Immediate satisfaction or a long term solution?

 Christ tells us stories (Matt 13.24 ff) that come from an agricultural landscape that we are probably unfamiliar with in today's world of high tech and vicarious pleasure.  As with last week, it is story set in the seasonal growth of a agrarian growing period and not the fast paced www highways that extend around the world.  It is about looking towards a future that is down the long road and not immediate, it is about looking at our fast paced lives through the eyes of God.  The human agenda is strewn with details and minuscule events that in actuality turn out to be non-events in the bigger picture world that is the God story, the story of salvation.

We are sometimes pathetically upset by the long way round or we become fascinated by the view of time held by those who work the land.  We often fail to see the driving motivation resulting in an agitated state when the result is not immediate.  Not to be overwhelmed by traditional methods that take the slow way, we have moved this attitude of speed into our modern farming productive methods because we want to have immediate results.  A good example of this need for speed is found in the modern production of vinegar. Unfortunately, nature and God do not really work like that no matter how much we would like it to be.  Like God we need to start to look towards the future, it may not happen in this generation but if the seeds are correctly planted no matter what the vicissitudes of life there will be a harvest at the end.  We sometimes concern ourselves overly much, like the servants and the workers in the Matthew parable, with obtaining an immediate satisfactory perfection.  This can be applied to any situation within our spiritual as well as our mundane lives.  Yes, occasionally, there is a need to act with haste and immediacy but we need to remember that there is a consequence to every hasty action we take.

Can you tell the difference?  What is wheat in God's eyes and what is a tare?

The servants and stewards in the parable want to remove the weeds immediately but it is the sagacity of the owner who reminds them that in taking out one weed the probability of taking out good plants is high and therefore likely to reduce the final yield.  We want to focus on the irritants, we want to dive in and save the day with our programmes and our schemes.  Once again we forget that God is the one who is leading us along the path to redemption and salvation. We only have to look at our hasty actions of the past (reminding ourselves about the effectiveness of hindsight) when it comes to our goals in terms of the environment and our human sustainability.  We see the immediate benefits of something and jump in to utilise that for our benefit.  In this day and age it would have been thought that we would have learnt from the hastiness of the past and be more deliberate about how we take up new things.

Looking at our political decisions in recent years it is fairly obvious that greed is the motivating force behind many decisions and not the good of the world or for the long term benefit of humanity.  Even when we consider the benefits for a country we only consider the economic benefit in the short term not the long term.  We do the same thing within the church.  We look to solve the short term issue and not look at the long term issue.  Christ shows us God's view point in this parable, a viewpoint taken up by God in the vision that Jacob had on his journey (Gen. 28.10-19).  This is not a dream of the immediate goal but a dream of a long term vision.  A dream that takes Jacob into a blessed future but one that does not suggest that there will be no hardships.  In looking to the future whether politically, spiritually or in our everyday lives we need to hold to the dream not to overcoming the small irritants and details.  They have a way of working out but not the way we either expect or necessarily want in our own minds.  Yet, they will be what God wants.

Is the sower a professional?

 The old saying is that we reap what we sow in life. So what is it that you sow or have sown during your life? Looking back we often find that we have regrets somewhat like Esau, who sold his birthright (Gen 25.32-33), had later in life. Ours may not have been as great a foolishness but looking back it often rankles and hurts. Yet, sometimes what we perceive to be a disaster is what God is asking of us as he plants a seed to mature in the time to come. Retrospective looks back in time are said to be 100% and that is how we learn. Yet the ramifications from our regrets may actually be positive in the lives of others.

In the parable that Christ sets up in Matthew's gospel (13.1-), the sower does not appear to understand what it is that he is doing.  Seed appears to be scattered willy nilly all over the place.  Christ gives a very specific meaning to each type of ground the seed falls on, yet, I feel we are missing something if we take a simplistic view. Jewish midrash interprets the simple and finds some very interesting understandings as a result. They want to know the story behind what is written. Christ was a rabbi a known interpreter of scripture. Lets try thinking more laterally in this well known case.

