More than a father - Lent 4 Mothering Sunday

Luke 15: 11 - 32

“As truly as God is our father, so truly is he our mother.”

Words from a radical feminist? Not really! Words from a trendy liberal? Not quite!

No these are words from the 14th century anchoress Julian of Norwich, probably the greatest theological thinker produced by the England of the Middle Ages.

These are words that might seem appropriate for Mothering Sunday. However, on first examination, the same cannot be said of the Parable of the Prodigal Son. After all the three central characters were all male with only the fatted calf possibly being female but there again the fatted calf ends up as the biggest loser in the story.

Sometimes, I think that we are over familiar with this story. We have tamed it. And now we see God as like a good father as a result. The trouble is that this parable is so much more radical than that.

Its background is that Jesus has offended the religious establishment by his socialising and partying with what they considered the wrong sort of people, the sort of people who were not exactly a good advert for Israel. In response, Jesus tells a series of three parables. Of these, the Parable of the Prodigal Son has become the best known.

The story begins with an impertinent request. You see, there is a wealthy landowner who has two sons. The younger of them approaches him with a request - a request to inherit his share of the inheritance now. To us, this might seem a little insensitive but in the Middle eastern culture of that day, it was positively outrageous. In effect the message it gave was, “Dad, I am eager for you to die.” In response, a traditional father would be expected to strike the son across the face and to drive him from the house.

But this father is no traditional patriarch. Far from it! So he gives this son the freedom to own and to sell his portion. In effect, he allows the son the freedom to do what would not normally happen until after the father’s death.

And the son does not hesitate. The sale is done in days. This might imply a need to hurry for once the neighbouring villagers found out about his conduct, he would be a pariah. So he cannot wait. He has to hurry for shocked neighbours would surely turn him into an outcast.

Gone from home, he takes little time in wasting the inheritance. How he does so, we are not told and certainly the older brother’s insinuations must be treated with great suspicion. But the result is destitution and desperation. Now he needs to get his life back into order again. But how?

Well a real problem is that at that time, according to the Jerusalem Talmud, Jews had a way of dealing with any Jewish boy who lost the family inheritance to gentiles. It was called the “qetsatsah ceremony.” In this ceremony a jar filled with burned nuts and burned corn would be brought before the guilty person. It would be smashed and the community would proclaim that the guilty person was cut off from his community. The offender would henceforth be what we would describe as “being sent to Coventry.”

And this would be the just outcome in this story. The younger son has lost the family inheritance to gentiles, pig keepers. So now he is in big trouble. He has no future where he is but if he goes home he faces the prospect of the “qetsatsah ceremony.” The only way out is to make some money and so he swallows his pride and gets a job looking after pigs. But it doesn’t solve the problem. He might be fed but he isn’t paid. And those who hear Jesus know all too well what this means. Yes the “qetsatsah ceremony” is getting nearer should he return home.

But now he is so desperate that he is prepared to take a big gamble. He will return in the hope not of resumed sonship but of employment training so that he might earn his way. Who knows? One day he might be able to pay of what he has lost.

And so he begins his journey back to the home that he had so despised. Now let’s not pretend for a moment that this young man is remorseful. His return is all about self interest and it certainly is not about thoughts for his father. But still he has to steel himself for his return. After all, normally one who had been away would be expected to return with gifts but all that this young man has to bring back is his own record of failure. And those he might meet on his way back, may well be of the opinion that failure is all he deserves for his disgraceful conduct.

But let’s move on to the Father. He’s been looking out as if he always knew that his son would fail. He knows that his son will receive many a bad reception for having left in such an arrogant manner. And he wants to save his son from the indignity of the “qetsatsah ceremony.” So he looks. And when he sees the son, far away, he runs. But oh dear! To run in that culture is seen as unmanly. His ankles will be exposed. But as if that is not enough when he sees his son, he embraces him and showers him with kisses. Why on earth couldn’t he leave such antics to a mother? Why couldn’t he patiently wait as a patriarchal man of honour should do?

