Palm Sunday (Ps 118:1-2, 19-29, Luke 19:28-40)

A dialogue sermon by Rev. Elizabeth Raine and Rev. Dr John Squires

Luke 19:28-40
28 After he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

29 When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, 30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' just say this, 'The Lord needs it.'" 32 So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?" 34 They said, "The Lord needs it." 35 Then they brought it to Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it. 36 As he rode along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. 37 As he was now approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, 38 saying,
"Blessed is the king
who comes in the name of the Lord!
Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven!"
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, order your disciples to stop." 40 He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out."

Luke tells us the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem. The details of this exciting acclamation of Jesus are well known: Jesus, the humble king on a donkey, the innocent man of God, enters the holy city of Jerusalem. We can picture the excitement of the crowd, the waving of the palm branches, the road lined with cloaks, and hear the cries of the crowd as they called out:
“God bless the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”

It is one of the stories of Jesus that has been told and re-told, and we have heard it from our earliest days. We all know who was to blame for Jesus’ death, we all know that Pilate was afraid of the Jews and thought Jesus was innocent, we all know that it was crowd that turned on Jesus after celebrating his arrival. We all know that Jesus did not set himself up as an earthly king, that he was intentionally humble by riding a donkey, and that he died what was considered to be an ignoble death on the cross.

We think we know all this, but do we? Can we be sure this is the real story? Or is there another side to all of this? It may surprise you to learn that the Roman governor had an extensive intelligence network, and kept tabs on all activity within his jurisdiction. It may also surprise you to learn that the Romans had some significant things to say about Jesus and the early Christians in their own letters and documents.

Today, we want you to join us on an imaginative journey. We invite you to imagine that Pilate’s intelligence dossier on Yehoshua ben Joseph has just been discovered by some diligent archaeologists. It contains the full record of an interview between Gaius Scipio, a Roman centurion, and Amon, a Jewish priest. And so we invite you to listen to this interview…

*********************

Scipio: Thank you for agreeing to meet with me, Amon. We have received some quite alarming reports about Yehoshua ben Joseph. Until recently, we saw him as just another one of the fanatics that you Jews seem so fond of producing. Sure, there were crowds following him around but while he confined his activity to the countryside we were not too concerned. The incidents of the last week, however, are of a serious nature. I need answers for Pilate, the procurator. He is concerned, as it is your festival of Passover, which always causes problems for us Romans. As you know, the city is more than treble its normal population, the zealots are ready to stir up trouble, and as usual we have had to call in extra legions from Syria. The watchtower over the temple courtyard has to be manned 24 hours a day. So we want some answers.

What happened yesterday on the roadway leading from Bethphage into Jerusalem? Yehoshua ben Joseph led some sort of triumphal march into the city, didn’t he?

Ammon: I certainly have heard of it. It’s been the talk of the Temple since late yesterday evening.

Well, what were the people calling out? I heard he was recognised and hailed as “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.” What did they mean by that?

They were quoting one of our special festival hymns, Psalm 118, the last of our special set of Hallel psalms. We sing them every year at the special festivals. But originally, it was used as a hymn to celebrate the arrival of the king in the temple. Long ago, the king used to ride up to the Temple on the top of Mount Zion, for a ceremony to re-enact his enthronement. Yehoshua was wanting to remind the people about the good times in the past, how our people used to celebrate. But I don’t think you should read too much into it, really.

But why did they cry out these words, from this particular psalm? It sounds like it was a political psalm. Yehoshua was riding up to the Temple to be crowned as King.

Well, we haven’t had a king for a long time, now; and the Herods don’t count. After all, they are in your pay – and they are not really true Jews. But I’m not so sure that Yehoshua was wanting to make any kind of political statement with the way that he entered the city. He didn’t want to be King.

How can you be so sure? Wasn’t it his own followers who were stirring up the crowd to cry out these words? Didn’t he want people to acknowledge him as someone special?

Well, it is true that it was some of his followers who started this chant. But others picked it up. They just liked the atmosphere of celebration and rejoicing. They were heading into the city for a festival, for goodness sake! It is coming near to Passover, you know. It’s a happy time.

As far as we are concerned, your festival of Passover is not a happy time – it always causes headaches for us Romans. Do you not recall the time at the end of the rule of King Herod the Great (a most worthy client king of Rome) when Roman soldiers massacred 3,000 Jews as they celebrated the Passover in the Temple in Jerusalem? And this was just for pelting the soldiers with stones. The disruption of temple activities by Yehoshua ben Joseph , and the claims he made at the time were all seen and heard by the Roman guard in his tower. And our current emperor, Tiberius, is no friend of the Jews either. Tiberias had the Jews expelled from Rome, and 4,000 Jewish freedmen were deported to Sardinia.

I am not sure that Caesar would see this as just a fun time. From what you have said, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” sounds like a challenge to our Roman rule. Are you sure that the followers of Yehoshua weren’t trying to claim that he is king, now?

Well, to do that, he would have to try to provoke some kind of military action. And he didn’t. All he did was ride into the city while people sang psalms of celebration.

I’ve heard that the people were crying out “Hosanna”. What does “Hosanna” mean?

Well, it’s just an old Hebrew word for praise. They were crying out to Adonai, to our Lord, to thank him. It was a prayer of thanks.

A prayer of thanks—I see. But what were they giving thanks for? What had he done, this invisible Adonai god of yours?

The people were just happy. They were calling out to our Lord, crying out their “thank you”, so that everyone could hear how happy they were.

But I can’t understand what they were thankful for. You lot are always complaining about being oppressed by Roman laws, taxes and our religious traditions. Did the crowd forget that this day? Come on, what does the word really mean? You wouldn’t be hiding anything from me, would you?

Oh, well, I suppose I have to tell you, it comes from the word hosa, to save. So “hosanna” literally means something like, “save us, now”.

Save us! Save us! That doesn’t sound like it was just a prayer of thanks. It sounds like a call to arms! Save us – from those horrible Romans!

Oh, no, I don’t think that was what they meant at all. Save us from doing the wrong thing. That’s all.

Well, that doesn’t sound like a very happy thing to be saying. Are you sure they were saying prayers of thanks? Weren’t they really asking Yehoshua to save them from us Romans?

Well, I don’t think I can help you any more on that question.

I am not convinced by your explanations as yet. What about his mode of transport? Why was he riding on a colt?

Oh, he had a long way to go. People often ride on animals when they are going long distances.

But he wasn’t really going very far, was he? Just from Jericho to Jerusalem – that’s only 17 miles, isn’t it – not really a long distance.

Well no, I suppose not.

So why a colt? Why wasn’t he walking like everyone else?

I guess his people wanted to make him comfortable.

Are you sure? Wasn’t there a reason for him to choose a colt to ride on?

Hmm, I’m not sure. In our scriptures, one of the prophets, Zechariah, does refer to riding on a donkey and says that it would be a humble person who would ride on a donkey. “Humble and riding on a donkey”, it says.

