Last week I was contacted by a friend whose husband died earlier in the year. Bill had been a minister who I knew very well. He had played quiet a part in my formation as a minister. Anyway his widow - I'll call her Juliette - asked would I like to pop round to collect some of Bill's books. So I called into to see Juliette and we had a good chat and I picked up some books. And then Juliette said to me "You take services in a cassock don't you? Would you like some of Bill's stoles and scarves?" I said I'd be delighted and now have six of them.
These add to the collection of other bits and pieces I've inherited from other retired or deceased ministers. Including a rather fine cloak that I use for funerals in the winter.
This all may sound a bit odd and indeed macabre. But in fact I find that when I wear a stole or the cloak that once belonged to another minister, it is almost as if I am taking on their ministry to.
When we visited California in 2010 we went to church in San Diego at First United Methodist. The preacher preached on 2 Kings 2:1-18 in which Elisha takes on the ministry of Elijah and this is signified by Elisha taking on Elijah's cloak. The preacher told a wonderful story of how as a young minister he was given the cassock of a Methodist minister who died and he had this sense of taking on the mantle.
I too have that sense every time I wear the cloak I've been given or when I will put on one of Bill's stoles.
The mantle has been passed on. I just hope it's a while before any of my mantles get passed on to someone else!
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Sunday, 13 November 2011
Lest we forget
For human beings remembering things that have happened is important. And remembering those that have died is important too. All of us have memories of people we knew and loved. And we bring back those people in our memories from time to time perhaps for a birthday, perhaps at Christmas.
It’s something in human nature then. The need to remember. And we see evidence of the human need to remember in war memorials. Though the war memorials as we think of them today are largely a 20th and 21st century idea.
For most of human history war memorials were erected to commemorate great victories. Remembering the dead was a secondary concern. Indeed in Napoleon's day the dead were shovelled into mass, unmarked graves. The Arc de Triomphe in Paris or Nelson's Column in London contain no names of those killed. By the end of the nineteenth century it was common for regiments in the British Army to erect monuments to their comrades who had died in small Imperial Wars and these memorials would list their names. By the early twentieth century some towns and cities in the United Kingdom raised the funds to commemorate the men from their communities who had fought and died in the Second Anglo-Boer War. However it was after the great losses of the First World War that commemoration took centre stage and most communities erected a war memorial listing those men and women who had gone to war and not returned.
As a book called “Leaving all that was dear” records:
“The memorials were erected by a grateful community to perpetuate the memory of ‘the fallen’ and the sacrifice made not only by them, but also by the families they left behind. In the past, the memory of those men lived on in the hearts and minds of their relatives and friends. We believe that the time has come for this to be recorded for the sake of posterity.”
The war memorials we see dotted around the country then were designed so that all people should have a memory of those who had died. That all people should remember. And of course at the time, the names on the memorials in towns and villages meant something. There would have been people alive who would have known some of the people named.
But I suggest that now, almost 100 years since the end of the First World War and almost 70 years since the end of the Second World War, the names on our memorials are starting to mean nothing to most of us. I heard in the week that this year for the first time there is no longer a veteran of the First World War alive at Remembrance Sunday. And many people have no connection with the names on the memorials. And many of us have been born since the Second World War. We do not know who they were.
There is a danger that these memorials become nothing more than some historic relics. Sadly I feel we see some evidence of this in the way some people in our society treat war memorials. We may recall stories of people urinating against war memorials and in recent months there have been a spate of war memorials being vandalised by thieves who take the metal plaques bearing the names of the fallen.
So does this matter? Apart from the criminality, does it matter that it seems as if we are starting to forget?
But even if people in general start to forget there are those who don’t.
I don’t know how many of you listen to the Jeremy Vine programme on Radio 2 each weekday lunch time. Normally it is a programme that looks at news items and invites listeners to comment. But over the last week it has run a very powerful feature called “The songs my son loved”.
During the feature Jeremy Vine has interviewed five mothers whose sons were all killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan and the mothers recall the music their sons loved and talk about their memories of their sons.
In the first programme Mrs Helena Thatcher recalled her son Cyrus. She showed photos of her son and she made the point that each photo graph helped her to recall a different memory. Perhaps of a family holiday, perhaps of a party. And then she recalled the last days her son spent at home before going off to war. And given the title of the programme she shared some of the songs her son loved. And each song had a memory attached to it. One song was played by her son in the last day he was at home before he was posted to Afghanistan.
