All religions have a message that contains their core beliefs and tells the story of their understanding of reality. For them this is good news. It helps them make sense of the world. It gives meaning to their lives and they wish to share it with others, believing it has universal truth and relevance. Within Christianity the word for this good news is gospel, a word derived from the Anglo-Saxon term god-spell, meaning “good story,” a rendering of the Latin evangelium and the Greek euangelion, meaning “good news” or “good telling.”  Evangelisation, the term used for the spread of this gospel, sometimes in a forcible way to encourage converts, is associated with Christianity. The forcible propagation of the faith, proselytisation as it is called, is denounced by other faiths and Christian themselves but all  religions are in fact as missionary as Christianity. All faiths have their own gospel with a message that they believe is relevant for everyone and have a desire to share it.

 For Muslims there is the duty of dawah i.e the duty of inviting others to understand and embrace Islam, and, like evangelisation in Christianity it can be directed to fellow Muslims as well as non- Muslims. It is rooted in the belief that Islam is the true religion, and Muhammad is God's final messenger with a message for the whole of humanity.  It is the responsibility of the Muslim community to convey this message to humanity, to reveal the truth that worship of and surrender to Allah, the one God of all is the way of peace.   

 Within the Baháʼí Faith there is the concept of pioneering, which involves individuals relocating to areas where the faith is not yet established with the aim of being able to offer the teachings of the Baha’i Faith and work with others to promote unity which is so central to the faith. It too sees its founder Baha’u’llah as a manifestation of God and a prophet for this time. The Bahai scriptures say “If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will. If it be accepted, if it fulfil its purpose, your object is attained”. 

Buddhists too are intent on sharing the Dhamma, the teachings of the Buddha about the nature of reality and the practices that can liberate from suffering and lead to enlightenment. This teaching is seen as a universal truth and many Buddhist monks and teachers travel the world sharing this wisdom with their followers but also holding public talks, aimed at non-Buddhists. Sometimes at the end of retreats people will be invited to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha (community), declaring a commitment to the Buddhist way. I have seen this when I have been privileged to make retreats with the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Tich Nhat Hanh. 

So, all faiths have their gospel, their good news which they want to share. Interreligious dialogue is one place where this can be done but not in the sense of evangelising or preaching. I have experienced this sometimes in visits to places of worship or even at events, particularly during interfaith week when faith communities use this as an opportunity to invite other faiths to an event in their community. But usually the sharing at such events allows for listening and talking and is carried out in a spirit of friendship and openness. For me this often helps me see my own faith in a new light and recognise the universal nature of the truth at the heart of other faiths. I have been helped in this by my experience of Buddhist dialogue, particularly my retreats with Tich Nhat Hanh who I think had the genius required to express the Buddhist Dhamma in human terms that touched the heart of all who listened to him. It made me want to do the same for the good news of Christianity and express its gospel in terms that were relevant and meaningful for the modern age.

It so happened that a theology discussion group that I attend did try this recently. We were to come up with 5 statements that spoke to us of the heart of the gospel message. There were similarities and differences, and our attempts were in no way complete.   My attempts, no-where near Tich Nhat Hanh’s way of doing things were:

• There is a holy mystery at the heart of the universe, a mystery some people call God. It is the source of life and love and the reality in which we live and move and have our very being.  This mystery manifests itself in all living beings and systems and calls us to fullness of life.  This is what makes everything sacred.
• human beings (as well as other creatures) participate in the one life. Each one is a unique expression and manifestation of the life and love at the heart of the universe. Each person has been called forth from the beginning of time to take form at this point in history with the unique possibility and responsibility of respecting one another, rejoicing in diversity and so taking humanity and our planet further on their journey to wholeness.
• all aspects of life are interconnected and interrelated so that the intentions and actions of each one affects others for good or for ill.  It is in community that we receive and give support to one another and encourage one another to live a purposeful and fruitful life.
• Jesus is the prophet and teacher who manifests the Reality at the heart of life and shows us a heartfelt approach to life and religion so that we stand with and feel the pain of the oppressed and marginalised, reach out with love and compassion to our brothers and sisters and treat the earth with reverence and respect.
• our commitment to follow the way of Jesus opens us up to his energy and spirit – a spirit which is the spirit of God.  It is this Spirit that keeps the memory of Jesus alive in his community and the world and motivates us to cooperate with others to contribute to a better future in which the values of justice, peace, integrity and wisdom which we call the values of the kingdom of God will be manifest wherever we find ourselves.​

Perhaps this is too wordy and could be summed up by the truth that love is at the heart of life and we are truly blessed if we know ourselves as loved and loving. 