Listen, whether he was on a donkey, an ass or a colt, he is clearly making a statement. Humble people walk into the city. Humble people don’t draw attention to themselves. People with an agenda ride in triumphantly on beasts and let the “happy” crowd sing political songs at them.

Well, I think you are making a bigger thing of this than it is.

Tell me more about what this prophet of yours says.

Well, it is part of another hymn of praise. “Rejoice”, it goes, “rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter, Jerusalem!”

So, it is like your psalm, is it? A psalm of praise, which is really a call for political salvation!

Oh no, not at all. “Rejoice”, it goes, “shout aloud, for lo, your king comes to you, triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey”.

Oh really – “triumphant and victorious”, indeed! Only a Jew would try to be simultaneously triumphant and humble! And what was that reference to a king?

A king? Oh yes, a king. Oh well, I suppose you could argue that there was some small hint about that in his decision to ride into Jerusalem, mounted on an animal.

You must know how we Romans feel about kings. We do not have a king ourselves, you will note. History has shown that kings are always associated with arrogance, and misuse of power. Even the great Julius Caesar – as soon as he set himself up as a king he was assassinated. The only kings we Romans tolerate are our client kings, who do exactly as they are told. The governor will take a very dim view of anyone setting themselves up as a king, you know.

So, onto another matter. The people that were watching your Yehoshua ride along the road – why did they take off their cloaks and throw them down?

Well that was just a sign of respect, I am sure.

No, I don’t believe it. Isn’t there more to it that than this? If it was a common sign of respect, then we would witness it daily. I want to know where your scriptures refer to this particular sign of respect.

Oh, I think it is in the books of the history of the kings of Israel.

I see, the books of the Kings – indeed this is a surprise!

Well, yes. But this was back in the days when we had our own kings, before your Caesar ruled over us. Anyway, in the second book of the Kings, in chapter 9, there is the story about when the prophet Elisha anointed the young commander, Jehu, as the new king of Israel. When he came back to his troops in their barracks and announced thus to them, all the men took their cloaks off and spread them on the bare steps.

And what did they say to him, I wonder?

Why, the trumpeters blew their trumpets and all the people cried out, “Jehu is king! Jehu is king!”

Well, isn’t that interesting. And so I suppose you don’t expect me to think that yesterday, the people were about to call out, “Yehoshua is king! Yehoshua is king!”? Do you take me for a fool? I can see that their shouts were disguised cries acknowledging Yehoshua as king.

Oh no, not at all!

We hear that some people were waving leafy branches as he rode into the city. Why was this? Was this another royal symbol?
Of course not. It had an entirely different meaning. The branches relate to the Temple. They are part of our celebration, each year, when we remember how the Temple was purified and restored so that we could worship our Lord once again.

And when was this?

A long time ago, many years ago, when Antiochus brought shame to our people, and polluted our Temple, and we had to stop offering sacrifices at the altar. The time when the blessed Matthias and his seven sons were victorious over the foreigners and restored the Temple worship. That’s when the people waved their branches and shouted in praise to our Lord. You can read about it in the second book of our Maccabees heroes (2 Maccabees 10).

Indeed – a time when armed insurrection took place, when brigands and scoundrels fought against the armed might of the emperor, when they sought to appoint another King!

No, no, no…it was a glorious time because we remember how wonderful it was that we could worship again in our Temple. And that is what we can do now – worship in our Temple, thanks to your wonderful ruler and your brave Roman troops.

Enough – don’t make me sick. I know that’s not what you really think about us Romans. And anyway, since you bring up the topic of the Temple, after Yehoshua ben Joseph arrived in Jerusalem, he went straight to the Temple and caused havoc in the courtyard of the Gentiles. What was he trying to do? It’s a good thing that he settled down and disappeared before our soldiers got there, or he would be gone by now.

I tell you, the governor and the Herodians are not going to stand for this nonsense. The last time general unrest broke out in Palestine, the rebellions were easily put down. It is amazing how the crucifixion of 2,000 Jewish insurgents and the selling of another 20,000 into slavery can quieten a restless population. And I did hear rumours also that Yehoshua disciples’ carry swords.

Well, travel is dangerous – and the road from Jericho to Jerusalem is particularly dangerous for travel, especially at this time of the year, when lots of people are making their way to Jerusalem for the Passover. It is easy for robbers to hide behind rocks and bushes and spring out onto the road and rob the pilgrims and businessmen on their way to Jerusalem. I reckon that if you stopped every traveler and checked them to see if they were carrying a dagger or a small sword, then most of the adult males would be. Self-protection is pretty important, you know – and making sure that you could protect your wife and children, if you were traveling as a family, would be sensible, too.

But Yehoshua and his friends weren’t traveling as a family group, were they?

Well, no, but that didn’t mean that they wouldn’t be carrying arms. I mean, business people carry swords, too. You just never know when someone might attack you.

Hmm…you make it sound so matter-of-fact and normal for people to be wandering along the road armed to the teeth with swords and daggers.

No, not at all. It’s not like we are talking about a full-scale armed rebellion. We would not dare to contemplate such a treacherous activity! But you have to realize that the Pax Romana doesn’t guarantee full safety for everybody. There is still an element of trouble-makers in our midst.

Precisely my point. And how do we tell if someone is a potential trouble-maker? Why, we listen to what the crowds are saying about him, and we keep out ears open for news of political activity. We will be watching your Yehoshua very carefully. He’s just been acting too suspiciously. And anyone who claims to be a King is setting himself against the Emperor. Amon, tell me, in confidence, what do you make of him? Do you think that his friends really do believe that he is the King of the Jews?

Oh, I think that is stretching things too far. This man cannot be the Messiah, the Anointed One, chosen by God. He doesn’t have any of the qualities of the Messiah. I know that some of my fellow Jews think he is a special person. But then again, we have a track record of making this kind of claim. I mean, there was that Egyptian some years ago, and that fellow from Samaria, and the prophet called Hezekiah who gathered quite a following, and there were others; but none of them came to anything. Their movements just fizzled out. They weren’t the Messiah, despite what their followers said.

Yes, but none of them went into the temple courtyard and overturned the tables and caused such a commotion, did they? Most of them went out into the desert, much like that strange man, Johannan, the one who wanted everyone to be baptised and to repent and follow him. Yes, they were all strange figures – but they were not political threats. Yehoshua is different. There is something about him that worries us.

I wouldn’t want to comment on this. What Yehoshua should be doing is coming to the Temple and making his sacrifices, like an obedient and pious Jew.

But that is precisely the problem – when he came into the city, with people shouting out and waving branches and singing in praise of him, he wasn’t acting in a humble and obedient way – he was acting like the King of the Jews! And when he went into the Temple, he didn’t make his sacrifices like you require. He caused a commotion! And some of his friends carry swords! And this is the man who says, again and again, that he is here to bring in the Kingdom of God. What does that mean? Surely a man who plans a kingdom plans to be King of it. It doesn’t sound to me like he has an obedient attitude towards the Caesar of Rome.