The programmes have featured 5 British mothers talking about their sons. Just 5 of the 563 mothers who are grieving the deaths of their sons or daughters serving with British forces or as Ministry of Defence personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I can guarantee that they have not forgotten. They will be proud of the way their children served their country and in the case of Afghanistan at least, sought to enforce United Nations policies. And I can guarantee that the thousands of mothers who grieve will not have forgotten either.
I don’t know what prompted the BBC to make those programmes. But the link between a grieving mother over the death of a child is powerful. And sends a strong message. And having listened to the programmes another grieving mother came to mind. Her son did not die in war but she saw him die
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
John 19:25
And as she stood watching him die she must have remembered much about his life. She must have remembered how she learned she would become a mother. She must have remembered the birth in Bethlehem and the arrival of the shepherds
19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.
Luke 2:19
Or as theGood News Translation (GNT) puts it
19 Mary remembered all these things and thought deeply about them.
She must have remembered the flight into Egypt. She must have remembered Jesus growing up in Nazareth along with his brothers. She must have remembered the time when he had disappeared while the family were returning to Bethlehem from Jerusalem. She must have remembered his ministry. The wedding at Cana where she had asked him to turn water into wine. Mary must have treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. Just as all mothers do.
19 Mary remembered all these things and thought deeply about them.
But at the same time she must have thought her son’s death was pointless. She must have wondered why he died. She must have wondered why God allowed his son to die.
The feelings of a mother 2,000 years ago are no doubt the feelings of the mothers interviewed by Jeremy Vine this week and the countless other mothers whose sons and daughters have been killed in war.
The only reference we have to Mary after Jesus’ death is in Acts 1 where Luke says that she was present in the Upper Room appearance. After that we do not know what happened to her. There is some suggestion that she was held in high regard in the early church in Jerusalem. But assuming she was still part of the church what did she think I wonder? Did she start to make sense of Jesus’ death? Did she start to realise the meaning of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection?
19 Mary remembered all these things and thought deeply about them.
Two women who have been affected by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are Rose Gentle and Christina Schmidt. Rose Gentle’s 19 year old son Gordon was killed in Iraq in 2004 by a roadside bomb. Christina Schmid’s husband Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid, was killed defusing a landmine in 2009.
In the midst of their deeply personal losses, both Rose Gentle and Christina Schmid have found the courage to speak out in the public sphere, albeit in starkly different ways. Rose Gentle became a fervent campaigner against the conflict in Iraq, lobbying politicians so that our troops could be brought home. Christina Schmid, by contrast, has chosen to voice her support for the military personnel in Afghanistan, asking the government for better equipment to get the job done and encouraging the British public to show their respect in more visible ways.
But what unites these two women is arguably stronger than what sets them apart: both are fighting to keep the legacy of their loved ones alive and that, perhaps, is the greatest tribute Gordon Gentle or Olaf Schmid could have hoped for.
They are typical of the many women who in recent times have grieved but who seem determined to ensure that people do not forget what is happening in the conflicts around the world.
It seems to me that we are called to remember. To remember those who have given their lives to uphold the values we hold dear. To remember those who are caught up in war. To remember those on the opposing side who are killed and injured. To remember the families of those killed.
To remember all these things and think deeply about them.
(C) David Gray 13th November 2011
It’s something in human nature then. The need to remember. And we see evidence of the human need to remember in war memorials. Though the war memorials as we think of them today are largely a 20th and 21st century idea.
For most of human history war memorials were erected to commemorate great victories. Remembering the dead was a secondary concern. Indeed in Napoleon's day the dead were shovelled into mass, unmarked graves. The Arc de Triomphe in Paris or Nelson's Column in London contain no names of those killed. By the end of the nineteenth century it was common for regiments in the British Army to erect monuments to their comrades who had died in small Imperial Wars and these memorials would list their names. By the early twentieth century some towns and cities in the United Kingdom raised the funds to commemorate the men from their communities who had fought and died in the Second Anglo-Boer War. However it was after the great losses of the First World War that commemoration took centre stage and most communities erected a war memorial listing those men and women who had gone to war and not returned.
As a book called “Leaving all that was dear” records:
“The memorials were erected by a grateful community to perpetuate the memory of ‘the fallen’ and the sacrifice made not only by them, but also by the families they left behind. In the past, the memory of those men lived on in the hearts and minds of their relatives and friends. We believe that the time has come for this to be recorded for the sake of posterity.”
