This Is Not The End!

Mark 13.1-8

Noticed a cartoon recently with a man dressed in alternative clothing standing on a street corner with a sign that read, “The end” and underneath it “is not near”.

How easy is it for us to read the newspapers, watch the evening news, listen to the talk back radio shock jocks and politicians, and conclude that, in fact, the end is not just near but has already begun. Perhaps it has already occurred.

The streets seem less safe, the values we have lived by have all but disappeared and the institutions we have come to trust and disappearing all around us, including the church. The church is significant as it has been the custodian of stability, morals education and intricately connected to the fabric of government and economic life. This has and is changing faster than we would like.

We would like things to stay the same. We have liked what we had and we don’t want it to lose our position and our place in society either as a church or vicariously as a member of the church.

Yet our understanding of what ‘the same’ is, is often inaccurate and biased by where we live, who we few up with and the archetypal stories that are dominant in our domain. We want Australian values to remain and fear the changes seeming to be occur in our society, challenging what we believe the past was like. Very rarely does the past and our interpretation of it come together seamlessly.

One of the medias present fears is the refugees who appear to be introducing Islam into our nominally Christian society. Did you know that Islam in Australia pre-dates European settlement? From 1650, Muslim fisherman from South East Asia communicated and traded with Aborigines from Australia's north. Some inter-marriage occurred. In the 1860s, some 3000 camel drivers - with camels - came from Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent contributing to the exploration of the Australian outback, working on both the railway line between Port Augusta and Alice Springs, and the Overland Telegraph Line from Adelaide to Darwin, which connected Australia to London via India. 

 

What we fear is the threat to our way of life is often not the real threat. The real threat is fear itself. It undermines relationships, casts suspicion on the innocent and brings about rifts in our society where there is no valid reason for divisions to occur.

 

Jesus points to the temple, the second temple built by Herod and an extremely impressive temple it was, and predicts its collapse, an unthinkable thought for those whose lives were intricately entwined in its existence. Herod's Temple was one of the larger construction projects of the 1st century BCE.

The old temple built by Zerubbabel was replaced by a magnificent edifice. An agreement was made between Herod and the Jewish religious authorities: the sacrificial rituals, called offerings, were to be continued unabated for the entire time of construction, and the Temple itself would be constructed by the priests. Later the Exodus 30:13 sanctuary shekel was reinstituted to support the temple as the temple tax. This was the background to the Widows Mite we read about in last weeks Gospel.

The Temple Mount was originally intended to be 1600 feet wide by 900 feet broad by 9 stories high, with walls up to 16 feet thick, but had never been finished. To complete it, a trench was dug around the mountain, and huge stone "bricks" were laid. Some of these weighed well over 100 tons, the largest measuring 44.6 feet by 11 feet by 16.5 feet and weighing approximately 567 to 628 tons, while most were in the range of 2.5 by 3.5 by 15 feet (approximately 28 tons).

How could such a building simply be torn down with no stone left in place? Impossible. The temple was not just important for Jewish worship but was a symbol of the symbiotic relationship between the Romans and the Jewish temple elite. They believed that while ever they allowed Rome to levy taxes and to benefit from the trade in and around the Temple, they could get on with their lives without risk of persecution. It was their insurance against devastation. It didn’t work. As we know in 70 CE the temple was destroyed, never to be rebuilt.

Jesus understood something others failed to see. There comes a time when political expediency requires a change of direction, old ties are cut and new ones commenced. Whatever relationship the Jewish authorities had with those in power would last only as long as it was of value to those in power. When it was not useful any more, it would cease. And it did.

A problem for the Anglican church in Australia has been its privileged position in the English hierarchy and that we are primarily a white Anglo-Saxon church. We came out with the first fleet and were tired directly to those in power. We had our position because of who we were a part of – the English authorities. We lived in and off that position even when the political and demographic landscape changed.

And we didn’t see the changes coming, which would move us from the centre of society and its decision making to the edges. We are now a church in exile. Due to the changing demographic and political landscape, the rise of secularism, the move towards radical inclusivity in terms of relationships for example, we are marginalised.