Look, Scipio, calm down, will you. You are getting over-excited here. I’m sure he is no threat to Caesar. I’m positive.

No, I’m not convinced. I think he is more of a threat than you are making out. And if you don’t help us to act, you will find yourself in trouble. Do I have to remind you, that you priests are appointed by us Romans? The members of your Jewish priestly aristocracy retain their powers only by Rome’s grace. If you know what is good for you, you will co-operate with us, and you will find a way to silence him.

Well, just let me ask around and see what we can do to have him silenced. Rest assured, we don’t want to upset you. We will do whatever it takes to keep the peace with our Roman overlords. I promise. I’ll work out some sort of plan. Don’t you worry.

No, it is you that has to worry, my friend. If you don’t do something about Yehoshua, then we will make sure that he is dealt with. We can deal with your problem people. You well know that Pilate has a serious lack of sympathy for Jewish sensibilities. Remember that Pilate, displeased by the attitude of a number of Galileans, had them killed and their blood mixed with the sacrifices. And your Yehoshua is Galilean.
Do you seriously think that the governor is going to give him a fair trial? With all this evidence against him?

We will not let things get out of hand! We will act!! And you will be sorry!!!
Alright, Scipio, I get the point. I’ll get the other priests together and work on them. It might take a few days, but let me assure you that we will sort this. You won’t have to intervene. After all, it is surely better that one man die for the people, than to have the whole of our nation destroyed.

*********************

As we come back to the twenty-first century, and leave behind our imaginary interview concerning Yehoshua ben Joseph, we are left with lots of questions.

We take for granted so many things about this story.
Was Jesus acting humbly? Or was he acting in a provocative fashion?
Did he deliberately set out to become a target of the Romans, when he rode into the city?
Can we afford to keep on talking about “humble Jesus, meek and mild”, if what he really wanted to achieve was a radical re-ordering within society?
Could he have been seen to be a terrorist – another one of the Zealots, out to overturn the Romans?
At what point would the Messiah have been seen as a serious threat to the Roman Empire and its stability and order?
Is the “job description” of the Messiah actually a threat to the way that society operates today?
Is it better that one man die rather than a whole nation be destroyed?

This week’s lectionary reading from John presents another complex, multilayered text from the fourth gospel writer. Here we find another woman in the Gospel of John behaving dubiously yet being praised by Jesus for her action. I think this is worth exploring, even celebrating as we see few named women in our scripture.

I have attempted to bring this text to life via a dialogue between two servants in the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, who have been serving the guests, including Jesus, at dinner. I thought perhaps by coming at this passage slightly differently, it might peel back the layers of meaning and nuance in the text.

This text raises many theological issues, and it is easy to be sidetracked by characters such as Judas, who really is there to act as a foil to Mary. He should not be allowed to distract us from the deeper theological implications of this passage.
Those present in the narrative have not understood Jesus’ words or Mary’s extravagant demonstration of love and the apparent neglect of the poor because they have not understood the meaning of the incarnation as John understands it.
In chapter one, John began his gospel with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us, including the poor and needy of the world. Despite what Judas says, Jesus did not come to try and make the world of his time a more equitable place by simply giving a few denarii away to the poor and hungry.

No, for author of John, Jesus came for a much greater purpose. He came to give the bread of life to all. He came to gladden hearts with good wine. He came to bring sight to blind beggars. He came to bring new life to tax collectors. He came to give the water of life to an ambiguous woman at a Samaritan well. He came to bring healing to a lame man. And he came to raise a dead Lazarus back to life. With these actions, it would also seem that he came to inspire common people to greatness.

In the midst of the hostility being plotted toward Jesus and their brother Lazarus by the chief priests, Mary and Martha defy the potential implications of their actions to show hospitality to Jesus. The hostility of the Sanhedrin, who symbolise the darkness and brokenness of the world, does not prevent Mary and Martha from showing their devotion to Jesus. How much do we remain faithful and committed to an ideal when it is inappropriate or dangerous in our present culture?

The Word became flesh and dwelt in this fallen world with all its woes, sin, and darkness. Like Martha and Mary, we too, need to find the courage to respond this revelation of God, and in doing so, we, like them, become the incarnation of God’s love in this world.

A dialogue based on John 12:1-8
Characters: two slaves at the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Miriam is a strict Jew and has a firm idea of custom and law. Phoebe is of Jewish Hellenistic origin, more liberal in her views and very interested in the message of Jesus. They have been serving dinner to the guests, including Jesus, after Lazarus’ was mysteriously raised from the dead.

Miriam: It still find it creepy, I confess, being at the home of a dead man who somehow isn’t dead any more. Oh, I can understand the gratitude that Martha and Mary must have felt, and why they wanted to thank Jesus for restoring their brother to them. But you have to admit, the whole thing was pretty weird. And that Jesus fellow, he is pretty strange as well. I am not sure I want to be so close to someone apparently as holy as he is.

Phoebe: I thought it very kind of Martha and Mary to honour Jesus. I don’t find it strange at all. Everyone knows he has wonderful powers that could only come from God. There is nothing creepy about the raising of Lazarus when you look at it that way. It is a miracle, a blessing from God. How can you think holiness in someone is a problem?

Lots of reasons. Holy men have a habit of coming to sticky ends. And I thought Mary’s gratitude was a little excessive. Fancy wasting all that expensive perfume. Where did she get the money from?

Well, I thought Mary’s anointing Jesus with that perfume was a beautiful demonstration of gratitude, and devotion. And surely you are not suggesting that she came by the perfume dishonestly.

No, of course not. But with a household to run, it seems an unnecessary expense to incur. And you must have heard the argument between Jesus and one of his disciples about it. You know, the one who keeps their accounts. Judas, I believe his name is. Judas wasn’t impressed by Mary’s action.

I don’t think it is any business of Judas, or ours, or anyone else’s if Mary wished to thank Jesus in this way. How she spends her money is surely her concern and her business only.

Well, that is true, I suppose. But Judas had a good point. A whole jar of that perfume would be worth a year’s wages for a man. Imagine how much good all that money could do for the poor. After all, we were commanded as Jews to give relief to the poor. Deuteronomy specifically states that “since there will never cease to be some one in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour in your land’”. And look at the teachings of Jesus himself. He is always on about helping the poor. I heard he even advised one wealthy young man to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. Yet here he is accepting perfume worth a king’s ransom be wasted on his feet!

I can see what you are saying. But Jesus and the disciples have given lots of money to the poor over the last few years. You know they have. And inspired others to do the same. And Mary has a right to spend her money as she wishes. She clearly offered this gift out of her gratitude and great love for Jesus. It was a sacrifice on her part to honour him. After all, what price her brother’s life?

I am not sure Jesus should have allowed a whole year’s wages to simply evaporate into thin air like that. Yes, it was a nice gesture and it did make the house very fragrant and pleasant. But what business has Jesus got to ask other people to be giving away or selling their things in aid of the poor when he allows such waste on himself? I still think Judas had a good point. All those denarii could feed a lot of hungry people. How can you be sure that Mary was doing the right thing?

