All Saints Day Reflection

John 11:32-44
32When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.’ 33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34He said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ 35Jesus began to weep. 36So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him!’ 37But some of them said, ‘Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?’ 38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39Jesus said, ‘Take away the stone.’ Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, ‘Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead for four days.’ 40Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?’ 41So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upwards and said, ‘Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.’ 43When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.’

The readings this week are for All Saints Day celebrated next Sunday.

In this reading we have a lovely example of the humanity of our Lord. It is so important for me to stress that Jesus was fully human, for if he was not, then how could he really know what we all experience? Yes, he was the incarnation as well, but I do not believe that this means that he was not human in the same way as we are. The incarnation will always remain a mystery.

Jesus was heartbroken by the news of the death of his friend Lazarus – and he wept. It was especially sad as, while it is possible to argue that the others whom Jesus raised might merely have been in a coma or a very deep sleep, all Jews were of the view that, after four days, the spirit finally left the body, and a sign of this was that the body – very definitely – began to decay; in fact in the hot climate, by this time it would be so badly decayed that it would be hardly recognisable.

Jesus asked for the stone to be removed, and because of the decay, his request was initially challenged because of the stench that would result. But Jesus responded “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?”

Before going into any depth, Barclay suggests that there are certain things to take special note of:

Firstly, Jesus prayed. The power that flowed through him was not his; it was God’s. “Miracles” says Godet, “are just so many answered prayers.”

Secondly, Jesus sought only the glory of God. He did nothing to glorify himself.

Everything that Jesus did was due to the power of God and was designed for the glory of God. We are so different. Barclay comments: “So much that we do is attempted in our own power and designed for our own prestige. It may be that there would be more wonders in our life too, if we ceased to act by ourselves and for ourselves and set God in the central place.”

I must admit, that, initially, I found Barclay’s notes on this passage, a little disappointing, as he did not penetrate the text in the same way that he normally does. In a later reflection, he gets closer to the mark when he exhorts us to honestly face the difficulties.

(i) In the other Gospels there are accounts of people being raised e.g. Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son at Nain. As I mentioned earlier, it is quite possible that these people were merely in a coma. Barclay explains that, at this time, it happened quite frequently that people were in fact buried alive because of the necessary haste to bury them, so Jesus could have been seen as saving them from this sort of death.
(ii) There is no mention at all of the raising of Lazarus in the other Gospel accounts.
(iii) John portrays the event of the raising of Lazarus as the final straw which caused the authorities to want to get rid of Jesus – where in the other Gospels, it was Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple.

There have been some attempts to address these issues:

(i) Renan sees the whole incident as a fraud arranged by Jesus and Martha, Mary and Lazarus. Barclay (rightly) dismisses this as needing to be mentioned just to be dismissed as incredible.
(ii) Perhaps Lazarus was in a coma, but the events in the narrative seem to dismiss this – the detail is simply too vivid.
(iii) The story could be an allegory.

I like the way Barclay deals with this. He aggress that there are difficulties and we might never really know exactly what happened. But something significant must have happened.

Perhaps the most important thing to stress here is the fact of our present experience of death and resurrection, for this is something that is real in the life of Christians. So Barclay comments:

“There may be problems with this story; we may never know what exactly happened at Bethany so many years ago: but we do know for certain that Jesus is still the Resurrection and the Life. That is what the story tells us – and that is what really happens …”

I had never thought that this passage was as controversial as it seems – probably because most of my ministry has been in schools where I have been a teacher of philosophy. So many scholars think it probably never happened and that this was just John revealing an important truth – a vital truth – but using a made up story to illustrate the point. Richardson calls this the ‘… last and most stupendous of St John’s seven signs …’ Richardson continues explaining that John’s purpose was ‘… to relate the Gospel story in such a way as to make the meaning of the life of Christ in history while at the same time he felt free to re-cast the whole synoptic tradition in the interest of his purpose …’ So, Richardson concludes that it is not literally true but John is telling a story to explain a greater than literal truth.

To modern ears – even to mine – this seems outrageous: how can he feel free to (in effect) make something up, portray it as something that actually happened, to make a theological point?