For example, a story in the Age and the SMH had the following headline on Tuesday:

A controversial religious instruction program is being taught at preschool

Special religious instruction has been scrapped from school classes in Victoria, but a major provider of the controversial program is now entering a new market: childcare.

The state's largest SRI provider, Access Ministries, is offering a religious instruction program called Explore Christianity, at Emmanuel Early Learning in Endeavour Hills.

The weekly half-hour session at Emmanuel Early Learning is run by two accredited volunteers, and is based on the school SRI program.

It teaches Christian values and beliefs, in addition to stories from the Bible.

In an email exchange with the author of that report, it was noted, and I quote:"The circumstances around the program over the past few years make it controversial. The content itself has been controversial in the past, although I don't believe it is now."

As we stand in front of St Paul’s cathedral or even out the front here we can echo the words of incredulity of those listening to Jesus. We cannot believe what we have built may, one day, exist no more. But Jesus says this is not the end, that is yet to come. Tough times are here but life is possible and a life that recognises and worships God is available to us if we partake in tearing down what we built and build something new.

 

I would suggest that Jesus was alluding to more than the bricks and mortar, but to the accommodation the Temple leaders had made to remain within the governing power base. The church today has been moved out of the centre of political and moral life and has the amazing opportunity to reinvent itself in the image of God, as the true voice of God, uninhibited by the restrictions of political expediency necessary to survive at that level.

 

Living in exile gives us permission to rethink what faith and religion looks like to abandon the assumptions that bound us to power and to reposition ourselves as prophetic, mystical and proactive in terms of social justice, inclusivity and hospitality. We no longer have to ensure we are speaking with the same voice as those in power, politically or economically. We can speak of and for God. We can, for possibly the first time, embrace and practice the companionship of empowerment.

 

For the early Christians, this was their strength. They were not implicated in the power structures of their time. They were free to be true to the Gospel and were unafraid of the consequences.

 

The challenge for our church, at all levels, is to recognise the crumbling remains of past glories and to embrace the freedom of exile. I would like to finish with two quotes from the movie, “The Best Exoctic Marigold Hotel”. The first comes from Judi Dench’s character  Evelyn who says: “There is no past that we can bring back by longing for it. Only a present that builds and creates itself as the past withdraws.” The second, and where I will finish, comes from the ever positive Sonny: “Everything will be alright in the end….if it’s not alright, it’s not the end.” Amen 

The Widows Mite

Mark 12:38-44

What a lovely story! Jesus affirms a poor widow for making a sacrificial gift to the Synagogue. He actually applauds her for giving, in real terms than all those who were rich and famous. Therefore, we extrapolate, it is not how much you give but the sacrifice you make that matters.

This passage, popularly called “The Widows Mite” pops up whenever we get to talking about giving, tithing or any kind of stewardship program. It can be used to encourage or bully people into giving or to explain why we don’t give more than we do. Talking about money and the giving of money usually makes us cough, look at our watch es and find an excuse to be somewhere else.

The Widows Mite justifies our condemnation of the rich (they should give more) and our defence of our own level of giving (every little bit counts you know).

Is that what this story is really all about? Is that what the widow has come to mean to us or is there something else at work here? John Petty suggest"She is not a positive example, but rather the (barely) living representative of a crying shame.  She represents the on-going exploitation of the poor by the Temple elite."

 

Jesus and the disciples are sitting in the temple courtyard watching the passing cavalcade that was the daily occurrence at the synagogue. People were moving around, moving in and out of the temple and others were making their contribution towards the various temple appeals including the cost of the day to day operations.

 

³⁸As he taught, he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, ³⁹and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honour at banquets! ⁴⁰They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

 

There were the scribes and Pharisees, visibly different in dress and deportment. Moving back and forth across the square making sure they were seen by all and sundry. They wanted to, no needed to be noticed, to be sure that others understood just how important they were and how important it was you contributed your required gifts for their benefit. These were the people who used the laws of giving to increase theirs and the temples wealth and the cost of the poor and the marginalised, and felt no guilt in relieving such as widows of their houses. They made others poor to make themselves rich and important.