I say if you are going to be generous, then do it properly. And this is also an important part of all our traditions, to be generous in hospitality to our guests and to take care to show our appreciation for the favours of others. After all, the proverb says, “Some give freely, yet grow all the richer; others withhold what is due, and only suffer want.” Mary has given freely and didn’t withhold the appropriate thanks due to Jesus.

You sound just like that Rabbi Hillel with your liberal notions. I am sure this was not the intent of that proverb. But it wasn’t just the waste and the expense. It was what Jesus said in response to Judas, you know, about the poor always being around. You must admit that it was a very odd response for someone who says they are all for the poor and alleviating their suffering. He said that the poor would always be with us, but that he would not. This is not the attitude of a holy man. A holy man would think first of the poor.

I just told you that no one can accuse Jesus of ignoring the poor. Look at his recent actions. Apparently he managed to feed a whole crowd recently with only five loaves and two fish. In addition, I have heard some of the other followers of Jesus speak poorly of Judas. They say that Judas was not really concerned about the poor at all but was a thief who used to steal money from their common purse. Surely we cannot take his remarks seriously. Surely Mary’s generous gesture is motivated by love and gratitude, and Judas’ concern is to do with selfishly wanting the money for himself. What generous gift has Judas given Jesus, eh? Mary, however, has surely given away a most precious possession with total selflessness.

Oh, you make it all sound very noble indeed. But just think about the way she went about it. Anointing his feet instead of his head. This isn’t customary. And letting her hair down in public like that, just like she was a prostitute. What possessed her to do such a thing? She acted like she was repenting of something, not thanking the saviour of her brother. Or worse, making an offer of herself.

Oh, surely not. But I agree, it wasn’t the best image she presented of herself. I was a little shocked myself to see her kneeling at the feet of a man who wasn’t related to her, hair all over the place, wiping herself on his feet. I know they are good friends and all, but still – yes, there certainly was a breach of proprietary there. I just assumed she had forgotten herself in her great outburst of gratitude.

Well, though there is some truth in what you say, I wouldn’t want to make such an exhibition of myself. Wouldn’t a simple and heartfelt thank you in addition to the dinner be enough?

But you are forgetting just how great a miracle had been performed here – no wonder she knelt in worship at his feet. Jesus speaks about being humble and serving others. I am sure he wouldn’t be above anointing or washing feet himself. And only prophets anoint the heads of the great.

Hang on a minute. You are making it sound like Mary was recognising Jesus as the Messiah or king! Surely you are not suggesting this. Such ideas could be seen as blasphemous in certain circles. There have been whispers about this very thing.

Yes, I have heard the rumours as well. Apparently the chief priests are not happy at all with all the attention that Jesus has drawn to himself since the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I heard that they were trying to say that Lazarus wasn’t really dead; it was a stunt to suggest to the common folk that Jesus was the Messiah. You know, to drum up support from the peasants and get a movement going.

Yes, after Lazarus came alive, I did hear that the chief priests had called an emergency meeting of the Sanhedrin. They wanted to discuss what had happened, I suppose. After all, everyone is talking about the many signs that Jesus has performed. I guess they would be thinking that if they let him keep going on like this, that soon everyone will be believing he is the promised king and messiah. And any mention of ‘king’ and the Romans would be sure to come and destroy both the temple and us. I also heard that many of Jesus’ followers have left him. Maybe this is why.

I did hear that Caiaphas, the high priest, had made some sort of plan. Someone did whisper to me that he got fed up with all the debate, and told the Sanhedrin they were all fools. I heard that they decided it was better to sacrifice Jesus. You know, better to just have one man killed to appease the Romans rather than the whole nation be destroyed.

Hmmmmm, do you think Jesus has heard about this? Might explain the very strange remark he made at the time Mary was wiping his feet. He said to Judas that the perfume was for his burial. I thought to myself at the time, ‘Who is he to be planning such an expensive burial ritual? And he is only young. Why would Mary be getting ready for his burial now?’ But if he had heard the rumours too, then that remark suddenly makes sense.

Do you really think that the priests have made up their mind to actually have Jesus put to death?

I think it likely, and what’s more, I heard that they had let it slip that anyone who might know where Jesus was should let them know, so that they could arrest him. Even heard there was a reward. If you are right about Judas being a money grubbing thief, then maybe he will try and claim it.

Oh, surely not. He and Jesus are so close. Don’t even think that. But Jesus wants to be careful. I thought I heard him say at the dinner that he was going to Jerusalem soon, and Jerusalem is a hotbed of unrest with Passover coming up. There seem to be plots everywhere. There was also some talk that the priests were planning to kill Lazarus as well, because everyone keeps coming to have a look at him. It isn’t every day that you can look at someone who has come back from the dead.

Well, Jesus wants to hope that the priests don’t hear of this latest extravagance and interpret Mary’s gesture and Jesus’ acceptance of it as some sort of symbolic anointing of Jesus as a royal Messiah. Otherwise he will be looking for a tomb, not a throne.

On what biblical basis can we justify the decision to marry same gender people?

The Uniting Church in Australia recently decided at its recent National Assembly meeting that Ministers could marry same gender couples. As ordained ministers in this church, my husband John and I have received a number of requests for the biblical basis of this decision.

To answer this, we have prepared what follows. We hope that it helps.

For people within the Uniting Church, the Basis of Union provides a foundation for careful and prayerful thinking about scripture. The Basis affirms that the witness of scripture is to be understood through the work undertaken by scholarly interpreters, by insights that have arisen in scientific and medical investigation, by understandings that have developed in society, as we better understand how human beings operate and how they function. All of these are important matters to consider when we think about human sexuality.

We need to think about the witness of scripture, and in particular, those sections of scripture which explicitly address the matter of sexual relationships between people, in the light of this way of approaching the biblical texts.

It is possible to summarise the key points of critical scholarship and the understanding of what is, and what is not, explicitly referred to in these passages.

The first thing to note is that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek languages, so there are questions about how particular words should be translated, whether there are exact equivalences in English, and so on. Many translations use the word “homosexual” where the original language actually requires more nuance in translation.

A second factor is that we need to reflect on the cultural customs of the societies within which the Bible came to be written. It is important to consider how these cultural customs have shaped the way in which the words were written.

“Homosexuality” is a modern, enlightenment concept, which was not known to the writers of the biblical texts. They did not write anything which related to the loving, committed, lifelong relationship of two people of the same gender.

The oft-quoted verse about same-gender sex in Leviticus (18:22) is not about same gender relationships, but about cultural shaming practices, using power to create inequality in relationship. That verse provides a critique of the practice in which a stronger male seeks to subordinate and demean a weaker male, through sexual activity. That activity is what is declared to be an “abomination”. This abusive and shaming action is not what we are talking about in discussing same gender marriage—which is a committed, loving, longterm relationship between two equal people.