  Habemus Papam, we have a Pope and with this traditional announcement Pope Leo XIV was introduced to the world. For some reason I was struck by the phrase this time round. It wasn’t the Church has a Pope, or the Cardinals have elected a Pope, it was simply we, the catholic community, bound at this moment by sadness over the death of one Pope and hoping for someone who would carry on the work and inspiration of Pope Francis. It is always a moment of joy and anticipation. What will he be like? While it is undoubtedly a family moment it is also a global moment and many outside the Church have acclaimed and welcomed a man who as a member of a religious order is surely a man of prayer, American born with Peruvian citizenship, missionary experience in Africa and Latin America and administrative experience in Peru and in Rome. His choice of name also gives a clue to his commitment to Justice and Peace. 

Leo XIII was Pope at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th cy. and is known for bringing the Church into the modern world and facing up to the problems of the day.  In his famous encyclical, Rerum Novarum, Latin for 'of revolutionary change in the world’ he addressed the social and economic issues of the late 19th century.  He promoted workers' rights to fair wages, safe conditions, and trade unions while supporting property rights and free enterprise. He opposed both socialist and communist doctrines as well as laissez-faire capitalism. His encyclical laid the foundations for a body of teaching known as The Church’s Social Teaching, often called the Church’s Best Kept Secret which is based on seven principles: the dignity of the human person, solidarity, the common good, the option for the poor, peace, creation and the environment and the dignity of work and participation.  

For Catholics the name Leo XIV was a sign that he intended to stand firmly in this tradition and today in a meeting with the Cardinals who elected him he confirmed this, saying that he identified with his namesake Pope Leo XIII. He also identified an issue that he obviously thinks is important - “in our own day, the church offers everyone the treasury of its social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour."  “He reiterated the path set in motion by the Second Vatican Council, a path renewed and reinterpreted under Pope Francis. He highlighted key themes from Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium: the primacy of Christ, synodality, the sensus fidei (the supernatural "sense" of the faithful), popular piety, care for the poor, and courageous engagement with the world.” At the end of his discourse “he quoted Saint Paul VI, at the dawn of his own pontificate, praying that “a great flame of faith and love” may once again spread across the world, lighting the way for all people of good will”. 

What more could the world hope for and from the response to the death of Pope Francis and the announcement of a new Pope it is obvious that people of all faiths and none look to the Pope for inspiration and guidance. One letter from a Muslim friend of the Scottish Church wrote “This moment brings renewed hope and inspiration to the Catholic faithful and to all who share in the wider mission of building compassion, justice, and peace. As we receive the Holy Father’s vision for the Church and the world, I know it will be met with open hearts and thoughtful reflection here in Scotland.” And a Church of Scotland in a nearby neighbourhood rang its bells loud and clear when the announcement was made – something not previously known in a country that still suffers from sectarianism.  

Of course, there have already been critics, looking to his past and judging that 13 years ago he did not do enough about clerical abuse and even some Americans saying that while he may have been born in America he will not be committed to America First. There are also those writing his agenda, encouraging him to be committed to their particular cause such as the ordination of women, which I would of course agree with and because of my own ministry I would hope he would be committed to interfaith dialogue. Dialogue is a word he used when he came on to the balcony at St Peter’s to greet the community gathered there and the millions watching on their television screens.  I have no doubts that he will continue Pope Francis’ commitment to this, realising how powerful it would be if all faiths together could light a great flame of faith and love. It would certainly be stronger than any one faith doing it on their own.
​
The task of a Pope is a mammoth one. He has said it is a burden that is too great for him or for anyone to bear and it can only be done with the support of the body of Cardinals and all members of the Church. There are many internal issues and problems to be faced but I think no Pope can get on bandwagons. His role is principally to be a source of unity, trying to hold in tension those who think the Church is not moving quickly enough and should change and those who think that change is betraying past teaching and wanting to hold it back. In a sense the Pope holds the middle position – there are others whose role is to challenge it and show how it can move forward into a new era, there are those who will remind it not to throw the baby out with the bath water and the Pope who discerns the way forward, all the time proclaiming the good news that each of us is unique and valuable with great potential to bring about a society and a world in which justice, peace and love can flourish. 