It is true that experience bears witness to the truth that Jesus has conquered death and that spiritual existence is more real and precious than mere physical existence. John Suggit explains that the experience of Lazarus is a type of Christian disciples and what happened to him is the experience of every Christian. Like Lazarus we are loved by the Lord, we are called by name from death to life, like him, as sheep of the good shepherd, we listen and obey and we are handed over into the Christian community when we have found new life in Christ and most important, just as Lazarus was found at dinner with Jesus and the disciples (12:2) so are we at the celebration of the Eucharist. Suggit concludes:

“It is not difficult therefore to consider chapter 11 as reflecting the experience of every Christian who has been raised to life by Christ …”

But is it true that John was just writing a spiritual gospel for those who were already in the faith? Suggit disagrees and adds:

“…John has narrated the story, which presumably he accepted as a historical event, in a way which symbolically describes the person and work of Jesus …”

John is stressing that they need to see the life of Jesus and his earthly ministry and relate it to their own experience. Lazarus’ death and rising is mirrored in our experience. Jesus is the giver of life – real life – and this is much more than mere physical existence, not a mere continuation of mortal life. True life can be found only by abiding in Christ. This life is received by faith, when a person becomes a Christian. This new life involves a death. To find life we must share in the death of Christ as Thomas said earlier in chapter 11 (verse 16) “Let us too go with him that we may die with him.”

We need to have died to our old selves and find new meaning by being united with Christ.

This passage tells of something both dramatic and yet very ordinary. It tells of a simple trust and faith friends have for each other. Mary comes to Jesus with the simple words of conviction: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” Jesus responds with the complete identification of love for her and her brother and so spontaneously allows himself to be moved to tears because he is vulnerable and is overwhelmed. He wept; he did not just shed a polite tear – he literally wept. Those who are allowed to witness the privilege of this profound intimacy comment: “See how he loved him …” What they next say shows how they are voyeurs and not part of the real moment. But John is; for me evidence that it was John, the Apostle and the Beloved disciple; because John notices that Jesus was “… greatly disturbed …”

Jesus said to Martha, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?’ Allow me a moment to elaborate on this, which for me, is a most important point. Karen Armstrong, in her The Case for God makes an important point:

Why did Jesus set such store by [belief]? The simple answer is that he did not. The word translated ‘faith’ in the New Testament is the Greek pistis … which means ‘trust; loyalty; engagement; commitment’. Jesus was not asking people to ‘believe’ in his divinity … he was asking people for commitment. He wanted disciples who would engage with his mission, give all they had to the poor, feed the hungry, refuse to be hampered by family ties, abandon their pride, lay aside their self-importance and sense of entitlement … trust in the God who was their father.

In Middle English bileven meant to ‘prize; to value; to hold dear. It was related to the German belieben (to love). Armstrong continues:

So, ‘belief’ originally meant ‘loyalty to a person to whom one is bound in promise or duty.

Belief and faith became interchangeable. Belief only became to be seen differently during the late 17^th Century and the Enlightenment. Now it started to be used as an intellectual assent to a particular proposition, teaching, opinion or doctrine. Armstrong concludes:

It was used in this modern sense first by philosophers and scientists, and the new usage did not become common in religious contexts until the 19^th Century.

It seems feasible then, that Jesus was saying to Martha – and now to paraphrase – “Did I not tell you that if you remained loyal and committed and trusted God, your Father, you would see his glory.”

John’s writing is so crucial for Christians. It forces us to move away from being mere observes and challenges us to become engaged in a dynamic, personal encounter with the narrative and from there to the living Christ in our own lives. Suggit puts it this way:

… the purpose is to draw the reader or hearer to be closely involved in the story which he unfolds … the story is as much a reflection of the circumstances in which the gospels were produced as a history of the events in Jesus’ life …

If this was not the case, all we would have would be the so-called ‘facts’ about what happened, but we would be unaware of their real significance. Jesus is not just a figure of past history, but the living Lord of the church. Suggit continues:

… the meaning is [also] not fixed once for all but has continually to be discovered or rediscovered by the reader or hearer, who needs to share at least some of the attitudes of the evangelist.

This is what I believe! May you all be blessed this All Saints day.

Mark 10:46-end (NRSV)

Mark 10:46-end (NRSV)

The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus

46 They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. ⁴⁷When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’⁴⁸Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ ⁴⁹Jesus stood still and said, ‘Call him here.’ And they called the blind man, saying to him, ‘Take heart; get up, he is calling you.’ ⁵⁰So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. ⁵¹Then Jesus said to him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ The blind man said to him, ‘My teacher, let me see again.’ ⁵²Jesus said to him, ‘Go; your faith has made you well.’ Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way. 

