SERMON PENTECOST 16 (Year A)   4 September 2005 

Readings:    Exodus 12: 1-14        Psalm 149        Romans 13: 1-10        Matthew 18: 10-20

In the name of God who dances with creation. Amen. 

A stark contrast greets us this weekend as we both celebrate Fathers’ Day and also see the anarchic images of civil disorder from New Orleans. On the one hand we are celebrating human love and kinship, on the other seeing the outworkings of human despair and fear. 

Of course, both sets of images have their flip sides: the orgy  of schmaltz on Fathers’ Day glosses over the many families where dad has been absent or abusive; and the media’s shocking portrayal of violence in New Orleans does not show the many acts of courage and altruism that are also taking place in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. 

All these contrasts confront us with the reality of human life – we can be both very good and very bad. We can nurture, rescue, support, be reasonable, love and encourage and we can also kill, abuse, be unreasonable, neglect and damage. As one of the invitations to communion reminds us: we are both broken and holy. ‘Broken things for broken people, holy things for holy people’. This is not a statement about two different sets of people but rather about the brokenness and holiness which is within each one of us. 

Fathers Day and New Orleans also remind us of two of the different spheres within which we operate: family and society. It is, of course, quite artificial to separate them: there is enormous intersection between the two. Families operate within a wider social context; societies consist of family groupings and indeed, at their most basic level, consist of extended family groupings. But there are times when the two conflict and then it is usual for the family to take precedence. And it is not hard, is it, to imagine a situation where, to protect our families, we might take action which is not sanctioned by society. Indeed, some of those raiding and looting in New Orleans and Biloxi may be doing so in order to find food for their families. There are those who argue that this preference for family is hard-wired into us. Richard Dawkins, for example, in his classic text of 1976, ‘The Selfish Gene’, argued that self-preservation is the fundamental evolutionary principle. In the case of the gene, self-preservation extends to preserving those who carry the same genes – hence our tendency to protect our families, especially our children.  

Today’s readings remind us of another dimension, one that goes beyond society, beyond family – that of the sacred. How does faith in God change the way in which we relate in and to those natural groupings of family and society? For allegiance to God calls us to an even more primal relationship than that of family.  If we believe the testimony of Scripture, we are utterly dependent on God in a way which is unique and which overrides our human relationships.  Within God we live and move and have our being. Paradoxically this utter dependence brings complete freedom, a paradox expressed beautifully in the prayer which starts, ‘O God, whose service is perfect freedom’. 

The early Christian communities seized this freedom from social conventions and rejoiced in it. Indeed, if we read the Letter to the Corinthians, we can see that some took it excess. And, of course, a question immediately arose: ‘If the old rules we have lived by are no longer valid, how shall we order the life of our community? How then do we behave towards each other?’ We see some answers in today’s readings.  

Let’s look first at the Letter to the Romans. This problematic text has been used to justify unquestioning Christian submission to secular authorities. It seems to allow no loyal dissent, no demonstrations.  However, such a reading does not do justice to Paul. This passage is not a comprehensive theoretical treatment of ‘the state’ as we think of it. It is intended as guidance in relation to the specific and individual bearers of imperial authority (including tax collectors). It pre-empts possible misreadings of his earlier plea ‘not to be conformed to this present age’. He is saying here that it is not carte blanche - you can’t just go out and do what you want. Paul’s overriding aim is to encourage the fulfilment of social obligations in a context of trust in God and recognition of his prevailing sovereignty and order. It is clear from the Greek that is used in the letter that Paul is talking about voluntary submission flowing from an acknowledgement of appropriate order. It flows from a conviction that God is a God of order, not of chaos or anarchy. We offer obedience because it is in the interests of everyone to do so – it is the loving thing to do. 

The passage from the Letter to the Romans deals with Christian relationships with wider society, the Gospel reading deals with relationships within the community. A clear process for coping with those who have gone off the rails is outlined. The ultimate sanction is ostracism. ‘Shape up or ship out’ is the message. But the story of the lost sheep at the beginning of the passage sets the scene: ‘it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost’. Clearly, every possible effort is to be made to convince the offender to shape up and ‘shipping out’ is the solution of last resort. Love must temper even the exercise of power and discipline in the community. 

So, where does this leave us, the Christian community of All Saints, here in Ainslie, some 2000 years on from those turbulent heady days when Jesus’ followers were trying to come to grips with the implications of their faith for their lives as Christians, as members of families and as citizens? 

Well, to be honest, I don’t think we are much further forward. We still grapple with the same questions: how do we weight our allegiances? When is it a godly thing to oppose the government of the day and when is it a godly thing to promote civil harmony?


What is a good balance between family and church? God is present in each part of our lives, not just our church community and to neglect our family because of the church is surely not what God wants of us.  

This may sound grim, but it is not!    For I believe that it is when we grapple with questions such as these that we can enter into relationship with God. As soon as we think we have found a permanent answer, then, I suspect, we have lost something precious – we have lost a place in which we seek God’s presence, we have lost a place where we are inviting God to meet us and to guide us. Our questions are, in some mysterious way, the open space of encounter. We are expecting and hoping for God, open to a new dimension of understanding. An answer, a rule, is closed – we know. How limiting! 

Each life is unique, each relationship with God is unique. Rules are some help but the guiding principle of love in all that we do has a gazillion applications and will provoke diametrically opposed actions in some circumstances. This can be frightening, disconcerting, misunderstood by others. But love is our primary calling. Understanding what this means is the journey of our lifetimes.  

Michael Leunig prayed: 

Let us live in such a way
that when we die
our love will survive
and continue to grow.  Amen. 

On Friday we remembered the New Guinea martyrs: the Australian missionaries who were killed by the Japanese in New Guinea during World War II and the New Guinean who was killed for refusing to betray them. Their love and commitment to the people around them lives on.   

Let us too live in such a way
that when we die
our love will survive
and continue to grow.  Amen.
 

Sarah Macneil

September 2005