And you know, the unmanly behaviour is not finished yet. Having received the wretched younger son in peace, he calls a banquet. But now the problem is the older son. This son refuses to take his proper place at the banquet. And once more the father behaves in an unmanly manner. Rather than leave the process of placating the older son to a mother as would be the normal course of action, he allows himself to be humiliated by having to leave the banquet in order to reason with the son. And now, a new challenge confronts the father for this son is not to be reasoned with but chooses to launch a full frontal attack on both the younger son and the father. Surely now, the father will act like a man and order the older son to be thrashed but No. The father just goes on reasoning in the manner of love.

So what we have here is a most unusual father. It is not that he acts as a good father as we are often told. The truth is that he breaks all the rules and conventions of fatherhood. And in so doing reveals something of God. Henry Nouwen, reflecting on the father observes;

“This is the portrayal of God whose goodness, love,, forgiveness, care, joy and compassion have no limits at all. Jesus presents God’s generosity by using all the imagery his culture provides, while constantly transforming it.”

I wonder if at times, we do not grievously misrepresent God. We portray God in a patriarchal manner and as a result the Church has down through the centuries colluded in crimes against women. We have to often portrayed God as a stern forbidding judge who rules through might and power and some would say abuse. Yet how far such perceptions are from this parable.

God is revealed to us as Spirit and so is neither male or female. In this parable, we see a re emphasis of an Old Testament tradition in which God is called father and yet is partially described in female terms. In this parable, God is seen with the compassion of a mother. But why be surprised? After all if we journey back to Genesis, we find that male and female alike, are made in the image of God.

And now to Rembrandt’s great painting, “The Return of the Prodigal Son” which is in front of you. There you see the Prodigal Son on his knees before his father. Look carefully and see the contrast in the father’s hands. The left hand is well muscled and seem to have a firm grip on the young man. But look to the right hand. Here, there is less evidence of muscle. There is an elegance and gentleness about the fingers and they seem to stroke rather than grip. Listen for a moment to Henry Nouwen’s writing about this;

“As soon as I recognised the difference between the two hands of the father, a new world of meaning opened up for me. The Father is not simply a great patriarch. He is mother as well as father. He touches the son with a masculine hand and a feminine hand. He holds and she caresses. He confirms and she consoles. He is, indeed, God in whom both manhood and womanhood, fatherhood and motherhood, are fully present. That gentle and caressing right hand echoes for me the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Can a woman forget her baby at the breast, feel no pity for the child she has borne? Even if these were to forget, I shall not forget you. Look, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.”

So today, let’s move on from patriarchal domination or even a clash of genders. Let us on the Mothering Sunday, cherish the good news of the wonderful parenthood of God.


This sermon was preached at Alverdiscott on Sunday March 18th 2007. It owes much to writing of Kenneth Bailey and Henry Nouwen on this parable.

Does God push old ladies down church steps? Lent 3

Luke 13: 1 - 9

It was a Sunday morning during Lent when leaving her church, a woman fell and broke her hip. She was rushed to hospital where she failed to recover from surgery and died a few days later.

The night before the funeral, people came to the family home where they offered sympathy to the bereaved husband who was accompanied by the minister. As he stood there, the minister became concerned at some of the things he heard;

“God must have had a plan for this so accept it.”

“It was God’s will and we must live by it.”

“God planned this to test your faith so be strong.”

“There’ll be a greater good come out of this so look for it.”

The minister went home that night with a great sense of anger at what he described as “babbling.” So he went to his study and rewrote the beginning of his funeral sermon. The next day that sermon began with the words;

“My God does not push old ladies down church steps!” before explaining that God cannot be blamed for all the brokenness of the world.

And to that I say a loud “Amen!” In the next fortnight, Bideford Methodist Church will be the venue of two of the saddest funerals in its history. If I believed that either had anything to do with the will of God, I would chuck this dog collar away and join the likes of Richard Dawkins in the world of atheism.

Our Gospel Reading this morning takes us very much into the theodicy question - namely if God is all powerful and good, why on earth do bad things happen to innocent people. This was the question which was asked 300 years ago after the Lisbon earthquake and again after the Holocaust. In face of tregedy it continues to be posed by all sensitive people. It is a huge question and for many has led to a suggestion that God in some ways limits God’s power. I think that such is a feasible view although it is not always satisfactory.