The war memorials we see dotted around the country then were designed so that all people should have a memory of those who had died. That all people should remember. And of course at the time, the names on the memorials in towns and villages meant something. There would have been people alive who would have known some of the people named.
But I suggest that now, almost 100 years since the end of the First World War and almost 70 years since the end of the Second World War, the names on our memorials are starting to mean nothing to most of us. I heard in the week that this year for the first time there is no longer a veteran of the First World War alive at Remembrance Sunday. And many people have no connection with the names on the memorials. And many of us have been born since the Second World War. We do not know who they were.
There is a danger that these memorials become nothing more than some historic relics. Sadly I feel we see some evidence of this in the way some people in our society treat war memorials. We may recall stories of people urinating against war memorials and in recent months there have been a spate of war memorials being vandalised by thieves who take the metal plaques bearing the names of the fallen.
So does this matter? Apart from the criminality, does it matter that it seems as if we are starting to forget?
But even if people in general start to forget there are those who don’t.
I don’t know how many of you listen to the Jeremy Vine programme on Radio 2 each weekday lunch time. Normally it is a programme that looks at news items and invites listeners to comment. But over the last week it has run a very powerful feature called “The songs my son loved”.
During the feature Jeremy Vine has interviewed five mothers whose sons were all killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan and the mothers recall the music their sons loved and talk about their memories of their sons.
In the first programme Mrs Helena Thatcher recalled her son Cyrus. She showed photos of her son and she made the point that each photo graph helped her to recall a different memory. Perhaps of a family holiday, perhaps of a party. And then she recalled the last days her son spent at home before going off to war. And given the title of the programme she shared some of the songs her son loved. And each song had a memory attached to it. One song was played by her son in the last day he was at home before he was posted to Afghanistan.
The programmes have featured 5 British mothers talking about their sons. Just 5 of the 563 mothers who are grieving the deaths of their sons or daughters serving with British forces or as Ministry of Defence personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I can guarantee that they have not forgotten. They will be proud of the way their children served their country and in the case of Afghanistan at least, sought to enforce United Nations policies. And I can guarantee that the thousands of mothers who grieve will not have forgotten either.
I don’t know what prompted the BBC to make those programmes. But the link between a grieving mother over the death of a child is powerful. And sends a strong message. And having listened to the programmes another grieving mother came to mind. Her son did not die in war but she saw him die
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
John 19:25
And as she stood watching him die she must have remembered much about his life. She must have remembered how she learned she would become a mother. She must have remembered the birth in Bethlehem and the arrival of the shepherds
19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.
Luke 2:19
Or as theGood News Translation (GNT) puts it
19 Mary remembered all these things and thought deeply about them.
She must have remembered the flight into Egypt. She must have remembered Jesus growing up in Nazareth along with his brothers. She must have remembered the time when he had disappeared while the family were returning to Bethlehem from Jerusalem. She must have remembered his ministry. The wedding at Cana where she had asked him to turn water into wine. Mary must have treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. Just as all mothers do.
19 Mary remembered all these things and thought deeply about them.
But at the same time she must have thought her son’s death was pointless. She must have wondered why he died. She must have wondered why God allowed his son to die.
The feelings of a mother 2,000 years ago are no doubt the feelings of the mothers interviewed by Jeremy Vine this week and the countless other mothers whose sons and daughters have been killed in war.
The only reference we have to Mary after Jesus’ death is in Acts 1 where Luke says that she was present in the Upper Room appearance. After that we do not know what happened to her. There is some suggestion that she was held in high regard in the early church in Jerusalem. But assuming she was still part of the church what did she think I wonder? Did she start to make sense of Jesus’ death? Did she start to realise the meaning of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection?
19 Mary remembered all these things and thought deeply about them.
Two women who have been affected by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are Rose Gentle and Christina Schmidt. Rose Gentle’s 19 year old son Gordon was killed in Iraq in 2004 by a roadside bomb. Christina Schmid’s husband Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid, was killed defusing a landmine in 2009.
In the midst of their deeply personal losses, both Rose Gentle and Christina Schmid have found the courage to speak out in the public sphere, albeit in starkly different ways. Rose Gentle became a fervent campaigner against the conflict in Iraq, lobbying politicians so that our troops could be brought home. Christina Schmid, by contrast, has chosen to voice her support for the military personnel in Afghanistan, asking the government for better equipment to get the job done and encouraging the British public to show their respect in more visible ways.