 ​I cannot take part in the Holy Week Services which begin this evening without thinking about the Jewish community and how in the past the readings and prayers had a decidedly anti-Jewish tone which no doubt led to an antisemitic attitude amongst Christianity at large and Christians in particular. The story of the passion and death of Jesus as set out in John’s gospel will be read in churches on Good Friday. Often there are different voices for the various characters in the story with the congregation taking the part of the Jews whose lines are ‘Crucify him, crucify him’. Is it any wonder that the belief grew up that the Jews had crucified Jesus and were culpable of deicide. This was so strongly held that at times in the past it was not safe for Jews to show their face during these solemn and so-called holy days for fear of being attacked. This has now changed. Scripture scholars admit that while religious authorities were involved in bringing Jesus before Pontius Pilate and sought his death it was the political authority that sentenced him to death. And it certainly wasn’t the Jewish population of the time, many of whom were his followers. The Vatican II document Nostra Aetate which set out the Church’s relationship with other religions spoke out against any charge of deicide being brought against members of the Jewish community and recognised the Jewish roots of Christianity. But the scripture with this in it is still read on Good Friday and hopefully whoever is preaching will deal with this sensitively. For some Jews the very phrase ‘the Jews’ brings back memories of antisemitism and the kind of atrocities that resulted in the Holocaust.

It is so easy to blame a whole people for the faults and failings of their government and while we Christians may have changed out attitude to the Jews of Jesus’ time, Jewish people are often asked to account for the actions of the Israeli government, even though they are not Israeli. I have heard it myself and if I can feel uncomfortable at this supposition how much more must our Jewish brothers and sisters feel. The land of Israel is central to Judaism and many Jews are broken hearted at what is happening in the Middle East now. They have a great loyalty to the State of Israel as a place where Jews can live out their way of life in peace and security but the attack by Hamas on October 7th 2023 sent shock waves through the community as it seemed they were no longer safe in their own land. While the response of the Israeli government can be criticised I think it is difficult for Jews to be openly critical of it because they feel the rise in antisemitism, the overwhelming support in the media for Palestine and what seems a lack of sympathy for Jewish fears and need for security.

During this war which is horrific for the Palestinians I have tried not to take sides. That is not to sit on the fence but rather to try to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, recognising the legitimate history of the pain and suffering of both people, both of whom I think have been let down by their governments. How to hold both stories at the same time is difficult and while I no longer engage in conversation with people whose support for one side suggests a rejection of the other I do find myself expressing the pain of the Palestinians when I am with Jews and the pain of Israel when I am with those who support the Palestinians. Those of us who are engaged in interfaith relations, especially the Council of Christians and Jews have reflected often on the situation and concluded that the only response is that of being broken hearted. For me I have felt a great sadness and real pain when I think of how the Israeli government is responding, more out of fear for its own existence than any desire for peace. When I read the prophets or Jonathan Sacks and hear of the beauty of Judaism and what it has to offer the world I hate what is happening and even fear for Israel’s survival. How wonderful it would have been if it could have lived by the high ideals of Judaism and shown the world how to negotiate and work for a peaceful solution for two people having a claim to and sharing the same land. But why should I expect that of Israel when there are so many examples of so called Christian and Islamic nations not living up to the ideals of their religion?

There are of course many Jewish people and groups who have demonstrated and spoken out against the war. This week there has been a statement from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the largest communal organisation in the UK decrying Netanyahu and his concern for his own survival. I was heartened by this and found it reflective of my own views. Under the heading “As British Jews we can no longer stay silent on the war in Gaza” they express their love for Israel and deep concern for its future as well as their pain and shock at what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank. They see “hopes dwindling for a peaceful reconciliation and the return of the hostages. Israel's soul is being ripped out” they say “and we, members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to.  Silence is seen as support for policies and actions that run contrary to our Jewish values…. We stand against the war. We acknowledge and mourn the loss of Palestinian life. We yearn for the "day after" this conflict when reconciliation can start”.  