The seed falls here and other times some falls there. Surely, one has to ask, when sowing for good yield shouldn't the sower be a little more deterministic when it comes to the scattering of the seed. If we want a good harvest we must direct the seed into good ground.  There is no point in scattering it around. I would have fired the sower, if it was my farm, I want a good yield not a bit of this and a bit of that (100% or nothing).  That is how we operate in today's world.  That is how any good farmer would want from his employer or himself if he was sowing the seed, care in deployment. No matter what we do, the expectation is that the out put of our work will be beneficial to the company for whom we work. I suspect in earlier times the same would also be the case especially with regards to the distribution of valuable seed. In looking at the church or the parish in terms of what we do, a recent trend has been to emphasise mission based programs.  We are told you have to do this, or you must do this or this is where you will achieve growth in the church, follow this evangelistic method / program / etc.

Let God direct the sowing of the seed not our own imaginations

God does not work with programs, God works with the world the way God wants the world to be.  God calls us into difference not sameness.  Each programme of evangelism that is promoted is looking for sameness not difference. God determines where the seed should fall, by placing all our seed into the one basket of programme evangelism we deny God access to the fruits of the seed.  Our evangelistic programme may well be scattering the seed on a well trodden path that does not allow for it to grow.  I suspect that more often than not, this is precisely what is happening; we continue to sow good seed onto the well trodden paths of human expectations only to find it trodden under foot.  It is only when we allow God to direct the sower of the seed that we begin to see the fruits of God's labour.  We talk of good and bad ground as if these were dualistic opposites.  Perhaps yesterday's poor ground will become today's good soil as God directs the seed and the growth.

Paul reckons us to live on the level of the Spirit not on the level of what has gone before (Rom 8.5-6) when we live in Christ.  Yet we tend to live in the world and ignore Christ except as a passing whisper or throw away line.  If something has achieved good results elsewhere then surely it will achieve remarkable results here in this place all it requires is the 'minister' to put in the energy.  Or if what has worked in the past should be re-iterated, again and again and again, then we will achieve the same results now as then. However, good soil soon becomes poor if we over produce again and again.  In undertaking these thoughts we also actually undermine God. We are second guessing where the seed that the farmer has granted to us through grace is to be planted by our knowledge not by the farmers understanding of the fields to be sown and then reaped. Only when we understand that it is by allowing God's hand in our work for God that we achieve the remarkable. It is not in following previous things or other programmes as these may not be what God is calling us to in the present. In living into the Spirit we live into Christ and we allow Christ's guiding light to be ever present in our hearts. We go where Christ wills not where we will.

Where has it gone?

Paul in a number of the epistles uses the terminology of the 'Body of Christ' to represent the Church. It has been a well accepted paradigm to reflect what the Christian church should emulate and more often than not we fail in this endeavour. In doing so we sort of shrug of the understanding and go on our way not really engaging with the spirit of the message or the purposeful meaning that Paul puts in the use of this analogy. It has become increasingly obvious that the Church has never really embraced this idea of the body and its understanding of cooperative purpose. Either across denominations or even within them as differences in dogma stymie the effort.

Indeed theological discussion whilst often referring to this understanding of community and neighbourliness  refuses to really engage as the modern philosophical trend has been towards the autonomous self. This very Western understanding of personhood is embedded in much of our traditional theological viewpoints so that we become mired in our individual uniqueness and miss the opportunity of seeing God in those around us. This is particularly brought home to those that tinker in the ecclesiological space when the structure of church governance is considered. Whilst Rome has come to tinker with an understanding of synodality as a result of Francis' push the Anglican church has been immersed in synodality for some time. Yet, the concept of travelling together has been lost over time in the Anglican church with its concentration on small empires whether they be op-shops, catering groups or individual parishes and councils.

In a lot of respects this lack of fostering the understanding of one body as seen in the various scriptural references of assistance and understanding is being highlighted in the Anglican church around the world with the GAFCON breakaway but also within the Australian Church. The very fact that it is reasonably well known that senior members of the clergy have been known to refuse to gather around the Christian table of fellowship and love is a clear indicator of the paucity of understanding in the concept of one body. This in itself is or should be unimaginable in the Christian faith journey but it becomes even more devastating when nobody  seems to understand the words that are prayed at the end of most Eucharistic services within the Anglican prayerbook. Each person prays to be a "living sacrifice" but as soon as they walk out the door they forget everything that faith teaches.

Are we one body or are we one building?