But what unites these two women is arguably stronger than what sets them apart: both are fighting to keep the legacy of their loved ones alive and that, perhaps, is the greatest tribute Gordon Gentle or Olaf Schmid could have hoped for.
They are typical of the many women who in recent times have grieved but who seem determined to ensure that people do not forget what is happening in the conflicts around the world.
It seems to me that we are called to remember. To remember those who have given their lives to uphold the values we hold dear. To remember those who are caught up in war. To remember those on the opposing side who are killed and injured. To remember the families of those killed.
To remember all these things and think deeply about them.
(C) David Gray 13th November 2011
Saturday, 12 November 2011
I like Waitrose but I wouldn't go there for a hip replacement
An Article in the Independent on Sunday today (13th November) tates that the ConDems are seeking tp push 1 miilion public sector workers into John Lewis style mutuals. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-seeks-to-push-one-million-workers-out-of-the-public-sector-6261605.htmls
As I understand it, John Lewis employees are (in effect) shareholders in the business and receive profit share accordinfly. The logic of this is that if the employees have a vested interest in ensuring the business runs well i.e. profit share they are going to work harder and more productively.
In the article Lesley Ballantyne, John Lewis's director of operational development, said: "When staff have a meaningful stake in the enterprises in which they work, and participate in a culture of genuine participation, the results can be incredibly powerful – in terms of productivity, motivation, staff retention, reduced sickness rates and staff satisfaction levels."
I happen to think the John Lewis model is realy good. But I've got two thoughts on this.
1. Given that Dave and the Fib Dems like the model so much why don't they put pressure on businesses to operate it? How about starting with the banks we tax payers own?
2. Why does Dave think this model will work for the likes of the NHS? As Lesley Ballantyne says, the model works for John Lewis because it is an enterprise i.e. a business. Providing health care SHOULD NOT be a business. But clearly David Cameron thinks it is or should be.
The inference is that NHS staff aren't committed now and will be if they are employed by a mutual. This is wrong. Most NHS staff I know (and I know a few) are very dedicated. They do not need to be in an enterpise to provide a service.
Why are the people of this country and indeed the Labour Party just sitting back and allowing our NHS to be dismantled by stealth?
As I understand it, John Lewis employees are (in effect) shareholders in the business and receive profit share accordinfly. The logic of this is that if the employees have a vested interest in ensuring the business runs well i.e. profit share they are going to work harder and more productively.
In the article Lesley Ballantyne, John Lewis's director of operational development, said: "When staff have a meaningful stake in the enterprises in which they work, and participate in a culture of genuine participation, the results can be incredibly powerful – in terms of productivity, motivation, staff retention, reduced sickness rates and staff satisfaction levels."
I happen to think the John Lewis model is realy good. But I've got two thoughts on this.
1. Given that Dave and the Fib Dems like the model so much why don't they put pressure on businesses to operate it? How about starting with the banks we tax payers own?
2. Why does Dave think this model will work for the likes of the NHS? As Lesley Ballantyne says, the model works for John Lewis because it is an enterprise i.e. a business. Providing health care SHOULD NOT be a business. But clearly David Cameron thinks it is or should be.
The inference is that NHS staff aren't committed now and will be if they are employed by a mutual. This is wrong. Most NHS staff I know (and I know a few) are very dedicated. They do not need to be in an enterpise to provide a service.
Why are the people of this country and indeed the Labour Party just sitting back and allowing our NHS to be dismantled by stealth?
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Masking our true feelings
I imagine that if you are in the business of selling masks this is the time of year you must like. For tomorrow it is Halloween and many children – and adults – dress up as ghouls and ghosties and long legged beasties. And many people will wear masks.
Then on 5th November we have bonfire night. Some people still make models of Guy Fawkes and use Guy Fawkes masks. In fact many of the protestors in the City of London are wearing Guy Fawkes masks based on the mask worn by a character in the 2006 cult film V for Vendetta in which a central character takes Guy Fawkes as his model for blowing up Parliament.
