Matthew 10:40-42

The Little Ones

When we refer to 'the little ones' we are usually referring to children in an affectionate way. However, we live in a world where we do not always care for 'the little ones' or respect their rights and the vulnerable position they are in when dependent on adults to protect them. This week I was shocked to see in the news the arrest of an eight year old girl who had seemingly been ordered to detonate a bomb in her backpack amidst a crowd of people. On the ABC television programme 'Am I normal' I was also shocked to see a man who confessed to being a paedophile talk of children aged eight having the right to be in a sexual relationship with an adult.

When Jesus refers to his disciples (grown ups) as 'the little ones' he is describing the vulnerable position they are in when they take the gospel to the villages and towns of Israel. They go not like soldiers, crusading, forcing, inflicting, or demanding their equipment to be carried a mile as the Roman soldiers did, nor do they go like religious leaders insisting respect for their position in society. They go like children, little ones, helpless, homeless, dependent on those who would welcome them with some food, or shelter, or clothing, or even a cup of water. Their lack of being equipped for the journey caused them to be dependent on the kindness of those they met on the way. "Take no gold, or silver, or copper... no bag for the journey, or two tunics, or sandals or a staff... (Matthew 10:9)"

At the core of this passage is not the message of an individually driven Christianity, one that promises reward for the individual, but a message that says that the central purpose of those who follow Jesus is that of looking after people. At the centre of both emerging and progressive theologies is the view that Christianity is firstly something that is lived, the theology is but a description of it. The disciples like Jesus went about the country firstly living their faith, and this dependence on others, this vulnerability, was not only something that was lived, it also spoke more than words could say: that power and position are laid aside when following the teaching and person of Jesus. So often we seek a position of power and authority from which we can influence the world, a position from which we can teach and preach. Jesus seems to send us out as 'little ones' identifying with people who are poor and helpless, calling up for mercy and kindness to be shown.

I view many of the sayings of Jesus as hyperbole. Jesus greatly exaggerates to make a point. In calling the disciples 'little ones', Jesus is indeed exaggerating to make a point. Will we hear the words of Jesus? Will we be willing to be considered 'little ones'?

Matthew 28:16-20

The placing of Trinity Sunday after Pentecost Sunday in the church calendar always seems strange to me. Pentecost celebrates the life Jesus lived now beginning its journey, travelling through the lives of his followers throughout the world. Pentecost speaks of freedom, liberation, creativity, wonder, colour, joy, diversity, transformation, renewal, grace, forgiveness, peace. It is contagious, inebriating, overwhelming, carried by the winds, free, flowing, turning the world upside down, lifting up the down trodden, passionate and so much more. Trinity comes like applying the brakes full on. "Hang on before you go further you need sound doctrine. When you baptise, when you explain this pentecostal wonder and it's connection to baptism, explain that it is baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

This 'trinitarian' formula seems out of place here in Matthew's Gospel. Neither Mark not Luke have it in their Gospels.  It seems from the book of Acts that people were baptised in the name of Jesus only (Acts 10:48; 19:5). Could it have been inserted at a later date?  Could it be that the formula was inserted back into the Gospel by the early church rather than the Gospel giving the formula in the first place? Why?

Unless the words 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' are used at baptism, some Christian denominations will not accept that a baptism has been properly administered and a person will not be accepted as part of that denomination.

The formula is used to distinguish which God is being spoken about and the appropriate way or what is considered the orthodox way for Christians to think of God. Why limit the words in the baptismal formula to these words, why not baptise 'in the name of the father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit, and of love and forgiveness and grace' and so on? It seems a bit strange to build a whole doctrine based on one verse of scripture and then pin one's life to it or use it as a dividing point rather than an including point. I think it very important that the church today emphasises inclusion, what we share in common, a common experience, an experience of Jesus, a common concern for the world, rather than emphasising difference and therefore exclusion.

In the wider scheme of things surely it is not the formula that is most important but the experience, the discipleship. The love of God, the love of the world, the discipleship comes first and then trying to make sense of the believing.

Do I spend too much time trying to figure out the theology? Would my life be fuller, richer, more meaningful, more helpful to others and this world in which I live by spending more of my time living the life that Jesus speaks, that which we name as discipleship?