This passage is of great significance for me. When I first entered the ministry, I reflected on this passage before a sermon, using the Ignatian style of meditation I was instructed in as part of my training, and I was transported to the scene in my mind’s eye and saw Jesus reaching out to me with the lovely question: “What do you want me to do for you?” My response was the same as that of Bartimeaus “My teacher let me see …” It was at this time that I felt called to be a biblical expositor and began preaching through Luke’s Gospel. It was a blessed time, with people returning each week for the next instalment, often bringing family and friends along with them. Soon, the Church was full. I am convinced that expository preaching is at the heart of church growth because – others like William Temple and the Benedictine Prayer Book also place their emphasis on reading and hearing the Word of God. God meets with His people in a special way when we come to the written word – because it is here that we encounter the Living Word – giving us guidance, challenge and blessing for our lives in the here and now. It is all too easy to think that we are dealing with a person in the past – where Jesus is a living, real presence. What he says to Bartimaeus he does indeed say to all of us – a reason why Ignatius and the Jesuits became such a vital and important force; why evangelical divines fill their churches and why people like Barclay and his commentaries (our mentor on many of my reflections) have such powerful and effective ministries. And people are starving for this! Too often, I have attended worship, heard the readings, have hungered for more, only to find that the preacher preaches on something else!

Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem for the Passover. He was surrounded by a crowd who were listening to him as he walked and taught. This was one of the most common ways of teaching. If you lived within 15 miles of Jerusalem, you were under a duty to attend Temple worship at Passover time, so the place will have been packed, with all the Temple priests on duty. Barclay suggests that

“… there would be many cold and bleak and hostile eyes in that crowd that day, because it was clear that if Jesus was right the whole Temple worship was one vast irrelevancy …”

At the northern gate there sat a beggar, Bartimaeus; he must have asked what was happening only to be told that it was Jesus’ group that was approaching, so he called out, knowing that this was his only chance for help, so ‘… he cried with such violence and importunity that the procession stopped …’ and he was brought to Jesus.

Barclay suggests that this event gives us insight to what he calls the ‘… conditions of a miracle …’

(i)                 There is the PERSISTENCE of Bartimaeus – nothing would stop him from coming face to face with Jesus – and it is this that gets things done. It is my view that many people do not ever expect to meet Jesus at all and think that we refer to the Jesus of history alone. It is also my experience that when people are reminded and persist in their quest to meet with the risen Christ, the Christ of faith – then things begin to happen in their lives. The first step is not only to persist, but to come face to face with our risen Lord who is real today as ever when he walked this earth before us.

(ii)               The response of Bartimaeus to our Lord’s call was IMMEDIATE. There are certain chances that happen only once and Bartimaeus instinctively knew this and acted with immediate effect. Sometimes we have a longing for something to change in our lives – and we procrastinate – and the moment, possibly a life-transforming moment passes.

(iii)             He knew PRECISELY what he wanted. Barclay claims that all too often we are vague and sentimental – and it would be good if we could be specific in some instances and this is because we do not want the self-examination that decisiveness requires. Bartimaeus must have had plenty of time for reflection, but there was no doubting in his mind what he wanted from our Lord.

We have all experienced many miracles in our lives, not least the blessing of ontological ordination and the privilege of being priests.

Bartimaeus had an inadequate conception of Jesus – referring to him as the Son of David. True, this was a Messianic title, but the one that referred to a conquering Messiah, a King of David’s line who would lead the people to military and political victory and national greatness. But despite this, he had a more important virtue – faith – and this made up for the inadequacy of his theology. We are not required to fully understand – because this is humanly impossible – but we are required to have faith.

Faith ought not to be confused with belief – faith refers rather to a personal relationship with Jesus – as Barclay explains: “… a reaction of love, an instinctive feeling that here is the one person who can meet our need. Even if we are able to think things out, theologically, that instinctive response and cry of the human heart is enough …”

And in the end there is the one precious touch. Bartimaeus might have been a beggar, but he was a grateful beggar. Having received the touch of our Lord, he followed Jesus. He did not selfishly go his own way once his need was met. Barclay concludes:

“He began with need, went on to gratitude, and finished with loyalty – and that is a perfect summary of the stages of discipleship.”

We have both been touched by Jesus and have been given the privilege of working with young people. Let us touch those we meet with the love of Christ.

