Sermon by Rev Sydney Maitland for Sunday 14 August 2022.
• First Reading: Isaiah 5: 1-7 (‘What more could have been done for my vineyard that I have not done for it?’)
• Psalm 80: 1-2, 8-18
• Epistle: Hebrews 11: 29 – 12: 2 (Surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses – let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles)
• Gospel: Luke 12: 49-56 (I have come to bring fire on the earth)
I think that there has always been something of a love-hate relationship between the church and the culture and feeling of the nation.
There is something of a comfort blanket – a body of people to provide assurance and comfort during times of stress and anxiety so long as they do not make any demands, at least nothing unreasonable.
It is there to be mocked and derided – remember ‘The Life of Brian’ – but is not really to be taken seriously in terms of its own beliefs and understandings. Mary Whitehouse was fine as a figure of fun but was really only tolerated, and that was by holding one’s up-to-date and progressive nose.
I think that this has long been the case – Shakespeare and Chaucer were never blind to the faults of the church but they did not summarily dismiss its life or worship as is now fashionable.
But then look at the lesson from Isaiah – the song of the vineyard. The vineyard was a symbol of Israel and God describes how He has done all that He can for her but is still rewarded with violence towards other Israelites and contempt towards Himself. Oh yes, the cult continued but its sincerity has long departed and only the liturgical repetition remained.
And Israel was acting in contempt for her own kin and brethren. But they were still abused and manipulated. God who looked for justice and reverence among His people found only bloodshed and cries of distress.
If these were still to be His people – and God was never going to abandon them, then there would have to be some kind of rebuke and correction, especially as the appeals of the prophets fell on deaf ears.
But the stress in the lessons changes as we look at the letter to the Hebrews.
Here the stress is the perseverance of the faithful in the land and how they sustained their faith when most others had abandoned it in any real and personal sense. Somehow they continued to believe and trust in God and this did not just affect their other relationships and transactions: it directed them as well.
And they were content to be so contained. Not just a comfort blanket but a rod and staff to protect and correct them as well.
Now the stress was on steadfastness. It was in a determination to continue in the faith that had nurtured them and given them their sense of being and of moral and cultural security. This was what got them through the days when others who were more fashionable were content to sideline it or ignore it altogether.
And so the faithful of the land lived as a subset of the people as a whole – Israelites in spirit as well as in body. For them the law of the Lord was a delight and a constant meditation, and they would hold to it as far as they could.
But then there is the gospel in which Jesus speaks of rejection and suffering. It was one thing for Him to perform miracles of healings and of feeding the people. It was fine when He was calling the authorities in Jerusalem to account for their own partial maintenance of the law.
But then Jesus was getting personal, even intimate.
Saying things about the scribes and Pharisees was one thing – calling the people of the land to personal repentance and faith was another.
Calling them out for their gossiping and sharp dealings, contempt for neighbours and resentment of all incomers (unless they had money) was quite different.
Now Jesus was looking for complete sincerity towards God and one another.
Now He was saying things about putting God before all other considerations. With God in the right place then these other matters would find their place anyway and there was no need for smirking and gossip when others fell short.
Now the person and mission of Jesus were taking first place: they were standing front and centre in all matters of faith and its practice.
And what was true then is still with us today. The church is fine so long as it does not get too involved with this God stuff. It does not do to question the ‘live-and-let-live’ ethos when matters of godly life are involved.
In a multicultural and diverse society, then just who is to say what is and is not right?
Jesus would say: ‘I AM’. And the editors and presenters of the world are busy saying, ‘we are.’
And so yes, Jesus is a line in the sand. Are we with Him or against Him? Indifferent and indulgent tolerance is not enough.
Is Jesus Lord – or not? And will we accept abuse and ridicule for His sake, or will we laugh Him off like an embarrassing uncle or cousin?
Jesus had warned that He would be a point of division. Those who know that they are His know it beyond doubt or argument. Those who do not may be searching – or they may already have searched and found that they do not like what they have found.