The Deuteronomic view which developed during the time of the Babylonian exile seemed at least from a national angle to point to a view that history showed God rewarding faithfulness whilst punishing rebellion. It goes without saying that such a view as an explanation of suffering, can lead to seeing God in a very harsh manner. And precisely this was at the heart of the dialogue into which Jesus was drawn.

The background is that there had been two disturbing events. One of these was a killing of worshippers by Pilate with the compromising of their Jewish identity by the mixing of their blood with that of the animals sacrificed. Such would have been an insult to their Jewish identity. We do not know for sure the historicity of this event but we know that such an action was taken by Pilate against the nearby but hated Samaritans so it would be in Pilate’s character if it was not a direct reference to that event. As for the building at Siloam. Here sympathy may have been muted towards the victims. A likely explanation is that this Tower was part of Pilate’s aqueduct project, a project which was financed by the seizing of money from the Temple treasury. These victims may have been seen a somewhat traitorous. And so the question of whether this was God’s judgement arose.

Now Jesus does not provide an answer to the theodicy question. But he makes it clear that their deaths had noting to do with them being outside the favour of God. No worse than others, their deaths could not be laid as the responsibility of God. For God is truly misrepresented when we talk of God as if God were the forerunner of Arnold Schwarzengger’s “The Terminator.”

And to see God in such a manner is truly to be resisted for not only does it give rise to immense pastoral insensitivity but it dents the message that is at the heart of the Gospel that God is love, that God is love for all!

And because God is love for all, God far from being the author of our tragedies, is the God who is present in the places of suffering. Elie Wiesel in his book "Night" which tells of his experiences as a Jew held at Auschwitz tells the stort of how the Germans carried out a reprisal hanging of three people including a young lad who had theface of an angel. As the lad struggled for breath, a voice asked the question "Where is God?" The answer offered was that God was present on the gallows. For when tragedies arise, God far from being absent without leave is present in the suffering and God’s heart is amongst the first to break. Far from pushing old ladies down church steps, God shares in our weeping.

So when youngsters say in that time honoured way, “It ain’t fair” they hit the nail well and truly on the head. Life is not fair and to say otherwise is to enter a self delusional state. Our responsibility as followers of Christ is to be a healing presence in an unfair world. That is what Jesus is reminding us when he moves the dialogue on to the illustration of the fig tree. Here, we are reminded of the need to produce fruit in our lives. Recognising that our very lives are the consequence of the gifting nature of God, we have a responsibility to use them well. This is a calling not to exercise judgement over others but to demonstrate in our relating to others, something of the gentle, loving qualities that we find in Jesus. We are to be life affirmers rather than life destroyers following the lead of Jesus who constantly builds up those who had need.

And finally, it needs to be noted that just as the landlord persists with the fig tree, so God persists with us. On the basis of justice, we like the fig tree might well be cut down but instead we see a patience with the fig tree even when it is failing in its purpose to bear fruit. What is deserved becomes of no relevance for the picture set before us is a picture of Divine patience and grace. And that grace is the very centre of our hope today.

Our world is far from fair yet this does not mean that God is disconnected. God’s love is very real and is without ending. It is the love that works through people and which through the Spirit sustains us at the very hour of midnight. It is the love that no extremity, even death itself, can separate us from. And in the darkest of hours, this ever patient love far from pushing old ladies down church steps, alone keeps us from total abyss, even as a bridge over troubled waters.


This sermon was preached at Alwington Methodist Church on March 11th 2007 at the end of a week of bad news. Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge over Troubled Waters" was played in a time of reflection after this sermon

Love in the ruins - Lent 2

Luke 13: 31 - 35
Philippians 3:17 - 4:1

“Ten measures of beauty gave God to the world: nine to Jerusalem and one to the remainder Ten measures of sorrow gave God to the world: nine to Jerusalem and one to the remainder.”

So records the Talmud which is the compendium of the Jewish oral law. And indeed there is much beauty in Jerusalem. In that ancient city are to be found the places held to be holy by the followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Yet also, in Jerusalem the signs of hatred and conflict between those who are described as “Blood Brothers” by the Palestinian priest Elias Chacour. This is the city in which three faiths engage in conflict both with each other and even amongst themselves. For this is the place where God has been too often betrayed by those who speak of One God and claim a lineage that goes back to Abraham.