I don’t know what the history of masks is. I suspect they go back to ancient times. Certainly in ancient Greece perhaps 5 or 6 centuries before Jesus, masks were used in theatre productions. All actors wore masks. The masks were able to bring the characters' face closer to the audience, especially since they had intensely exaggerated facial features and expressions. They enabled an actor to appear and reappear in several different roles, thus preventing the audience from identifying the actor to one specific character. Their variations help the audience to distinguish sex, age, and social status, in addition to revealing a change in a particular character’s appearance.
And this idea of actors wearing masks was part of the theatre in Rome as well. And when an actor put on a mask the actor put on a persona. And the “persona” represented the character in the play.
Today that Latin word “persona” is used by psychiatrists to describe the personality we present to the world. In other words, many psychiatrists argue that many people hide their true feelings to the outside world by putting on a persona. And if you’re not sure what I mean, think about the phrase “putting on a brave face”. We all know what that means. It means pretending to the outside world that everything is fine when inside we may be upset.
Or another way of thinking about it in the phrase “the tears of a clown”. The clown on the outside is all happy and jolly whereas inside he may be secretly crying.
But it is not just in personality terms that we put on masks. Sometimes people put on “masks” to try and portray their lives in ways that are different to reality. I can’t say I was a fan of the TV series “Keeping up appearances”. But the whole point of that programme was that the main character – Hyacinth Bucket – pronounced Bouquet – liked to appear that she was something she wasn’t.
I’m sure we can think of examples of people who behave in such a way. Sometimes in a very tragic way.
IN Matthew 23: 1 – 12 Jesus talks about this issue. The issue of putting on an appearance whilst in fact living a different way all together. Of living behind a mask or façade.
In God’s Kingdom, in a world where the values that are important to God exist, then what is important is being humble. What is important is being honest. What is important is not being a hypocrite.
When you think Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, it is incredible that what he said then is as true today as it was in his day. Well actually it’s not incredible for Jesus’ teachings stand the test of time and are in fact timeless.
And by changing about 20 words this passage of scripture could have been written today:
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The MPs are in place to make the laws we live by. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for men to see: They wear sharp suits. They like to appear on Newsnight and get their pictures in the papers 6 they love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in concerts and civic meetings and on aeroplanes 7 they love to be recognised and greeted in the marketplaces. And for people to say “I’m really pleased to meet you sir.”
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Sir’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
People in many Western democracies are becoming very disenchanted with the way things are. I’m not so cynical as to believe that all politicians throughout the ages have been as hypocritical as many today seem to be. Whilst some great politicians of the past were not perfect people, they were it seems to me conviction politicians. Trying to do the right thing. But now we see politicians telling us one thing and doing another. We see politicians putting on masks to hide what lies beneath. And to this extent we can find examples from all political parties.
We saw the likes of John Prescott telling us about climate change and being chauffeured round in gas guzzling Jaguars. We hear David Cameron telling us “We’re all in this together” knowing full well that he and most members of the Cabinet are millionaires”
Is it any wonder that people are so cynical? And so uninterested in politics? I think it was Billy Connolly who said “Don’t vote for politicians it only encourages them” and in a sense I tend to agree with him.
Sadly though it is not just politicians who are guilty of double standards. Of putting on a mask to hide what is going on beneath.
There are plenty of examples of the Church, collectively the followers of Jesus, throughout the ages operating double standards. Accumulating wealth whilst talking about caring for the poor. Abusing children. Failing to treat women equally whilst telling Jesus message of love one another. And in this last 2 weeks we’ve seen the façade of St Pauls crack. With some members of the clergy there seeking to support the protestors and others apparently more concerned that income is being lost because tourists can’t come in and pay the £14.50 entry charge.
An excellent opinion column in The Guardian newspaper this week summed it up:
“The dean and chapter appear to have decided that health and safety considerations mean they must be rid of the makeshift camp. These grounds are frankly risible. Pretending otherwise compounds the first mistake, which was to shut the cathedral altogether, rather than expose visitors to the sight and smells of a couple of hundred protesters. A cathedral isn't really there for the tourists, even if it can charge visitors £14.50, as St Paul's does. It is a place for prayer and worship. The congregations who come for these, the real purposes of the building, should remember that Jesus talked to publicans and tax collectors. He might even have talked to merchant bankers. He would certainly have talked to the protesters camped outside.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/25/leader-st-pauls-cathedral-occupy-london?newsfeed=true
And at least one member of the St Paul’s clergy Giles Fraser seems to have recognised this and has resigned from his post in protest.