The same applies to the story of Sodom (told in Genesis 19). The prophet Ezekiel, inspired by the spirit (Ezekiel 16:49-50) declares that this is not about sexual sin, but about the sin of not providing hospitality. Another story, of the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19), makes it clear that hostile men did use this breach of hospitality protocols as a weapon against other men, seeking to shame the strangers in this way. This, again, is not about a same-gender relationship where equality and mutuality are paramount.

God made a good creation, and encouraged human beings to enter into positive relationships with each other within that good creation (Genesis 1–2). Our human expression of sexuality is one way of expressing the goodness of that creation. We ought not to exclude people who are attracted to people of the same gender from this understanding.

References to sexual sins in Paul’s letters (Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6) sit alongside a range of other sins, which are equally condemned, and equally challenging to our discipleship. Why single this one out? Paul related all of these sins to idolatry, which, for him, was the fundamental sin. A loving same-gender relationship is not idolatrous, but rather it can strengthen a sense of the value of human life which God desires for us.

Jesus does not discuss sexuality very often, not in much detail at all, and this area rates as of only tiny significance for him, alongside the greatest focus which Jesus had—on wealth and poverty, and the importance of serving those on the edge, those who are in need.

From this very brief survey of key passages, we are able to affirm that the most important conclusion to draw from the scholarly explorations of relevant biblical texts, is this: what God wants from human beings, is a commitment to loving, respectful relationships, a commitment to longterm, hopefully lifelong, relationships, and that the specific genders of people in relationships is a less important matter.

In the Church, we affirm that God is faithful—that those who diligently seek to know the will of God, will be upheld and loved by God. God is not disturbed by differences of opinion; God made a diverse creation, and God honours our search for truth within that creation.

In Jesus, we see the key attributes of God, lived out in a human life: self-sacrifice, humility, and love. These are the controlling lenses through which we should read the biblical texts, and develop our understanding of sexuality and marriage. A heterosexual relationship, at its best, will exhibit mutual respect, deep love, faithful commitment, and personal humility in placing the other as first.

So, the various passages which describe marriage as taking place between a male and a female, provide the basis for a claim that heterosexual assumptions were normative for those who wrote the biblical texts. That makes sense, in their own time and context.

However, the insights of medical, psychological, and social explorations points to the fact that a homosexual relationship between two people of the same gender, can itself exhibit the best of human qualities, and demonstrate the finest moral values in human relationship.

It is thus possible to conclude that a same-gender relationship, at its best, can certainly exhibit mutual respect, deep love, faithful commitment, and personal humility in placing the other as first. And since this is what is at the heart of a heterosexual marriage, it can also be at the heart of a same-gender relationship.

Throughout the New Testament, we can see places where NT writers offer radical reinterpretations of the norms of their cultural and religious practices. The accounts of the ministry of Jesus tell us of Jesus’ affirmation of women, his willingness to break religious law by healing on the Sabbath, and his redefining of aspects of Jewish law in the light of his message of the coming kingdom.

The accounts of the early Church include instances where redefinition and breakthrough took place: most strikingly, in Acts 10. This chapter tells the story of Peter, who was a faithful adherent to a long-established pattern of eating in a the manner that was set forth in the laws of Leviticus. He was told that what he did not eat—because it was “unclean”—he was now free to eat—because God had declared such food “clean”. This opened the way, in the early church, to a new way of inclusive table fellowship where Jews and Gentiles are welcome to eat and share together.

Who is to say that the spirit, which once moved in this way, is now not able to move in a similar way, and to declare what some consider “unclean” to be “clean”—and that we can rejoice in this!

In the letter to the Ephesians, a standard Hellenistic pattern (“the household table”) is used, but significantly adapted, to instruct husbands and wives. Ephesians 5, while appearing on the surface to reinforce patriarchal norms of wives submitting to husbands, actually instructs husbands to love their wives with self-sacrificing love (“as Christ gave himself for the Church”) and encompasses all marriage relationships under the heading, “submit yourselves to one another”. This was a radical reinterpretation of the marriage relationship itself, even within the first few decades of the life of the church.

The biblical account shows that the spirit comes to faithful people, offers a vision of a new way, and opens hearts and minds to a greater vision which broadens the impact of the good news and reinvigorates missional activity.

That is what the Uniting Church has sought to do in the present moment.

Let us rejoice in this moment!

Holding up the mirror: why Western countries need to take a long, hard look at themselves in regard to terrorism

Today I have a guest blogger, Mary Elizabeth Fisher. Mary is a theologian, biblical scholar, deep thinker, and promoter of peace and reconciliation among all people. Mary lives in the city of Sydney, and has worked hard to make relationships there with her Muslim neighbours. Mary is greatly appreciated and loved by her community.

Mary has been very concerned about the direction our world seems to be heading in. This blog is the result of some days of thoughtful reflection.

The lack of historical perspective in the world today worries me greatly.
And I am not talking about the Crusades and Islamic Invasions prior to European and Corporate colonial history.
Let me preface this by saying I have no support for or excuse of Terrorist activity.

What I am concerned about is:

1. we look at the ideology and history of Islamic communities
BUT

2. we also need to look at Western colonial history over the last 600 years including Corporations colonial history

3. As we look at that history we also need to recognise that the supposed freedom of the colonised Muslim world from the control/influence of Western powers including the USA goes hand in hand with the Western training of military powers within Muslim nations - some of which have used that training for vile purposes.

It also has included the sale of military weapons from the West to Muslim countries that have then used that training to suppress their own people and neighbors.

While the West gained jobs and wealth (as with the sale of 110 billion dollars of armaments to Saudi Arabia by President Trump) internal dissidents and neighbouring countries have been traumatised by such sales.

Make no mistake our hunger for oil and our wealth from arms industry has made us partners in some of the worst oppression in the world.
As we selectively critique those at any level who participate in the horrific drugs trade (including addicts, doctors who prescribe addicting drugs, pharmaceutical companies who provide drugs, the alcohol industry, the cigarette manufacturers, drug runners, drug suppliers of legal and illegal drugs, etcetera, etcetera.) let us not forget the millions who die each year from arms industries that supply Western nations and Russia with wealth through industry creating jobs.

As we in the West celebrate our freedom, relative stability and wealth let us realise how much we benefit through the poverty and pain of others. Manufacturing in the majority world provides us with extremely cheap goods while workers live in poverty and work horrific hours.
Over the last 600 years Western colonial history is a history of glory and acute degradation. It continues today with Corporate colonialism.
And it goes hand in hand with our hunger for oil.

As I look at our Western freedom, stability and wealth, I also consider our critique of corruption in other countries, our disdain for their lack of human rights, the suppression of women across the globe, our polluting of our planet, our militarisation of the world and I confess I believe our greatest problem is hypocrisy.

We have no idea how our comfort and militarisation and training of the world has enabled violent oppression of domestic peoples and neighbouring countries in the areas of the Muslim world.

