack of Biblical evidence. As a result it may become a major obstacle in understanding any deeper meaning of resurrection—and to the real living of one’s life in the present.
Limiting resurrection to a miraculous event that happened to Jesus long ago, or to something that true believers aspire to in some distant future, has ceased to have meaning or relevance for many rational and faithful believers today. But as a metaphor for new life—a symbol of the call to renewal—resurrection can still have an appeal and a purpose for followers
of the Way of Jesus: a summons to practice resurrection here and now.
As long as Easter is simply about what Jesus did 2,000 years ago, we can insulate ourselves from the possibility that we might have to experience pain, risk, the giving of our lives, in order to accomplish something that can only be achieved by letting go our comfort zones, in order that Easter might be about us, here, now, today.
As mystic Thomas Merton wrote, A true encounter with Christ liberates something in us, a power we did not know we had, a hope, a capacity for life, a resilience, an ability to bounce back when we thought we were completely defeated, a capacity to grow and change, a power of creative transformation.
That’s what resurrection is about. It’s a challenge to make a decision. Will the followers of Jesus let the powers of death, fear, and the status quo warp the world with violence, injustice, and greed? Or will the symbol of resurrection inspire a new generation to stand up, to embrace the promise of a new life that looks completely different from what anyone might
be expecting?
Resurrection and Easter are not about way back then or way off in the future, but about today. They are about that Mystery of Life—that Mystery through which each of us was created—being the same Spirit that was in Jesus. The same Spirit that can redeem life, can infuse hope, and can move people and circumstances from what would otherwise be life-less, towards new life.
May it be so.

2

1

   Does Jesus want us to be wimps? – Matt. 5: 38-42

   When someone stole little 12 year old Mark’s bike he complained to his parents. “I just want to get back at whoever stole my bike.  I want them to fall off the bike and really hurt themselves”. He felt hurt and he wanted the thief to hurt too, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.  I think we understand, but I wonder what we might say as Mark’s parents.  What would we suggest Mark do with his feelings of anger and wanting to get even.  Would we quote the passage for today about turning the other cheek.  Would we quote the eighth of the ten commandments, do not steal….

As followers of Jesus we surely want to hold on to the idea that we do not repay evil with evil.  But what does that look like? 

. 

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – no says Jesus there is another way.  If someone hits you on the right cheek offer the left as well.  We need to understand a couple of things.  Firstly this is humiliation slapping not out and out violence. The second thing is that in middle eastern society you differentiate between right and left hand.   The right hand is always extended in welcome, the right hand is always used in eating, because the left hand is used for other things.  I won’t go into detail but your left hand is unclean.  The right hand is also used for striking.  Did you notice that our passage specifies the right cheek so let’s have a practical demo of striking with my right hand on your right cheek.  The blow has to be a back hander.  In Jesus’ culture a back-hander had a very specific meaning.  It was used by people in power to humiliate someone.  Masters back-handed slaves, Romans back-handed Jews, husbands back-handed wives, and parents would back-hand children.  The message was simple – “I’m putting you in your place”.     But notice what happens when you offer the left cheek.  The striker must still use his right hand but no longer can he back-hand you.  It’s got to be a hit with the open hand, and that’s a hit reserved for equals.  By turning the other cheek, you are actually refusing to hit back, but you are also refusing to be submissive and humiliated.  You are saying something very powerful.  Hit me if you like but I refuse to submit.  I wonder where this little encounter goes next.  There is I believe a real possibility that a new bridge will be crossed as the bully finds someone stands up to them.

   The next image has a similar theme.  If anyone takes your coat, give him your cloak as well.  It sounds a bit strange to us but in the poverty ridden times of Jesus, garments were often the only thing people in poverty owned.  The scene is probably set in a courtroom and the defendant who has lost everything is being asked to turn over their coat or outer garment to help repay a debt to someone we would call a loan shark.  It’s the epitome of screwing someone for every last cent.   The scene was depressingly common in Jesus’ time, but Jesus’ advice is dramatic and stunning.  Offer your “chiton” as well.  This is usually translated as undergarment, but your “chiton” in effect is your underwear.  The result is startling as you give your outer cloak and then proceed to strip naked.  The greedy creditor suddenly finds himself in an embarrassing situation because public nudity was shocking.  Instead of taking the garments, the creditor will now be giving them back and urging the loan defaulter to cover up again.  The power of public humiliation has been used to expose the greed and hopefully educate the creditor.  The encounter hasn’t been about getting even, but about establishing real justice. 