And all of us are affected by the highs and lows of that great city. For as the American spiritual leader, Barbara Brown Taylor puts it;

“Nothing that happens in Jerusalem is insignificant. When Jerusalem obeys God, the world spins peacefully on its axis. When Jerusalem ignores God, the whole planet wobbles.”

And too often as we look at Jerusalem, we sense a planet wheeling out of control.

But conflict in Jerusalem is hardly new. We find Luke telling us that the Pharisees gave a warning to Jesus that Herod was seeking to kill him. Now we cannot be sure quite what was happening. It is possible that these Pharisees were seeking to silence Jesus. Yet, it seems reasonable to take things at face value. After all, Jesus was not in conflict with all Pharisees and there seem to have been Pharisees who found their way into the early church.

Certainly, Herod may well have wanted to kill Jesus. This was after all a man who was only too prepared to shed blood if he felt his self preservation was at stake. He had imprisoned John the Baptist when his teachings became unpalatable, and later had him killed. If Jesus became a threat either directly or as a result of the responses of the crowds, Herod would have no qualms about killing him.

And certainly Jesus could be seen as dangerous. After all, one of his closest followers was a Zealot militant, a sworn enemy of the existing order. Yet he defied normal logic by also calling a collaborator with that order to follow him. Inclusiveness - Yes! But an inclusiveness opened to suspicion. And that suspicion could only be made worse by his giving a hitherto unknown value to those who had hitherto been marginalized as sinners and the unclean. Jesus had become a danger to the established way of life. The man was clearly a subversive type!

And with Passover coming, Herod would be at his most vigilant. This was the time when religious feelings would be at their most passionate. And Herod’s masters in Rome could be relied upon to take a firm line with dissent at such a time.

And yet, we find that despite the warnings Jesus presses on resolutely to Jerusalem in full knowledge that he would be going very much into the lions’ den!

And in this we get a clear picture of a courageous Jesus who in no way flinches from a situation of great danger to himself. For here is no “Gentle Jesus” or “Pale faced Galilean” but a Jesus who is resolute and full of courage.

But for what is he so full of courage? This courage can only be seen as a courage whose ends are to express love. As he contemplates the city of Jerusalem, he is fully aware of the wrongs that have been done their by the very people of Jerusalem. The city has not come up to scratch. And yet, he feels a deep and tender love for this city;

“How I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings , but you were not willing.”

Oh, this is a tender love, a love that is that of a mother for her children. They may have messed up but the feelings of love run so deep. It is reminiscent of the story of a farm which is devastated by a fire. The farmer comes to survey the destruction. As he look around, he sees the charred remains of a hen and he touches it with a stick only for the chicks that have been unharmed to come running out. Only a mother could do that. Yet it is precisely such maternal feelings that we now find Jesus expressing for the people of this errant city. He loves them and longs to protect them and ultimately he will sacrifice himself that people might come to know the extent of that love.

And do not make the mistake of thinking that this love is earned in any way. For soon, the people of this city will be shouting out;

“Crucify him!”

Only for Jesus as he is being tortured upon the cross to cry out for their forgiveness.

In this we see the purpose of the courage of Jesus. It is all for love. Here is no sentimental or easy love but a love that goes all the way. Confronted by rejection, Jesus responds with an embrace. Faced with hatred and violence, Jesus responds with love and shalom. And where people descend to their worst badness, the response of Jesus is to exceed that badness with the goodness of his response. For the greatest wonder of the love of Jesus is that it is not dependent on the recipient being deserving. Indeed the very point of what Christians call grace is that it is a gift of benefit that can never be deserved.

This is illustrated by a story concerning the late William Sloane Coffin. Whilst training for the ministry, he was working in a tough area. One day he met a gambler whom he tried to dissuade from continuing that lifestyle. After a while, the gambler said to him;

“You’re going to be a preacher some day, aren’t you son?Coffin replied;

“That’s right, why?”The man continued;

“So you believe in grace right?”And Coffin replied;

“Yes, why?”

Only for the gambler to explain himself;

“I’ll tell you why. You believe in grace and I believe in gambling, and that means that both of us believe life is good when it is something for nothing.”

