Sermons

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity - 20th July 2025

I have recently been listening  to a series of programmes on the radio called “Post-War”. They focused on the 1945 General Election and the many changes that were to follow with the election of a Labour government. Churchill, the wartime Prime Minister, was shocked, as were many other people, when he lost that Election.

People wanted change. In 1945 they wanted to put the War behind them, they wanted to build more houses, create a Health Service, improve education, and increase job opportunities for the soldiers returning home. They voted for change.

But so often we don’t like change, we resist it, we deny that it is happening, or that it can happen. When change is happening, we close our minds and carry on living as if nothing is changing.

We live in a time when we are experiencing many changes, and rapid changes, in many areas of our lives. We are experiencing climate change, and we live once more with international insecurity and the threat of war. The developments in new technologies are exciting for some, bewildering to others. It is also a time of economic uncertainties and the institutions that were respected and powerful after 1945 are weaker and ignored by the most powerful nations in our world.

Our churches have undergone huge changes since 1945. I’ve only been at St Andrew’s for 20 years, but in that time many things have changed. Like everyone else we can resist changes, we can ignore changes, we can close our eyes and ears to changes we don’t like and pretend none of it needs to affect us.

Today we have heard two stories about 2 women, Sarah and Martha. Sarah denied that change could happen, Martha denied that change was desirable. Sarah was challenged by God, and Martha by Jesus. 

The first story that we heard from the Old Testament is strange in many ways and we only heard half of it this morning. It is the middle of the day, when because it is hot, people would not walk about outside but be resting in their tents. Yet 3 men suddenly appear outside of the tent. They have a message for Abraham and Sarah, Abraham is told Sarah will have a son. The 3 men are sometimes described as men, sometimes as angels, and when they speak they are described as God! However the message is clear, Sarah is to have a baby!

This was where our reading ended, with the story half told, so I am going to read the rest of it! (read v 10B – 15).
Sarah laughs, how ridiculous she thinks. I can’t have children at my age! God says to Abraham “Why did Sarah laugh?” She then lies and denies that she has laughed. God’s question   embarrasses her; God insists that she will have a child, for all things are possible for God. Sarah is frightened and denies that change can happen.

The second story is the well-known story of Martha and Mary. Jesus is a guest at their house and Martha is doing all the work. It’s not clear what Martha has been busy doing, whether it is preparing a meal or other chores, but Mary has opted out, she is sitting at the feet of Jesus listening to what he has to say. Martha thought Mary’s place was in the kitchen, that’s where the women of the household were expected to be. 

Martha thought she knew what was right and expected Jesus to agree with her, but he rebukes her, saying Mary is in the right place. Martha thought she knew what was right, knew what her role as a woman should be. I think Martha was not a person who could easily change her ideas, accept that roles could change  

If Sarah had believed the 3 men, or Martha had listened to Jesus, both women would have avoided arguments, rebukes from God and from Jesus. Listening instead of protesting, they could have been open to the possibility of change in their lives. 

Sarah responded negatively to the offer of a huge new change in her life, Martha poured out her own concerns, sure that she was doing the right thing, she thought it was Mary who needed to change, not her. If Sarah had really listened to God, if Martha had listened to Jesus for a while, by listening they could have become open to the new possibilities in their lives.

How good are we at listening? We are often good at voicing our own opinions, but do we really listen to the opinions of others?

In 2016 Pope Francis said the following “Listening means paying attention, wanting to understand, to value, to respect and ponder what the other person says. Knowing how to listen is an immense grace, it is a gift which we need to ask for, and then make every effort to practice.”
 
Pope Francis knew the Roman Catholic Church was divided on many issues. He didn’t impose a ruling on the whole Church but brought leaders together, not to make decisions on anything but so that they could sit together and listen to one another, so that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church could move forward.

The Anglican Communion and our own Church of England is divided on several issues at present. The 2 big issues that General Synod has been debating are, firstly, whether gay clergy should be allowed to marry. The State allows gay marriage, but Church law at present does not allow gay priests to marry. There is also disagreement over whether gay couples could have prayers of blessing in church. 

We have not been good at listening to one another, some clergy, some whole congregations, have refused to discuss the issues with their fellow Church members. Some have decided they must remain firm in their convictions that both these things are wrong. They see no point in listening to others. Maybe they fear others could influence them, and so help to change their minds!  Surely, if we pray together, listen to one another, can we not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church?

Finally let me end with a few words from a poem. I try to read a poem every day. Recently I read one by the Scottish poet Edwin Muir called “Horses”. He imagines a time when things have radically changed; the world as we know it is now very different. After war the old world has gone. The technology we know now, even tractors on farms, have gone, the horses have returned. 

Yet the poet says it is not a time to regret that change has come. The poem ends with these words “Our life is changed, their coming, our beginning”.

Janet Fulljames

Dedication Festival - 13th July 2025

Every year at this time we celebrate the dedication of our church on the 14th July 1881 from the extraordinary gift of the then vicar of Holy Trinity Church, the Revd. Frederic Jeremiah Smith.  I can’t imagine any vicar in 2025 having the spare money to endow any church, let alone one of this size.  So well done, Fred.  We appreciate the immense generosity that has meant that this building has stood as a proud witness to the Christian faith of our congregations down 164 years. 