Look at a map of the Muslim world and name the nations and you will see very few if any nations where the shadow of Western enabling has not facilitated totalitarianism, oppression, and violence. It may come from inhumane ideology of fundamentalist Islam but we have help grow it.

Why am I writing about this?

Because I am weary of how we accuse to exclude.

There is no innocent nation. Let the nation without sin "throw the first stone".

The Gospel of the Kingdom calls us to rejoice that we know the Creator is enacting New Creation through the entire narrative of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit.

But the Gospel also enables us to acknowledge the radical brokenness of our world, a brokenness in which we all participate.
And that causes me to lament.

As we recognise the destructiveness of terrorism let us understand and acknowledge we have much that benefits us at the cost of others.
And so I seek to make the Gospel known and say:

Lord have mercy,
Christ have mercy,
Lord have mercy.
And Creator of the world during this season of fasting in the Islamic world may your compassion and mercy particularly be manifest to the world of Islam.

Mary Elizabeth Fisher, 10 June 2017

Finding light in the darkness: the paradox of Good Friday

As a minister in the Uniting Church of Australia (UCA), one of my tasks is to create liturgies and sermonic reflections for Sunday worship. In the UCA, there is a great deal of room for creative services and creative ways of telling the narrative that constitutes the Christian story, especially at Easter, one of the high Christian festivals in the liturgical calendar.

I have often wondered how much liturgy really does ‘transform the people of God’. Creating a liturgy theoretically should reflect the transcendent creator, and the whole thing should be a spiritual and an inspired experience, reflecting the original Greek word where inspired meant to literally breathe in God.
Liturgy also allows for the possibility of creating a space in which we ‘lose ourselves’ and where we might imagine, through prayer, what other people’s lives are like and walk for a time in their shoes. Such imagining hopefully gives us empathy for the problems which face the world, and allows us to become collectively empowered by our experience to find sympathy and compassion for them, and by ‘seeing’ the world in a different light, be prompted to act upon this individually and collectively.

Creating a liturgy for Good Friday is always a challenge. Exploring how the story of Jesus’ suffering and death relates to people in a contemporary world, and how it might help us to make sense of our suffering in a world that is deeply flawed and broken in so many ways is not easy. Transforming the people of God through such a story looks near impossible.

This year it was much more challenging. Less than two weeks ago I experienced first hand the brokenness of this world through the suicide of a cousin who was also a good friend. For me, it was totally unexpected. I offered to take her funeral service, and found myself among a family equally bewildered by her action, and the notion that for some of us, life too easily falls into despondency and collapses into a despair that is beyond the reach of even the people that loved us the most.

Violent death by one’s own hand carries with it many stigmas and unresolved issues. Denial, anger, guilt and unanswered ‘what ifs’ haunt the minds of those left behind. Hope and healing can seem a long way away.
All of us know that the story of Good Friday is too good to be true in that it resolves on Easter Sunday with a happy and rather miraculous ending. Hope and healing are just two days away.

So while the miraculous might cause congregations to go ‘phew’ and vault over the darkness that is Good Friday, I found myself instead wanting to stay in the darkness for a while, aware of the hurt and the sadness that sat within but had been suppressed over the last week.

Too often religion is used to dodge these so called ‘dark emotions’, by focussing on praise, thanksgiving or restitution. The story of Jesus’ final days is an important narrative that can allow people to become mindful of their own emotions and the effect on their bodies, and to experience them rather than avoid them.”One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of Light, but by making darkness conscious” Carl Jung once wrote.

As I sit here with my story of grief and despair, listening to the evening news where there are many such stories in our broken world of grief, despair and fear, I nonetheless attempt to find a defiant hope, and of connecting with an apparently austere and absent God through the story of Jesus’ violent death.

At the moment, Good Friday seems to me to be more about ‘endarkenment’ rather than ‘enlightenment’. It is about pondering the deep paradoxes of Christianity, and remembering that our lives are not neatly divisible into two halves, where pain is bad and pleasure good, brokenness is failure and wholeness is good, and light is desirable in our lives and dark is sinful. If we are committed to fullness of life, then we must embrace both halves of the equation. And through this we can find healing.

Today was about entering the symbolic darkness that is Good Friday and learning to sit with the brokenness and pain that sits at the heart of the Good Friday story.

Today was about simultaneously facing the terrors of the cosmos whilst defiantly claiming God is a God of personal love. Today was about exploring the paradox of suffering not by deciding that God is indifferent to our fate, but by proclaiming that the same God willingly suffers that fate. In one of the great paradoxes of Christianity, God’s presence and divine consolation is found in the cross, and it is this that sustains a living faith. The story has indeed become redemptive.

I ended today’s liturgy with a poem, The Coming by RS Thomas, as it seemed to express something of the truth I was grasping for.The Coming has a strange effect on me: when I read it, it creates a moment where I just ‘know’ its meaning, something viscerally reacts in me and in a flash of understanding, I get what it is about, but generally fail to articulate in words. It is a sensory rather than a definitive thing, where the possibility that the cross shows us how an absent God that is longed for but seemingly absent can in fact be known to us through his identification with our suffering. It also makes the death of Jesus somehow his own choice, rather than an enforced destiny by a vengeful God needing a blood sacrifice to forgive humanity’s sin.

The poem also invites us to hold out our thin arms to the starkness of the bare tree, and it articulates the son’s simple but profound declaration of empathy with humanity. “Let me go there”, says Jesus, a request that somehow identifies with the question of Simon Peter in John 6:68, who in his humanity and his lostness says: “Where else could we go, Lord?”

The Coming

And God held in his hand a small globe.
Look, he said.The son looked.
Far off, as through water, he saw
a scorched land of fierce colour.
The light burned there;
crusted buildings cast their shadows;
a bright serpent, a river, uncoiled itself,
radiant with slime.
On a bare hill, a bare tree saddened the sky.
Many people held out their thin arms
to it, as though waiting
for a vanished spring to return to its crossed boughs.
The son watched them.
Let me go there, he said.

Righting the right - or is that the left?

When did a fact become an opinion and an opinion become a fact? In the last few weeks during engagement with social media, I found opinions masquerading as facts quite frequently. Further, the owners of these factual opinions were often dogmatic, ignorant and uninterested in any real fact that might spoil the fantasy they had constructed around them.

One most recent example I encountered was on Twitter, where a not so nice bloke tried to convince a number of us – including a scientist who studied the changes in the Great Barrier Reef – that there was nothing wrong with the Reef and that we all were deluded in regard to the danger it was in. Apart from thoughtfully informing us that everything we said was bullshit, he posted a ‘paper’ for us to read which he claimed vindicated his point. Anonymous, with no data given and no methodology, let alone any references to studies of the Reef, this paper stridently claimed the ocean was becoming alkaline. The Reef scientists and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s reports were dissed as ‘that is the opinion of one group’. Dismissing us all as deluded lefties, and telling us there was no room for any more ‘warmists’ in Cairns, he only vanished when outnumbered by tweeters concerned with the future of the Reef. I was left pondering why someone could so vehemently argue against a scientist that had studied the Reef for decades and had seen the changes in it firsthand.