And you know, grace is in a sense about something for nothing. It is pure gift and it comes to us when we deserve it least. But there is cost - only Jesus bears that cost. And it for today as well as then. For just as Jesus courageously reaches out to the undeserving Jerusalem of 2,000 years ago, the same passionate maternal love is also for you and me. For such love to be made known, Jesus sacrifices all so that Isaac Watts writes in those memorable lines of his;

“Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.”

Oh yes! Amidst the ruins that we erect in our lives and in our world, the love of Jesus reaches out. He does not give up on us but resolutely and courageously offers himself in love for us. And because of the touch of that incredible grace, we can be transformed to be the means through which the story of grace goes on.


This sermon to be preached at Bideford Methodist Church on March 4th 2007

But which way is the Gospel? Lent 1

Luke 4: 1-13

About 20 years ago, I for a time often attended what would probably be described as a rather fundamentalist church. The reason to be honest was that this church had a few rather enticing women even though any mission to corrupt them, was an abysmal failure on my part.

One of the practices of some within this church was to occasionally give a verse of scripture to others. Generally, the motive was to encourage friends in their Christian walk. Only once did someone offer me a verse. It was Isaiah 1 verse 6;

“From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
There is no soundness ---
Only wounds and bruises and open sores,
Not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil.”

Mmm. I guess it was his way of telling me that I was a heretic. Whether he was right or wrong, in the immortal words of the late Ian Richardson’s “House of Cards” creation, the scheming Frances Urquhart, “I could not possibly comment.”

Recently I found myself reading an article from the Independent about Sir Ian McKellen the great actor who is also a veritable campaigner against discrimination on grounds of sexuality. In his one man show in Edinburgh some years ago, he took to removing a page from the Book of Leviticus. It was the page that contained a the twenty second verse of the eighteenth chapter;

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman.”

Sir Ian went on to say that he removes the same page from hotel Bibles on his travels.

Now I have to confess that the thought of Gandalf the wizard (McKellen’s famous part in Lord of the Rings) arriving at hotels armed with scissors to remove the offending page, is a thought that brings a wry smile to me. But at the same time, knowing the hurt that some have felt from hostile use of that verse, I can understand his reaction even if I am not exactly into book destruction myself.

But wait a moment! None of us can exactly be smug about some of the verses to be found in the Bible, least of all me. After all the black pudding that I love is condemned in the Holiness Code. By the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, tattoos are condemned before in the twenty first chapter, those with disabilities or any defects are barred from the priesthood.

And then let’s turn to capital punishment as permitted by the first five books of the Bible.

According to Exodus and Numbers, violating the Sabbath is a capital offence. And yet I freely confess that by driving to this service, even before I admit to having bought a Sunday paper, I have done precisely that today.

According to Leviticus and Deuteronomy, pre marital sex is not just disapproved of, but is an offence that calls for the death penalty.

And according to Deuteronomy, a rebellious son should be taken to the gate of the town and there stoned by all the men of the town.

Now don’t get me wrong, I can’t see too many church leaders or members of this congregation who will be defending my qualities of godliness should I seek to impose such a punishment on my ever so rebellious son, James. And to be honest I’d be more than worried if you would defend me in such.

And this brings me to my problem. For I am finding myself moving swiftly to a policy of picking which scriptures I like and discarding the others. And I suspect that you are also for taken literally, these verses would have the gallows busy 24/7 and in the process make Saddam Hussein appear like a lily livered liberal. And so the question needs to be asked as to what is the true message of God. How do I decide which scriptures I must adhere to and which I can evade whilst remaining one who takes a high view of scripture?

In a way, Luke’s Gospel we meet the temptations. These are the challenges that Jesus faces in working out what his Mesiahship They have a logic in them. Turning stones into bread is what might be expected from the God who provided the exiles from Egypt with manna. Indeed on the second temptation you almost get the feeling of Jesus and Satan playing scriptural ping pong. Who has the better scriptural quote? And that is how it has often been in the pages of church history. Let’s take a particularly relevant example at a time when we are preparing to celebrate the Wilberforce law which in 1807 brought an end to the transportation of slaves by Britain. We rightly remember the role of a Christian named Wilberforce, encouraged by other Christians such as John Wesley and John Newton. These people felt that the slave trade was in conflict with scripture. And yet, there were others who equally claimed to treat scripture seriously who were in favour of the slave trade and defended it rigorously. Even the churches of Bideford were not of one mind!