To have such a respected body speak out so clearly is for me hopeful and I will carry their pain as well as their hopes and desires for peace with me as I enter into these solemn days of remembering the death and resurrection of Jesus.  

 Amy- Jill Levine is Professor Emerita at Vanderbilt University. She is a New Testament scholar and professes to love the NT and Jesus, yet she is Jewish. This gives her a unique insight into the stories and events in the gospels, so it was natural for me to consult her when I was asked last Sunday to give a reflection on the scripture readings for the day. The text was from Lk 15 and the story was that of the Prodigal Son.  We all know it well – the son who leaves home having asked for his share of his inheritance and only returns when he has squandered it and is in fact starving to be welcomed and embraced by his father.

In her reflections on the story Professor Levine points out that it is the third in a series of stories at the beginning of chapter 15 of Luke’s gospel – the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son which is her way of naming the parable.  She also points out the introductory verse which says, “One day when many tax collectors and other outcasts came to listen to Jesus, 2the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law started grumbling, “This man welcomes outcasts and even eats with them!” 3So Jesus told them this parable” Even when the reading focussed only on the third story of the lost son whoever drew up the cycle of Sunday readings included those verses, meaning to put the story of the lost son into a context which suggested a  group that supported Jesus and were ready to learn from him and another group which grumbled and complained about him. This Dr Levine suggests is Luke interpreting the parable and influencing how we might interpret it.  Unfortunately, there has been and perhaps still is a tendency in Christianity to identify the scribes and pharisees with the older brother and the Jewish people who have remained faithful to the Law but rejected Christ and identify the outcasts and tax collectors with younger brother and Christians who have now been welcomed into the embrace of the father.

This interpretation betrays a supercessionist approach that sees Christianity as having replaced the Jewish people and assumed their role as God's chosen people. Over the centuries this approach has led to an anti-Judaism and antisemitism that has had such terrible consequences for the Jewish people and the world at large.  Although supercessionism and any sense of Christians replacing Jews would now be considered wrong in the Catholic Church and many other churches we must beware of and be on the look out for suggestions of an antagonism that does not reflect Jesus position but that of the tension between the early Christian community and the synagogue.

 While many commentators reflect on the patient and unconditional love of the father in the story Professor Levine sees it as a story about family dynamics. It begins “There was a man who had 2 sons… For a Jewish audience this would immediately call to mind stories in the Torah of other 2 sons – Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob. In these stories it is the younger brother who unexpectedly receives the blessing of his father. So, she suggests that if Jesus audience were biblically literate and why would they not be they would know to identify with the younger son who in this case turns out not to be righteous or faithful but irresponsible, self-indulgent and possible an indulged and spoiled child.  Professor Levine imagines the situation when the younger son asks for his share of the inheritance:  what happens in the time before the son leaves, - is the father busy dividing his property, is he heartbroken, does he try to remonstrate with his son? Where is the mother in the story?  Did the older son try to mediate and change the mind of his brother – was he angry because according to Deuteronomy he should have got two thirds of his father’s estate?

The father lets his son go. Unlike the good shepherd and the woman with the lost coin the father does not search for his son though we get the impression that he was constantly on the lookout for him, no doubt pained by his younger child’s action. It was because of this patient waiting that he was able to spot him from afar and run to welcome him
And what about the older son? Do we not feel some kind of sympathy with him?  No-one ran out to invite him to the feast, he only discovered it by chance – perhaps on his way home. His anger and upset are not unprovoked,
Now Professor Levine tells us the father has a problem.  The father has his younger son back but now the elder son is lost – and perhaps always had been in a way that the father didn’t notice until now.
 The father now needs to return this lost elder son to the family if he is to make his family complete. Will the father be reconciled with his elder son? Will the brothers be reconciled?

Is this the challenge that Jesus poses in telling this story?  This story of the need for reconciliation would have been a challenge to Jesus’ listeners and is surely a challenge to us today. How do we respond? Can we be agents of reconciliation in our own homes but also in the world we inhabit, in our relations with people of other faiths, people who are different from us and so contribute to reconciliation in a world that so easily polarises and divides?