Mark 10:35-45 (NRSV)

The Request of James and John

35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.’³⁶And he said to them, ‘What is it you want me to do for you?’ ³⁷And they said to him, ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.’ ³⁸But Jesus said to them, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?’ ³⁹They replied, ‘We are able.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;⁴⁰but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.’

41 When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. ⁴²So Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. ⁴³But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. ⁴⁵For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ 

William Barclay inspires this week's reflection.

It is said of Oliver Cromwell that he insisted that his portrait be painted ‘warts and all’ – and this is where the expression comes from. One of the interesting things about the Gospel of Mark, is that he is so honest – he tells the story of Jesus and the disciples ‘warts and all’. Some consider the difficult passages to be a hindrance; I have always felt that the disarming honesty gives both the Gospel and its truth credibility. James and John requesting places of honour is just such an instance. It is also a great comfort to me that the first disciples of Jesus were just ordinary people and, as Barclay puts it: “It was with people like ourselves that Jesus set out to change the world – and did it …”

James and John were ambitious; and they wanted to be Jesus’ first ministers of state. Jesus did think they were special as he had made them part of his inner circle. They were also people of means as their father had been well off enough to be able to hire servants (Mark 1:20). Barclay is probably right in suggesting that “… they rather snobbishly thought that their social responsibility entitled them to the first place …” They, like most people, want to get on in this life.

But it also tells that, despite all the warnings that Jesus had given them of his future, they still misunderstood. Jesus had made it plain to them that he was heading for the Cross so in the light of this, Barclay suggest that they their request is especially staggering! He adds a positive note, though, in showing how despite all this they still believed in him! They still associated this seemingly failed messiah with glory and so Barclay concludes: “Misguided James and John might be; the fact remains that their hearts were in the right place.”

Jesus’ reference to the ‘cup’ is interesting. This is a typical Jewish metaphor. It was custom at banquets for the king to hand the cup to his guests. The cup therefore became a metaphor for the life and experience that God handed out to people. This appears frequently in the Psalms: “My cup runs over …” (Psalm 23) and “… in the hand of the Lord is a cup …” (Psalm 75:8) Isaiah speaks of the disasters that had come over the people of Israel as them having drunk “… at the hand of the Lord the cup of His fury …” The cup therefore refers to ‘… the experience of allotted to men by God …’

Jesus also refers to ‘baptism’ which refers to either being dipped or submerged. So here, the reference has nothing to do with the sacrament of baptism he is saying – in Barclay’s paraphrase:

“… can you bear to go through the terrible experience which I have to go through? Can you face being submerged in hatred and pain and death, as I have to be?”

Jesus was making it clear that the Christian crown comes with a Cross. And indeed, James and John did face earthly crosses in their lives.

It is also true that the final destiny of any person is the prerogative of God. Jesus himself, never usurped the place of God as his whole life was one long act of submission to God the Father – one of the great mysteries of our faith.

Pertinent things to think about in the ambitious world we find ourselves in!

The other disciples were angry with James and John, not because they were being offensive of Jesus, but rather because they ‘… had tried to steal a march upon them and try to take an unfair advantage …’ The old controversy about who was the greatest began to rage once more. This could have wrecked the fellowship if Jesus had not taken immediate action. Once more Jesus had to explain to this stubborn lot that the ways of the world were wrong and that true greatness in the Kingdom of God was so different to anything in the world. In the world the standard of greatness is ‘power’ with the test being ‘How many people do I control? How many are at my beck and call? On how many people can I impose my will? In the Kingdom of Jesus, the standard of greatness is service; not in having others serve us but reducing oneself to their service; not what can I get – but what can I give.

Barclay points out that this is in fact just sound common sense and works in the world as well. In many industries, especially the motor industry the company that will do better than others will be the one that will promise to ‘… crawl under your car oftener and get themselves dirtier than any of the competitors, in other words, be prepared to give more service …’ In really fine organisations, the ordinary clerks go home at 5.30 pm, while the Chief Executive will work long into the night.

Barclay rightly points out that ‘… the basic trouble in the human situation is that people wish to do as little as possible and to get as much as possible …’ But it is only when we have the desire to put into life more than we take out – to serve others – that we will become happy and prosperous.

The world, and not only the Church needs people whose ideal is service. Jesus pointed to his own example – he had come to ‘… give his life as a ransom for many …’ More on this important statement next time.