   The third image concerns another practice known at the time.  “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go also a second mile”.  In Palestine at the time the Roman occupying soldiers were allowed to ask locals to carry their packs.  It was a form of forced labour, but the Romans were very careful not to push things too far.  One mile of pack carrying was the limit.  So, imagine the scenario.

   You’ve just carried the heavy pack of the hated soldier for a mile along the Roman road where there are markers every mile.  The solider, knowing the rules says, “OK I’ll find someone else, you can get lost now”.  But you say, “no. no, it’s OK, I’ll continue to carry your pack.  Very happy to be of service!”.  Suddenly the Roman solider is worried.  The rules are clear and he could get into serious trouble if his superiors discover someone has carried his pack for more than a mile. He’s now begging for his pack back.  Again injustice is exposed, and maybe just maybe the soldier will see you as a real person rather than a resentful Palestinian.  Maybe just maybe a plank of the bridge building that needed to occur between Roman soldier and Palestinian peasant has been put in place. 

   Jesus talked of forgiveness that renounced vengeance and getting even.  No more an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but he doesn’t want us to be wimps either.  We need to find creative ways Jesus doesn’t want us to be doormats who simply roll over when people put the boot into us or treat us as rubbish.  Jesus asks us to find creative ways to expose the injustices and really make things right again.

   Six-year-old Sam had agreed with Diane, his mother, that his chore would be to set the table each evening in time for dinner at 6 o’clock.  Two evenings in a row the table was not set on time.  Each time Diane discussed the situation with Sam.  On the third evening, at 6.15 the table was still not set.  Sam’s hungry sister and father impatiently offered to do it so Diane could serve dinner.  Diane said, “If you help Sam by letting him take advantage of us, you won’t really be helping him or us”.  Finally Sam arrived.  Before he could trot out a story about why he was late Diane cheerfully asked the whole family to sit down at the table.  She brought a pot of spaghetti from the kitchen and plopped a pile of it down on the bare wooden table in front of each person.  Then she piled spaghetti sauce on top, and salad dressing on top of that.  Maintaining a calm, friendly and non-shaming attitude, Dianne finally brought out the frozen yogurt dessert and put some on top of each person’s spaghetti.  As astonished Sam experienced the logical consequence of his failure to set the table.  From then on, Sam set the table on time!

   A wealthy slum landlord had exploited his tenants for many years by charging them excessive rent for substandard housing.  Finally he was arrested for numerous violations of the housing code.  The judge sentenced him to live for one month in one of his own rat-infested smelly rooms with broken pipes and no heat, and the man became a responsible landlord. What would our justice system look like if we practiced restorative justice instead of the current punitive justice system. 

   Forgiveness is not about being a wimp.  Forgiveness requires courage and creativity as we see those who hurt us not as enemies to be punished, but as God’s children who need to grow and find another way.  Forgiveness is hard work, and sometimes we simply won’t have the energy.  It sometimes takes a long time.  Invariably it will take prayer.  We need the creative spirit to guide us and encourage us.  The result however is worth it as we make new friends, and we all draw a little closer to the kingdom of heaven.

   AS many of you know I have a little project along the Heathcote River not far from where we live.  We’ve formed a little group to look after the Laura Kent Reserve which was an overgrown wilderness beside the river.  We’ve removed poplar and blackberry and planted lots of natives.  It looks great.  But earlier this week on my morning walk I discovered  some of the larger trees that we had planted had been snapped off and just left.  I was angry and sad.  Who would do such a thing.  There was part of me that wanted to inflict damage on the people involved.  I imagined a group laughing as some of them tried to snap the trees.  I had to catch myself and ask so how should I respond as a follower of Jesus.  I prayed about it.  As I reflected with God I sensed I should be asking how can I help those involved grow towards God.  Killing these trees was certainly not a godly activity.  I have no idea who is responsible but I held them in prayer before God and asked God to work in their hearts.  Specifically I asked that they would grow to realise life in all forms is sacred.  I am concerned that if they break trees they may also inflict violence on others.  I also wrote a little sign which I hope might unlock some goodness that I believe will be inside them.  I didn’t want to put them down but I did want to say it wasn’t OK, and I wanted to evoke compassion for the trees that had been killed.  Will it work… I don’t know but I trust a door has been open opened for God to move.

The way of Jesus means:

1. Giving up the desire to get even. 
2. Confronting the evil.
3. Building bridges of (re-)connection. 

There are no guarantees, but this is the way of Jesus that I believe will true peace into the world.

Dugald Wilson February 2020