It seems to me that Jesus would want us to challenge hypocrisy wherever we see it. He wants us to look beneath the masks and see what is happening underneath. However, that includes all of us as well. We are challenged to look beneath our own masks.
11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
And by the way, as a friend of mine commented there's an orony in that St Paul was a tent maker.
Then on 5th November we have bonfire night. Some people still make models of Guy Fawkes and use Guy Fawkes masks. In fact many of the protestors in the City of London are wearing Guy Fawkes masks based on the mask worn by a character in the 2006 cult film V for Vendetta in which a central character takes Guy Fawkes as his model for blowing up Parliament.
I don’t know what the history of masks is. I suspect they go back to ancient times. Certainly in ancient Greece perhaps 5 or 6 centuries before Jesus, masks were used in theatre productions. All actors wore masks. The masks were able to bring the characters' face closer to the audience, especially since they had intensely exaggerated facial features and expressions. They enabled an actor to appear and reappear in several different roles, thus preventing the audience from identifying the actor to one specific character. Their variations help the audience to distinguish sex, age, and social status, in addition to revealing a change in a particular character’s appearance.
And this idea of actors wearing masks was part of the theatre in Rome as well. And when an actor put on a mask the actor put on a persona. And the “persona” represented the character in the play.
Today that Latin word “persona” is used by psychiatrists to describe the personality we present to the world. In other words, many psychiatrists argue that many people hide their true feelings to the outside world by putting on a persona. And if you’re not sure what I mean, think about the phrase “putting on a brave face”. We all know what that means. It means pretending to the outside world that everything is fine when inside we may be upset.
Or another way of thinking about it in the phrase “the tears of a clown”. The clown on the outside is all happy and jolly whereas inside he may be secretly crying.
But it is not just in personality terms that we put on masks. Sometimes people put on “masks” to try and portray their lives in ways that are different to reality. I can’t say I was a fan of the TV series “Keeping up appearances”. But the whole point of that programme was that the main character – Hyacinth Bucket – pronounced Bouquet – liked to appear that she was something she wasn’t.
I’m sure we can think of examples of people who behave in such a way. Sometimes in a very tragic way.
IN Matthew 23: 1 – 12 Jesus talks about this issue. The issue of putting on an appearance whilst in fact living a different way all together. Of living behind a mask or façade.
In God’s Kingdom, in a world where the values that are important to God exist, then what is important is being humble. What is important is being honest. What is important is not being a hypocrite.
When you think Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, it is incredible that what he said then is as true today as it was in his day. Well actually it’s not incredible for Jesus’ teachings stand the test of time and are in fact timeless.
And by changing about 20 words this passage of scripture could have been written today:
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The MPs are in place to make the laws we live by. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for men to see: They wear sharp suits. They like to appear on Newsnight and get their pictures in the papers 6 they love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in concerts and civic meetings and on aeroplanes 7 they love to be recognised and greeted in the marketplaces. And for people to say “I’m really pleased to meet you sir.”
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Sir’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
People in many Western democracies are becoming very disenchanted with the way things are. I’m not so cynical as to believe that all politicians throughout the ages have been as hypocritical as many today seem to be. Whilst some great politicians of the past were not perfect people, they were it seems to me conviction politicians. Trying to do the right thing. But now we see politicians telling us one thing and doing another. We see politicians putting on masks to hide what lies beneath. And to this extent we can find examples from all political parties.
We saw the likes of John Prescott telling us about climate change and being chauffeured round in gas guzzling Jaguars. We hear David Cameron telling us “We’re all in this together” knowing full well that he and most members of the Cabinet are millionaires”
Is it any wonder that people are so cynical? And so uninterested in politics? I think it was Billy Connolly who said “Don’t vote for politicians it only encourages them” and in a sense I tend to agree with him.
Sadly though it is not just politicians who are guilty of double standards. Of putting on a mask to hide what is going on beneath.
There are plenty of examples of the Church, collectively the followers of Jesus, throughout the ages operating double standards. Accumulating wealth whilst talking about caring for the poor. Abusing children. Failing to treat women equally whilst telling Jesus message of love one another. And in this last 2 weeks we’ve seen the façade of St Pauls crack. With some members of the clergy there seeking to support the protestors and others apparently more concerned that income is being lost because tourists can’t come in and pay the £14.50 entry charge.