I now focus on verse 45: “⁴⁵For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’”

Barclay suggests that this is one of the great phrases of the Gospel ‘… and yet it is a phrase that has been sadly mishandled and maltreated …’ because people have tried to develop a theory of atonement around what is essentially a saying of love. Once again, Barclay comes into his own by giving us an excellent historical overview.

In Church history, it was not long before people began asking to whom this ransom of the life of Christ had been paid!

ORIGEN suggested that it could not have been paid to God, so was it then to the Evil one? The devil was holding us fast until the ransom was paid which was the life of Jesus. The devil had been deceived that he could have dominion over it but could not see that he could not bear the torture involved in retaining it! The devil, in the process discovered that he had bitten off more than he could chew.

GREGORY OF NYSSA saw very easily that the problem with Origen’s theory was that it made the devil equal with God because it allows him to make a bargain with God on equal terms. Gregory therefore came up with another idea and that was that God played a trick on the devil. Jesus was seemingly helpless and weak through the incarnation – by becoming a mere human. The devil mistook Jesus for being a mere man and so was tricked because Jesus conquered him by his victory on the Cross.

GREGORY THE GREAT expanded on this by using a fantastic metaphor. For him the incarnation was a divine strategy to catch the great leviathan: the deity of Christ was the hook and the flesh of Christ the bait. The bait was dangled before him and he swallowed it and so was overcome forever.

PETER THE LOMBARD took it a further step referring to the Cross as a mousetrap and the blood of Jesus the bait.

Barclay concludes: “All this simply shows what happens when men take a lovely and precious picture and try to make a cold theory out of it …” and suggests the following instead.

Sorrow is the price of love. We would all agree that love is only possible with the potential at least for sorrow – but we never think of trying to explain to whom that price is ever paid! In similar way we would all agree that freedom can only be obtained at the price of blood, sweat and tears; but we never think of investigating to whom that price is paid. Barclay adds:

“This saying of Jesus is a simple and pictorial way of saying that, whatever else is true, it cost the life of Jesus Himself to bring men back from their sin to the love of God … the cost of our salvation was the Cross of Christ …”

We do not need to go beyond this; we cannot go beyond this. All we know and can say is that something happened on the Cross which opened for us the way to God! C F D Moule makes the point that it is not a New Testament idea that God required recompense rather that the death of an individual leads to the benefit of many.

Mark 10:17-31 (NRSV)

The Rich Man

17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ¹⁸Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ¹⁹You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’²⁰He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’²¹Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ ²²When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions. ²³ Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!’ ²⁴And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ ²⁶They were greatly astounded and said to one another, ‘Then who can be saved?’ ²⁷Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.’ ²⁸ Peter began to say to him, ‘Look, we have left everything and followed you.’ ²⁹Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, ³⁰who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. ³¹But many who are first will be last and the last will be first.’ 

The Rich Young Ruler is a difficult parable for Christians to deal with because it is so easy to think that it refers to someone else. But it has a message for us all. Charlie Moule points out that “… possessions can be a prison …’ Possessions - especially those we really like – can imprison people, and those of us who are Christians are not exempt. Most of us have experienced the frustration seeing the ding in our new car after arriving home after a supermarket trip!

The young man standing before Jesus, by all accounts, was a lovely, good, upright man who had always lived a good life. But he lacked the readiness to give up the security of his wealth for the sake of others. It is therefore possible that he lacked the warm-hearted concern for others that is central to being a Christian, because he always calculated what it would cost him.

We need to possess our possessions and not let them possess us. Many of you will remember that Christian best seller of the 1960s by Richard Foster entitled A Celebration of Discipline, this work being inspired by the writings of Dallas Willard. Both authors suggest that real freedom comes when we feel free to give things away. Richard Foster loved cycling but when he found that he was getting too attached to his bike or too concerned about it, he gave it away and set himself free.

What is the link between this and eternal life?

To begin with we need to ask: “What is ‘eternal life’?” I am sure most of us would agree that an element of this is a reference to life that never ends with our Lord; but that it also refers to something that we experience now. Christian Aid is right with its motto: “We believe in life before death.” ‘Eternal Life’ refers to ‘real’ life in the here and now as opposed to a mere existence. Charlie Moule suggested that we cannot have ‘real’ life without being prepared to lose life.