 

There were the rich people, those with great wealth and importance. They too were noticed by their dress and deportment and by the great show they made of giving large amounts of money as required. There was little sacrificial about their giving. They had much and so what appeared to be a large and impressive amount to the ordinary person cost them little.

 

⁴¹He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. ⁴²A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny.⁴³Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. ⁴⁴For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

 

Then there were the ordinary people, those with little who were still required to give their share. Jesus points to a widow, a woman on her own, who came out of the shadows, a little embarrassed, a little fearful and fiddle with her purse before putting in a pennyworth of coins – 2 copper coins worth very little to the rich yet worth much to her.

 

Jesus highlights what she gives, and in the context of his comments about both the rich and the scribes and Pharisees, he is not applauding her at all. He is condemning those with the capacity to give and those who use the poor to become rich.

 

We stand condemned if we use this story to justify taking unjustly from the poor or as an excuse not to give sacrificially ourselves.

 

In our modern world we often commend the extremely rich for their philanthropy pointing to the large amounts of money they contribute to causes and programs. And yes many do give large amounts and we should be grateful. But there are at least two questions we have to answer:

 

How and from whom did they make their money? Was it by making quality products or services, providing living wages to those who work for them, and by paying a fair share of the tax bill? Or was it by selling lesser quality goods, paying the lowest possible wages, inducing people who can not afford the products and services they have to offer to put themselves at risk by buying them, exporting jobs and importing inferior goods? It would be unfair of me to single out any particular individual or corporation because the economics of business is such that most appear to be doing so. If this is the case, the giving to charities and causes by those involved is not to be commended for giving after the fact when they have avoided paying proper wages and taxes before taking the profits.

 

For a number of years I was  involved in raising funds for charities and organisations. The organisations I worked for had this idea that special appeals to the rich and famous, black tie dinners and direct approaches to those with the resources was where the money was to be had. Often they had not kept the list of the ‘little people’ who gave their regular but ‘unimpressive’ gifts to the charity or organisation. Appeals to these people were often seen as costly and not profitable.

Yet the appeals that were unprofitable were always those to the rich and famous. In terms of time, effort and resources, the returns were much less in real terms than the funds given by the small givers. And the small givers were regular, were happy to receive a thank you note and had no need for a photo opportunity in the social pages.

Around the same time I was involved in the liquor industry when old corner hotels were being tarted up and becoming boutique pubs. I suggested this might not be a good idea. To become a boutique you needed boutique clients, nit the regulars who popped in at 10, left at 5 and did that quietly and religiously everyday. I pointed out that they were the ones that paid the wages, and without them they would struggle to be successful. I was told that these people didn’t fit the image and had to go. For many establishments this proved to be a bad move.

Jesus points to the widow and says here is someone who is faithful to her commitments and responsibilities and who is being used to make others rich (those in power) and to appease the consciences of the rich (those who have the capacity to make a real contribution)

No this not a story about the widows mite, but a story about might oppressing the widow. AMen

Do We Need Saints Today?

Sunday was All Saints Day, the day we remember those who are no longer with us and whom we remember for that which they shared with us. In the Christian mind we particularly think of those who have been designated saints, examples of the life of faith lived out here on earth. Some are remembered for great deeds, others for dying a martyrs death and still others for strange and peculiar reasons we find difficult to understand. But they all lived an earthly life, not unlike ours, and all have something to share with us.

It has been noted by some that we no longer need saints and we particularly don't need to name our churches after saints. Apparently, St Oswald, you are no longer of value to those of us fighting our battles of faith on the battlefields of everyday living. Yet, we live in age where we need saints more than ever, no matter how obscure they may seem to be to a wired, consumer society.

The reason?

'Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead. For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.'