In a Diocese that is in dire straits in terms of not only claims arising out of the abuse scandals of recent years but also the result of National church failures to maintain promises in the late 1990s one would expect, from a Christian viewpoint, a certain amount of collegiality and coming together to steer through the winds of change. As we know change often means sacrifice and in Christian terms we would understand that through death comes life. Yet, it is obvious that however good leadership has been the concepts of togetherness and community mean nothing unless there is the stability of a building. It has been made very clear that the process with regard the debt means that property must be sold for the good of the body and should one property not be sold or forfeited than another property or properties must be found to compensate. Thus, our selfishness over the retention of one property could make another part of the body suffer, but then 'Hey its not us. Shame!'. Our treasures are meant to be in heaven not on earth yet we still focus our lives on our property. Perhaps, it comes from calling ourselves 'church' instead of an 'ecclesia'. 

The question is of course to be asked where is the National Church?  Or perhaps where is the greater body of Christ? Well not their problem as each diocese is an 'individual' not part of a community or the body of Christ. Of course, they are at liberty to state that the plan forward by the diocese some three years ago cannot take place but have to bow before the Supreme court when the same plan, in essence is put forward. This attitude of complacency and being the little finger on the body's right arm is especially so of the more affluent dioceses who not withstanding their riches on earth believe that they are the only ones who know God's word. Sounds a bit pharisaic to me.

To take up or not to take up

 We are told that we are to take up the yoke that Christ gives to us so that we may rest from the burdens that we carry (Matt. 11:29). This seems at first glance a somewhat paradoxical statement as the yoke, any yoke, implies some form of weight. If we are already overburdened how can taking more weight upon ourselves lead to rest. Perhaps we can see a glimmer of an answer in the story of Isaac and Rebecca's first meeting (Gen 24:58-67). In this section of the story Rebecca first sees Isaac in the field as she and the servant approach following the journey from her home. In this, as in similar Hebrew texts, the interpretation that we have is somewhat prosaic in comparison to the wealth of interpretation available in the Hebrew / Jewish interpretations. In this instance it is said firstly that Isaac was not just walking but rather there is a sense of his communing with God and perhaps recalling the akedah that was spoken about last week. In observing him Rebecca falls "in love" and falls to the ground in front of him because of the respect for his connection to God (much more romantic). It is however what comes after that needs our attention as in verse 67 Rebecca takes on the burden of Isaac's grief over his mother.

Rebecca is already burdened, if we think about it, with the re-location from a loving home into an unknown circumstance. She has given much up for the possibility of happiness with an totally unknown man and in a totally unknown culture. Yet, she willingly picks up the burden of grief that Isaac is suffering from and consoles him. This leads to what appears to be  a comfortable life or at least as comfortable as things can be within the harshness of nomadicity. Rebecca here makes a knowing sacrifice in love and lightens the burden not only upon herself as she becomes accepted within the new community but also that carried by another. This is perhaps what we need to understand when we are asked to carry the load. It is not that our concerns or worries are disappeared but rather by picking up the load we share our toils and our burdens with each other. In carrying our own burdens we actually destroy our lives both physical and mental. It has recently been brought home to me how anxiety and worry are easily manifested within the physical to such an extent that it incapacitates our own ability to function. If we decide to carry our own tears and our own anxieties then we will suffer greatly. It is often our response of not sharing that leads us to the physical dependence and pain we suffer in later years.

The yoke shares the burden or lightens the load

So how can we take the extra load and be relieved of the burden we carry so that the load becomes light? The main issue is not that we do not care but rather that our needs always predominate. The taking up of another load appears to be us to be something that is deleterious to our own health. In this case we are cautious if not downright over protective and selfish. We have to take real care here because selfishness leads us to act in such a manner that is overwhelmingly problematic for our community. Once we take this route we are on the mind bending logic that Paul uses to account for his ability not to do that which ought to be undertaken (Rom. 7.14-ff). The reality is that we need to take up the yoke that God calls us to take for this eases the burden not necessarily for us immediately but certainly in the long term. The reason for this is that the old adage " a problem shared is a problem halved" is so true even in the current day. In sharing the burdens of the community we are able to half the real issues that we think that we have to carry on our own. So often we have and start with good intentions that eventually become burdens usually because of our inability to share. 

Just think in terms of Parish councils or centre committees or any other sort of governance model that you wish to think of. The council / committee is often there to assist and share the burden of leadership. what so often happens is that it comes down to an issue of power and politics. The more power I have the less I wish to share and once I have power the less I wish to give that power up. The yoke that Christ asks us to pick up is so light because it is a shared responsibility. We do not take the burden on ourselves but share the burden with the other. Just as Rebecca learns to do and does with the burden of sorrow within the family. Only when we are ready for this sharing can we begin to understand how light God's burden is upon us as all of our brothers and sisters are able to share the burden with us.