And God forbid any female express an opinion or cite a fact on Twitter when a right wing troll is lurking. Only today an Aboriginal woman stated that she had experienced racism in Queensland and Western Australia. She was immediately informed that was impossible. She replied that her lived experience was her own, and he had no right to dismiss it. She was immediately challenged to prove she had ever been in Western Australia, and called a liar and other names I will not repeat here. For someone to deny racism does not exist at all in two of our states must be wishful thinking. To attack an Aboriginal woman who had experienced such racism by denying that her experience was impossible is bizarre. Just what is going on here?

On this last, the final example I offer is a Facebook interaction where a man insisted that Scott Morrison was ‘more knowledgeable’ about asylum seekers than anyone else therefore should never be questioned. I asked how ‘knowledgeable’ equated to ‘always correct’, and suggested that how one used one’s knowledge was just as important. His response – which he made to three women on the thread who expressed a lack of confidence in Minister Morrison - was the same: “I am not going to bother engaging with any lefties on this issue or any issue for that matter”. He was happy to engage with my male spouse, though. Men apparently cannot be ‘lefties’.

Just before Rob Oakeshott (the former Federal Member for the electorate of Lyne) left the political arena to write his book, I interviewed him for an assignment. He made some interesting observations about this type of behaviour.

In Oakeshott’s opinion, Rudd and Abbott became the ‘merchants of doubt’ and turned what should have been genuine debates on issues into a values war. Words that clearly resonated with the ‘frame’ of the more conservative voter, such as ’trust’, ‘truth’, ‘honesty’, were used against the female Prime Minister. For example, statements such as ‘She can’t control the parliament’; ‘She doesn’t have the numbers’; ‘She can’t be trusted’, were assiduously circulated. These statements effectively denied the existence of parliament to make decisions and regulate its own decisions and behaviour, and shifted the blame to Julia Gillard.

His next observation was the unrelenting criticism and negativity from the then Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, whose own vested interest was to destabilise the government and force an election. When he stood in front of signs saying ‘Ditch the Witch’ and ‘Bob Brown’s Bitch’ he effectively legitimised an extreme right wing fringe and gave them a voice into the mainstream of politics and media. Was this coincidence or coordinated? Oakeshott believes this was a deliberate strategy to set a certain tone. It signalled it was acceptable to use insulting language and question a woman’s capability in derogatory terms. Oakeshott also pointed to Abbott’s statement that the Government was ‘dying of shame’, a repetition of the ugly expression Alan Jones (an opinionated shock jock) had previously used of Gillard’s father. Oakeshott believes the evidence trail suggested it was a coordinated strategy to set a particular tone that unlocked a lot of ugliness with no better reason than Tony Abbott’s personal gain.

Eighteen months down the track, this ‘lunatic fringe’ appears not only to be far more vocal, but also far more illogical. No longer are ‘facts’ and ‘values’ separate things, but have become inseparable and intertwined. ‘Facts’ are often seen through a lens that is much more about the ‘values’ that people adhere to generally. Issues such as refugees, the environment, Islam and climate change have become rusted onto discrete political positions rather than being debated on their merits. It would seem that Rob Oakeshott was right about a tone being set by political leaders which legitimised anyone with an opinion to claim it as a fact, and which delineated certain issues as having only two positions that were not only designated as either ‘left’ and ‘right’, but also decreed that ‘left’ and ‘right’ would be sworn enemies deaf to the other’s opinion.

In an era when even journalists neglect to check facts before writing a story, how is this disregard for science, information and truth to be dealt with?

Social science has been saying for some time that people will mostly act more on their beliefs, even if presented with a set of irrefutable and provable facts.

And when the leaders that you should be able to trust lie and deceive for their own personal or political purposes, is it any wonder that many find it easier to simply ignore objective facts if they go against their own personal belief system? Or if those facts are not endorsed by someone you trust?

It would seem that facts don't matter that much anymore. But your politics does. Rob Oakeshott’s comments suggest that political allegiance can affect what people believe. When an ALP minority government held power in Australia then conservatives saw it and the female PM as incompetent, chaotic and bad for the economy. Now a conservative government is in power, more progressive ALP and Green types see it and the male PM as incompetent, chaotic and bad for the economy.

I will go out on a limb here and say that the facts about the current party suggest that not only its economic competence is somewhat lacking, but it is generally in disarray. But as a feminist and social scientist, I would say this, wouldn’t I?

Politics really has ruined things for so much — including the truth.

Between a rock and a hard place: exploring Exodus 33

This week's Rural Reverend blog is brought to you courtesy of the male half of the rural reverend duo.

It is said that the eyes are a window to the soul. If you look a person in the eyes, and look carefully into their eyes, you will see deeply into their soul.

Look into the eyes of the young, newly-engaged couple, and you will see them sparkling, dancing with the excitement of unchartered waters and the promise of fulfilment yet to come.

Look into the eyes of the parent with a growing family and increasing work responsibilities, with a mortgage to meet and with hopes drifting away, and you will see weariness, anxiety about the present, perhaps even fear about the future.

Look into the eyes of the grieving partner, mourning the loss of the one who had been the soulmate, the lifelong partner, and you will see the satisfaction of a shared life, overlaid with the grief of the separation, tinged with a yearning for just a little more time together.

Look into the eyes of the calm, contented elder, eyes surrounded by wrinkles that chart the years of experience, eyes that exude a wisdom crafted through the decades and the perception shaped by a lifetime of experiences.

For the eyes are a window to the soul. If you look a person in the eyes, and look carefully into their eyes, you will see deeply into their soul.

In the ancient world, there was a flip-side to this belief, expressed through the notion of the “evil eye”. The evil eye, it was believed, was the capacity to cause misfortune, or even inflict harm, simply by looking at another person. It was not everyone who possessed this ability; rather, it was something that magicians, holy men and women, were able to exercise.

In some Mediterranean cultures, where the vast majority of eyes were dark in colour, those people who had green eyes, or blue eyes (like me), were regarded as the possessors of the “evil eye” capacity.
In this custom, the mere act of looking, through the eye, was believed able to convey some force, some power, which would affect the person who was being observed.

So the power of the eye is embedded into our human consciousness. The eyes can convey a force for the worse. Or the eyes can open a window into the soul. If you look a person in the eyes, and look carefully into their eyes, you will see deeply into their soul.

It is no wonder, then, that we learn that Moses, honed by the experiences of the years, has made this request of God. “Show me your glory”, he says – a very Hebraic way of asking, “let us go face-to-face ... let me look you in the face ... let me see into your eyes.”

And why not, we might think? Did not Moses have every right to request this most direct, most honest, way of relating to God?

For central to the religion of the people of Israel, was the recollection that it was Moses who was the one who had climbed to the top of the mountain, where God had entrusted him with the Law, to guide the lives of the people of Israel. The tablets of stone, on which God had written the ten great words, were God’s gift, mediated through the prophet Moses, to guide and shape the life of the people.