An excellent opinion column in The Guardian newspaper this week summed it up:
“The dean and chapter appear to have decided that health and safety considerations mean they must be rid of the makeshift camp. These grounds are frankly risible. Pretending otherwise compounds the first mistake, which was to shut the cathedral altogether, rather than expose visitors to the sight and smells of a couple of hundred protesters. A cathedral isn't really there for the tourists, even if it can charge visitors £14.50, as St Paul's does. It is a place for prayer and worship. The congregations who come for these, the real purposes of the building, should remember that Jesus talked to publicans and tax collectors. He might even have talked to merchant bankers. He would certainly have talked to the protesters camped outside.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/25/leader-st-pauls-cathedral-occupy-london?newsfeed=true
And at least one member of the St Paul’s clergy Giles Fraser seems to have recognised this and has resigned from his post in protest.
It seems to me that Jesus would want us to challenge hypocrisy wherever we see it. He wants us to look beneath the masks and see what is happening underneath. However, that includes all of us as well. We are challenged to look beneath our own masks.
11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
And by the way, as a friend of mine commented there's an orony in that St Paul was a tent maker.
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Women in the Church
BBC Radio 2 is holding its annual Faith in the World week. And this year it is focusing on the role (or lack of?) of women in religion. As part of this, this week the Pause for thought on the Chris Evans show is given by a woman.
On Monday 24th Rev Canon Ann Easter was the speaker. She's a regular and is good value. But I have to admit to getting a bit annoyed at what she was saying yesterday. She was talking about the church not having been accepting of women for many hundreds of years. And I was with her there.
But as the talk progressed she seemed to substitute talking about the church (meaning the body of Christ, the church universal) for the Church of England.
Now the Church of England's atitude to women in ministry is still very poor in my opinion. Why 20 years after the ordination of women as priests they are still faffing around about women bishops is beyond me. Especially when in other parts of the Anglican communion there are women bishops.
But Canon Ann, the Church of England is not representative of the whole church. I know Anglicans tend to have that imperialist view but you know there are other denominations. And there are other denominations with a far better track record in terms of women in ministry - at least over the last 40 or so years. Denominations such as the United Reformed Church and the Methodist Church for example.
So Canon Ann I'm with you entirely about the way the Church of England treats women ministers. And the lack of progress towards women bishops. But please remember that the Church of England is not the church. It is part of Christ's body.
On Monday 24th Rev Canon Ann Easter was the speaker. She's a regular and is good value. But I have to admit to getting a bit annoyed at what she was saying yesterday. She was talking about the church not having been accepting of women for many hundreds of years. And I was with her there.
But as the talk progressed she seemed to substitute talking about the church (meaning the body of Christ, the church universal) for the Church of England.
Now the Church of England's atitude to women in ministry is still very poor in my opinion. Why 20 years after the ordination of women as priests they are still faffing around about women bishops is beyond me. Especially when in other parts of the Anglican communion there are women bishops.
But Canon Ann, the Church of England is not representative of the whole church. I know Anglicans tend to have that imperialist view but you know there are other denominations. And there are other denominations with a far better track record in terms of women in ministry - at least over the last 40 or so years. Denominations such as the United Reformed Church and the Methodist Church for example.
So Canon Ann I'm with you entirely about the way the Church of England treats women ministers. And the lack of progress towards women bishops. But please remember that the Church of England is not the church. It is part of Christ's body.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Ding dong the wedding bells will chime
We celebrated our Silver Wedding at the end of September.
On the day itself we had a day out in Oxford – somewhere we always enjoy visiting. We found a nice restaurant on the river and had a lovely lunch. As we were leaving, we got talking to the owner and we said it was our silver wedding. And she said “Wow. That’s an amazing achievement. Not many people get that far nowadays.”
I was quite taken aback. I don’t think we regard it as an amazing achievement. We’ve not consciously worked at our marriage to make it last. It’s just happened. And it’s not as if it has all been smooth. It hasn’t but the support we get from each other has helped us both to cope with the things life throws at us.
For what it is worth, of our friends and family who have successful and long lasting marriages, most (though not all) are Christians. And I feel that is important. Bringing Christian values in to a marriage (love, forgiveness, compassion, hope to name but four) must all contribute to the success of the marriage. That’s not to say that all Christians who marry will have successful marriages, and it is possible to have a successful marriage of course that is not founded on the Christian faith. But it seems to me that a marriage founded on faith will be stronger for it. And will be able to withstand the storms of life better.