We need those who have faced the depths of despair and the heights of ecstasy in faith to dispel our fears and to give us hope for the future. Lazarus's circumstances reflects both the future circumstances of Jesus and the many who lived and died following in the steps of faith laid down by Jesus. Lazarus suffered illness and died. His family, particularly his sisters, suffered loss and grief in a particular way. Those who knew Lazarus also suffered. All harboured feelings against Jesus, specifically in relation to his tardy arrival and his failure to heal some one he loved and who loved him.

No amount of reassurance of a future resurrection or the suggestion that people who believe in him never die seemed to reassure them. These must have seemed like hollow words to all involved. One has to admire the faith of the sisters while noting the touch of anger in the comment relating to Lazarus being dead four days and that there would be a stench when they opened the tomb.

Like the sisters, we have a limited tolerance of those who give oft repeated assurances and seemingly inappropriate platitudes when we are facing tragedy, failure, loss - be it personal, financial or job, the failure of a relationship or more. Unthinking reassurance only seems to confirm that no-one else understands our pain, even worse, that this has never happened this way to anyone else before.

 

Yet that is partly what this story about - the reassurance that life, even the life of Jesus, consists of trying to remain human in the midst of the challenges being human brings us. Positive psychology and the happiness project encourages us to think that all can be smooth sailing and that we can so manipulate life to ensure happiness as an entitlement. The truth is much different.

And we need saints to remind us of our resilience and capacity to remain fully engaged with life and our humanity even when bad things happen to good people, including ourselves. Alain de Botton, in his book 'Religion for Athiests' makes the case that religion understands the predicament of humanity much better than secular people, atheists, and provides a multitude of saints to light the way when the positivism of modern thinkers fail us miserably.

Rowan Williams comments that Jesus came among us to join us in the muddle of being human and muddled through based on his relationship with what he understood of the character of God via silence and stillness and through the experience of those he encountered in the Jewish scriptures. He suggests that we are to follow such an example to ensure we muddle through as well.

We have the example of the saints in today's story:

• Mary and Martha who, in the midst of their grief and their anger at Jesus, remain faithful and hopeful;
• The disciples whose minds were befuddled by the tardiness of Jesus and the Unfathomable suggestion that Lazarus is in this state only so Jesus can display God's power; 
• and those watching who simply had no idea and went away struggling with the whole scenario.

We have the examples of:

• The Old Testament saints, many of whom were so deeply involved in the muddle of violent and unforgiving cultures and traditions we struggle to understand their relevance to us today;
• The New Testament saints who lived and died violently for simply believing in the kingdom of God as lived out by Jesus;
• The many exemplary people who have recognised the spirit of God loose in the land and dared to live, speak and challenge the church and society simply based on their faith in Jesus.

Each of us will have a saint or saints who speak directly to us in ways which give meaning and purpose to our lives. For me these include Francis of Assisi, Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day, Vincent Lingari and the unrecognised workers for reconciliation and justice in our country. These are all people who have laid down a framework of hope and possibility which has allowed me to muddle through.

Some have saints who are close to home, people such as a loved one, family friends, teachers or work colleagues, someone whose example provided a light for our feet in times when darkness was all around.

Now we must remember saints are not perfect people, even Jesus was late arriving on the scene for Mary and Martha! Saints are often saints because they persevered despite moments, and sometimes more than just moments, of terrible decision making, errors of judgement and passion. King David, Peter, Merton, Day all had disasters, some we would feel it would be impossible to comeback from. But they did. Perfection is a modern day requirement which has no place in the life of a human being muddling through with Christ.

Why do we need saints to day more than ever? Because today we need to recognise that life is more than just a little difficult for the majority of the time; that happiness is a fleeting interlude between skirmishes; that the only true optimist or positive psychologist was Murphy when he wrote his famous rule, 'Anything that can go wrong, will', and muddling through as a human is more important than being perfect (whatever that is).

Our children need to understand this regardless of their age as do our teachers, coaches politicians, and most of all ourselves.

A quick look at the saints in our lives will affirm just how much we need them. Amen