It is surprising how church buildings still have a powerful impact upon the mentality of local people even in this supposedly secular and post-Xian era.  In my previous parish a very large church in another very poor part of town, whose congregation had over time dwindled to about twenty souls, announced its imminent closure because the church-goers could no longer keep up the maintenance of their large Victorian building. 

The local citizenry, none of them ever likely to darken the doors of any church, was outraged and angrily petitioned the Bp. of Rochester demanding that THEIR  church be kept open and functioning.  He very sensibly replied that, if they wanted that to happen, they would have to put their hands in their pockets and start actively supporting their parish church.  

Amazingly the local people responded accordingly, the building was indeed  saved and by the time I arrived in Gillingham, the congregation of that church had trebled in size and it was flourishing in remarkable ways.  It must have felt like a mini-Resurrection experience to the elderly folk who had attended the church faithfully for decades previously.   

Nor is it just the reaction of local people which can surprise you, when certain churches suffer damage or loss, especially those that have iconic status.  For example, when Notre Dame de Paris burned down in April 2019, the whole nation seemed to go into mourning and donations towards the cost of the reconstruction of the church flooded in from all over the world.   

This surely cannot be for purely aesthetic reasons.  Churches symbolize something of real but intangible value to their locality, or (if they are buildings of international  significance like Notre Dame or Christchurch Cathedral in NZ, destroyed by two earthquakes in 2010 and 2011}, such buildings are seen as of incalculable moral value to the wider world.   

I cannot believe that the motivation of people who do not ordinarily go to church, but eagerly support appeals to repair them, is merely sentimental.  Given that all the world faiths dedicate buildings to service the spiritual needs of their adherents – mandirs for Hindus, mosques for Muslims, gurdwaras for Sikhs, synagogues for Jews and pagoda-temples for Buddhists -  such buildings serve many purposes beyond being a place where the faithful can worship God congregationally.  Their reach beyond the narrow confines of their location can be extensive.       

We can think of a church as just an edifice, or we can think of it as a congregation, a group of people who gather there to offer worship.  Worship in any religious tradition is about demonstrating reverence for what you value most highly, that which has the greatest WORTH in your life, hence the word, WORTH-ship.  In all faiths God is always the object and focus of their worship.   

King David and his son, Solomon, thought it important that their God, Yahweh, should have a house, a home in the holy city of Jerusalem.  A magnificent Temple to house the Ark of the Covenant would be the hub, the focal point of the community of faith, where God would be honoured daily with sacrifices and prayers. 

From our first reading from the 1st Book of Chronicles we see that the sums given by ordinary Jews to finance the building of Solomon’s Temple outweighed even the contributions of King David, indicating the total commitment of his people to this ambitious project.  The Temple could only be completed by sacrificial levels of giving by the community, if it was to be a worthy symbol of God’s majesty.  We would do well to remember this aspect of giving, when the next appeal for church funds comes up. 

If the church represents the essence of what we most value in life and if God is to be honoured in the worship that we offer in it, it should hurt our pockets and bank accounts, if our donations are to be truly meritorious.  This may be an uncomfortable truth especially in times of economic hardship like we are all experiencing at this time, but King David understood an accompanying truth which he expressed in the beautiful prayer that we sometimes use at the Offertory:  all things come from you, O Lord, and of your own do we give you.   

The king’s point is that all the blessings of our lives, both material and spiritual, ultimately are gifts of God’s superabundant benevolence; therefore we are stewards, not hoarders of our own wealth and stewards also of all the treasures of the good earth, its lands and seas, its air, its flora and its fauna.  One way in which we prove our Love for God and for his generous provision for us is by giving sacrificially not only to the church, but to those far worse off than we are in every continent. 

Do you feel as angry as I do that governments have reduced the Foreign Aid budget from 0.7% of GDP down to 0.3%?  Does it have to be the poorest of the world who are to pay the price for what is admittedly a necessary increase in our defence budget, when we are the 6th wealthiest nation on earth?  I have my doubts.   

It’s OK to feel angry about certain important principles, especially if sacred places are being used for malpractice and injustice.  In our gospel reading Jesus uses extreme violence to clear the Temple of traders.  This is supposed to be  house of prayer, not a market place, he says to justify his prophetic action before the Temple authorities.   

This rebuke leads into a highly significant reference to the Resurrection, when to the bemusement of everyone present he uses the Temple, the habitation of God, as a metaphor for his own life, soon to be surrendered at Calvary with wondrous consequences: Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days. 

St. Paul in his Letter to the Ephesians cp.2 uses CHURCH as a different metaphor.  We are reminded that we are members of God’s household, of which the cornerstone is Christ, who joins together the whole structure, so it may be a holy temple in the Lord. 

Paul tells us that our common faith builds us together spiritually into a dwelling place for God, so not only is our fine building in which we offer our worship in sincerity and truth, a location for God’s Holy Spirit, but the totality of human beings down two millennia in every land who have professed their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour – in all of us God in Christ is vividly and vibrantly present.  What a thought!  May we be worthy and grateful recipients of his grace and goodness this day and always.  Amen.      

Munna Mitra

*******************