And this pattern has been replicated since. We see it in the German Church Struggle during the 1930s and 1940s. And more recently, there was a major Christian voice on both sides in the struggle that led to the ending of apartheid in South Africa. And as way of aside, some of the Christian voices around the current US President certainly leave me with very deep concerns.

Now we here may be of one view on all of these matters. I suspect that we are all against slavery, saddened that much of the German Christian Church collaborated with Nazism and with no time for apartheid. We may share a disturbance at how the religious forces around the US President have represented our faith. But the really important matter is that these things remind us that there is a very real temptation to simply pick the verses from scripture which fit our particular leaning and ignore the problem. And frankly this far from treating scripture seriously, trivialises it

So if we are going to move away from the pursuit of clincher verses, how are we to seek to use scripture. Let me recommend an approach offered by Professor Keith Ward who was the Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. In his book “What the Bible really teaches” he gives the following suggestions.

Firstly we should read scripture in context. This means taking the background seriously and seeking to explore the nature of the text. An example is that Genesis 1 may not be meant as literal history or science but another means of communicating profound truths.

The second principle is consistency. An example of this is that if you take some verses from a chapter of Leviticus literally, then you cannot take the next verse metaphorically just because it doesn’t suit you.

The third principle is comprehensiveness. Passages should not be taken in isolation. An example is Paul’s teaching about the role of women. Hard as they may seem, they still represent an advance on some of the Old Testament teaching with concubines and even the compulsory divorce of foreign wives. Does progress come to a halt?

Fourthly, some teachings supercede others. The Psalms have within them on a number of occasions, justifications for the hatred of enemies. Yet Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” And surely, this means that whilst we may hate the wrongs done by others, we are no longer free to hate the people themselves.

Fifthly, sometimes scripture is more faithfully read spiritually than literally. An example is where in Habbakuk, God is seen as “trampling the sea with your horses.” and where Sun and moon are caused to stand still at the sight of God’s flying arrows and flashing spear. But does God seriously ride a horse? I think not. I think that what we have here is inspired poetry that points to the greatness of God.

And finally and in my opinion most importantly, Ward argues that we must read the Bible in a way that is Christ centred. For the Christian, the Bible must point to the living Jesus and to the unlimited, liberating love of God that is revealed in Jesus. It is incumbent on all our interpretations of scripture that they point to the God who is as John puts it “love,” love for all. Anything less is a parody.

Now none of this makes understanding scripture easy. Indeed, in rejecting clincher verses, it reminds us that none of us can claim to have the whole truth and that is a good thing for the Bible needs rescuing from being used as a plaything for those so disposed.

So finally back to these temptations. What are they about? Well in way they reveal the counter cultural nature of Jesus. All three of the temptations involve the use of power to take short cuts. In a way the strength of these temptations is that inkling within all of us that if only we had the power, the world would be a better place. After all we are pretty decent chaps.

But is not this merely like shifting deckchairs upon the Titanic? You see, the way of Jesus is revealed to be more radical. Jesus does not seek power as we understand it. On the contrary, he confronts power with powerlessness. He takes on prejudice by being inclusive. And he opposes hatred and violence by the explosive power of love. And it is this counter cultural approach, sabotaged as it was by Constantine’s incorporation of the church into the state, which is our hope and it is this counter cultural approach which has given hope to generations when the legacies of Pilate and Augustus Caesar are forgotten.

And this counter cultural approach needs to inform our discipleship. We are called on to follow a way that is not motivated by climbing the greasy pole or excusing the us of power over others. The path of discipleship is not about the exercise of domination or quick fixes but is about a path of servanthood and non violence. It involves a path not of judging others but of affirming the value of all God’s children.

As we travel through this season of Lent, we follow the Christ who goes on a path of self giving that leads to Calvary. May we travel not as those who would turn the scriptures into a weapon that denigrates but may we see in them and in Christ, God raising people up out of love.


This sermon was preached at Gammaton and Torrington on Sunday February 25th 2007