Jesus uses the proverb of a camel going through the eye of a needle to expand on his thoughts and suggests that it would be easier for this to happen than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God! This is because attachment to possessions will hold them back from experiencing real life – a foretaste of eternal life - now. This is a telling comment, because I believe it means that our attachment to things of this world can rob us of real blessing now. But the good news is that God can release us from this when we are reminded and have a glimpse of the real love of God. This was the experience of people like St Francis of Assisi who ‘… suddenly caught sight of the love of God …’ and as a result possessions, for him, became irrelevant. When I teach the Year 8 classes about the life and ministry of Mother Teresa, I always became aware of this yet again. When she died, all she had was two saris, a bucket (in which to wash the one she was not wearing) a pair of sandals and a cheap pen; but she was rich, because she had glimpsed the love of God in Christ.

Sometimes the rich need to keep their riches ‘… and bear the burden of using them wisely for the kingdom of God …’ but ‘burden’ is the right word for this is indeed what they can so easily become. What a powerful thought. We are so blessed by all the good things we have, but we must not ever let them possess us.

The young man had ‘… run up …’ to Jesus and was keen and enthusiastic – he also flattered Jesus by calling him ‘good’. Jesus needed to do a number of important things in the interests of this lovely young man: he needed to make sure that he was not taken away by the emotion of the moment and he needed to make sure that he focused on God and not Jesus the man.

People today also fall into the trap of thinking that being respectable is enough. I have often heard it said: “I am a good person [meaning respectable], so if there is a God, I will be okay!” The commandments Jesus tested the young man on, are all those that refer to not doing anything bad to anyone else. The man had never defrauded anyone, he had never stolen but neither had he ever been, nor could he make himself be positively and sacrificially generous. Being a Christian is not only about being respectable; it is about living for others. The young man could not do this!

I am wary of some evangelism that can focus on emotion, experience alone and personality; true evangelism includes the great cost of discipleship. Jesus looked at the rich young man and loved him. He was not angered by the young man’s response, he just felt deeply for him. He was probably also sad for him, knowing that he was going to miss out on so much.

The disciples were shocked and amazed and this is simply because what Jesus was saying went against everything that society held to be true at the time (and sometimes even in some Christian circles today). Barclay points out that they believed that if a person was prosperous, it meant that they were being blessed by God – ‘… prosperity was the sign of a good man …’ they did not see the danger of prosperity. He adds:

(i)                 Material possessions fix one’s life on the things of this world rather than on the things of God. “These are the things that make it difficult to die …”

(ii)               Material things make us think of everything in terms of price. Living this way means that we lose sight of what really has value. The best things in life have no price and so money simply cannot buy – the most precious being our salvation.

Probably most importantly, the rich young man mistakenly thought he could earn his way into God’s favour. If salvation did depend on human effort, then it is impossible. But salvation is God’s gift – for all things are possible to God. The person who trusts in themselves and their possessions can never be saved.

We know that our salvation is a free gift that Jesus gives to all of us in declaring us right with God when we come to him in repentance and faith; but we as Methodist Christians have also always committed ourselves by seeking to become transformed by the love of God as the Spirit works in our lives. Denis Nineham in his commentary makes a number of comments that caused me to pause and think because they remain so pertinent in our time. He makes the obvious point that most Christians are never called upon to give up everything and that Jesus seldom required people to take his teaching literally. Most of us are allowed to keep our wealth, but we are reminded by this parable that our attitude needs to be a complete inner detachment from worldly things and a willingness to sacrifice our wealth if it were ever required, and that there are rewards for those who do make the sacrifices, the most significant being, in Nineham’s words ‘... the fellowship they found in Christian community more than compensated ...’ for what they had given up.

This to me should be at the heart of everything – the joy we experience when we meet together – the fellowship we share together. And here is the challenge. What is our fellowship like? I left the Anglican Church which worshipped in a sublimely beautiful Cathedral with robed choir, first class organ and fine music, but the atmosphere was dreadful. I have just returned from a Chaplain’s conference where a colleague told me of his wife, who is training to be a Local Preacher, attended her fist meeting only to be put off by the sniping and bad temperedness of the gathering.

People tend to think they will attract more people if they go to huge expense and change their buildings, and I do not think this passage has anything to say about sacrificial giving in order to pay for building projects, which are themselves worldly ‘things’ that we should not become too attached to.

I have often attended some of the plainest and simplest and modest places – like Charney Manor – a very simple Quaker meeting house – where I wanted to remain because I experienced the love of Christ in the fellowship of the people.

Does our fellowship match the words of Charles Wesley’s beautiful hymn:

And if our fellowship below
In Jesus be so sweet,
What height of rapture shall we know
When round His throne we meet!