And it was also Moses, as the story goes, who was the supreme general of his people. Over generations, the story had been told and retold about Moses, about how he had led the Israelites out of their slavery in Egypt, escaping the pursuing army, and leading his people through the wilderness as they moved towards the promised land.

And as time went on, the story of Moses had been expanded and developed even further, to include the miraculous origins of the baby Moses– in the manner of all ancient stories, the birth of this child was a moment of divine intervention into the pattern of human affairs, as the basket containing the baby who would grow up as Moses, was miraculously hidden, discovered, and treasured.

So it is clear, throughout the book of Exodus, that Moses was no ordinary person; as leader, general, prophet, and miracle-baby, he has every right to front up to God, and place his request. “Show me your glory”, he says to the Lord God.

And this request, in chapter 33 of the book of Exodus, comes after all of these earlier events have been recounted. The request from Moses stands at the climactic moment, as the pinnacle of the life experience of Moses.

Now, at the end of his lengthy and profound encounter with God on the top of the mountain, Moses has returned to his people. He has found them engaged in the sinful act of worship an idol which they had made. He has called them to account, and they have repented, removed the offending ornaments, destroyed the idol, and returned to honour and worship the Lord.

Now they are able to venture forth, into the land that has been held out to them. Now they will enter the promised land.

So Moses stands before the Lord, advocating for his repentant and contrite people, pleading with God to forgive them and to equip them for their future. And he asks God to give him the assurance that God will support and sustain the people; that God will forgive the people and go with the people.

And as he asks, he pleads with God to give him the deep-down assurance of God’s ongoing presence. Because he wants this to work – and he needs to know that God will ensure it is going to work. “Show me your glory”, says Moses, to the Lord God. “Don’t muck around with me”, we might paraphrase it. “Be fair dinkum; tell it to me like it is.”

When Moses asks God to “show his glory”, to look him fair-and-square in the eyes, Moses asks what so many human beings desire: to look into the window that takes us into the very heart of God. Despite his superior qualities, Moses stands and speaks on our behalf – asking to look into the eyes of God, yearning to see into the depths of the very soul of God.

Is not this what we would all desire? To know God, to really know God, to be confident that we have access, direct and unmediated, into the very being of God? Here, in this ancient story, Moses functions as a spokesperson on our behalf, making the very request of God that we, each one of us, would dearly love to have come true.

“Show me your glory” ... “help me to really know you, my God”.

So the reply that God offers to Moses comes as something of a surprise: “I will make all my goodness pass before you ... I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy ... but you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live.”

This most heartfelt, and understandable, request, from Moses, is dismissed by God; the nature of God is such that it is just not possible for a human being to look directly, face-to-face, into the eyes of God.
We should note that this response from God is quite curious, because of what is said earlier in this chapter. The verses in question recounts what took place when Moses goes into “the tent of meeting”, pitched outside the camp. This was the place, when he was meeting with God, where Moses received the guidance and support that he needed, in order to be an effective leader of the people. In that tent, he met with God, and he spoke with God.

And in those same verses, we also read the clear declaration, that while they were together in the tent of the meeting, “the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend”! How curious, that in the tent, Moses looks without any hindrance, directly into the face of God; and yet, outside of the tent, Moses has to hide his face from God, for as God declares, “no one shall see me and live.”
And the divine voice goes on, we are told, to offer these instructions: “See, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.”

It seems that God is looking for a way to make it happen, despite all that he has said about not being able to look directly at him and live. So God offers Moses a plan. Yet it is going to require commitment, determination, and patience, from Moses.

“I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by”, says God. What do we make of these words? God is seeking to find a way for Moses to encounter him, after all.
These words point to a simple truth, that is, at the same time, both discomforting, and yet quite comforting. The discomfort, of course, is powerfully conveyed in the imagery of the words: Moses is placed in the cleft of the rocks; or, we might say, Moses is between a rock and a hard place. It is there, that he will have some form of encounter with God.

But that, of course, is a most uncomfortable place to be; that is the place where our familiar comforts, the things that we most often appreciate and enjoy, are not to be found. Perhaps that is a powerful image for the walk of Christian discipleship, that all too often is the experience of faithful human beings.
In the cleft of the rock, between the rock and the hard place, is where faithful, trusting followers of Jesus, will often find themselves – taking a risk, stepping out in faith, trying something new and different. That is what faith calls us to undertake.

In the cleft of the rock, between the rock and the hard place, is where discomfort reigns supreme, where we are always on edge. It is where we find ourselves in unfamiliar circumstances, where we are called to undertake unsettling and disturbing actions, where we encounter people who are troubled or distressed, where our Christian discipleship is put to the test in many and varied ways.

When do we find ourselves in such situations? You may recall that I spoke, some weeks ago, of the three congregations that meet most weeks in the Wauchope Uniting Church building. I think it would be fair to say that the Sunday morning worship congregation is not, in the normal run of things, the place where we people of faith find ourselves in unfamiliar circumstances, pressed by discomfort or distress. After all, this is where we come because of the familiarity and comfort, of the place, the people, and the experience of worship.

Perhaps more often, the possibility could present itself, in the Friday lunchtime community meals congregation, for an encounter which makes us feel uncertain, uncomfortable, out of our familiar surroundings, immersed in a different and unsettling world? The people who come to this weekly meal can be people who present us with challenges; the possibility of discomfort, for us, is real in this gathering.
Certainly, I know that for myself, and perhaps for others who attend the Friday night youth club congregation, there are occasions each week, when I have the feeling of being “in the cleft of the rock”, between a rock and a hard place, uncomfortable and unsettled. Yet, it is very clear that such a situation is precisely where I am called, and others are called to be, as we seek to share the grace and mercy of God with others.

The unfamiliar and the uncomfortable are situations that we may not encounter each and every day; but if we risk our faith to follow the way of Jesus, it is certain that on a regular basis, we will encounter this very unease, this discomfort, this disturbance. Any one of us could find ourselves in such a situation on any day of the week. Indeed, if we follow our call to faithful living, we should expect to find ourselves in such situations!

So the story contains sharp edges of discomfort. Yet the imagery that is used also conveys a sense of comfort from the story: it is, quite literally, in the very hardships and struggles of life that the grace and mercy of God is best known to us.

Indeed, the end result of the story is an assurance that, right in the very midst of faithful, committed discipleship, the very qualities of God that we most desire to know, are with us. Right at those very times when what we are doing seems so difficult, when what we are yearning for seems so unattainable, God is with us. We are called to seek out such uncomfortable places, precisely because of the faith we hold.

And when we find ourselves in the cleft of the rock, between a rock and a hard place, we will not be looking directly into the eyes of God, staring into the very soul of God. And yet, as we stand between a rock and a hard place, we will have the assurance of God’s presence, and the knowledge of God’s goodness, to sustain us in our walk of faith.

And that is surely a powerful, and comforting, message for us to take from this story that we have heard today.