27 years ago we attended the wedding of friends (who are still married). One of the hymns they sang at the wedding was the Boys Brigade hymn “Will you anchor hold in the storms of life”. I remember one or two people saying at the time it was an odd choice for a wedding hymn but actually I think it is very good
Will your anchor hold in the storms of life,
When the clouds unfold their wings of strife?
When the strong tides lift and the cables strain,
Will your anchor drift, or firm remain?
Refrain
We have an anchor that keeps the soul
Steadfast and sure while the billows roll,
Fastened to the Rock which cannot move,
Grounded firm and deep in the Saviour’s love.
Here’s to the next 25!
On the day itself we had a day out in Oxford – somewhere we always enjoy visiting. We found a nice restaurant on the river and had a lovely lunch. As we were leaving, we got talking to the owner and we said it was our silver wedding. And she said “Wow. That’s an amazing achievement. Not many people get that far nowadays.”
I was quite taken aback. I don’t think we regard it as an amazing achievement. We’ve not consciously worked at our marriage to make it last. It’s just happened. And it’s not as if it has all been smooth. It hasn’t but the support we get from each other has helped us both to cope with the things life throws at us.
For what it is worth, of our friends and family who have successful and long lasting marriages, most (though not all) are Christians. And I feel that is important. Bringing Christian values in to a marriage (love, forgiveness, compassion, hope to name but four) must all contribute to the success of the marriage. That’s not to say that all Christians who marry will have successful marriages, and it is possible to have a successful marriage of course that is not founded on the Christian faith. But it seems to me that a marriage founded on faith will be stronger for it. And will be able to withstand the storms of life better.
27 years ago we attended the wedding of friends (who are still married). One of the hymns they sang at the wedding was the Boys Brigade hymn “Will you anchor hold in the storms of life”. I remember one or two people saying at the time it was an odd choice for a wedding hymn but actually I think it is very good
Will your anchor hold in the storms of life,
When the clouds unfold their wings of strife?
When the strong tides lift and the cables strain,
Will your anchor drift, or firm remain?
Refrain
We have an anchor that keeps the soul
Steadfast and sure while the billows roll,
Fastened to the Rock which cannot move,
Grounded firm and deep in the Saviour’s love.
Here’s to the next 25!
Thursday, 1 September 2011
Six degrees of separatoin
Six degrees of separation refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person on Earth, so that a chain of, "a friend of a friend" statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer. So for example, each of you reading this is connected in this way to Princess Diana. How?
Princess Diana met my uncle when he was working for the British Red Cross. I am related to my uncle and you have met me or at least read this. Therefore all of you are four steps from Princess Diana.
I mention this because the six degrees of separation idea means that we are often more closely connected to an event in the news than we might think.
I am sure that you like me were shocked by the recent riots. As you’ll remember the riots started in Tottenham. You will remember those awful pictures of the Carpetright store being burnt to the ground. Just around the corner from that shop stands St Marks Methodist Church. The minister of the church Revd Dr Valentin Dedji was very active in the community before the riots and since the rots he has been trying to bring some of Jesus’ peace and healing to bear.
We in this part of Swindon are now connected to St Mark’s. Of course on one level we are connected because it is a fellow Methodist Church and in Methodism we think of the Connexion. That is the links between all Methodist churches in the UK. But our link with St Marks is more than just through the Connexion. It is personal as well.
About 6 weeks ago a couple came to St Andrews on a Sunday morning. As it happened I was taking the service and I spoke to them afterwards. I found out that they were from London and I saw afterwards they were chatting to a couple of people from church.
But it was only after the riots that I found out that the church people the visitors had been talking to had remembered the visitos were from Tottenham. So Jean (from church - not her real name) wrote to them care of the church and soon received an email back.
We are all familiar with the story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus told this story having been asked by a lawyer who he (as a devote Jew) should regard as a neighbour. And the punch line was that to followers of Jesus all people are neighbours.
The world we live in today, a world of mass communication and frequent foreign travel, means that the question “Who is my neighbour?” takes on a whole new meaning. Now we are neighbours with people in Tottenham, we are neighbours with people in Salford, we are neighbours with people in Somalia. Regardless of six degrees of separation.
Princess Diana met my uncle when he was working for the British Red Cross. I am related to my uncle and you have met me or at least read this. Therefore all of you are four steps from Princess Diana.
I mention this because the six degrees of separation idea means that we are often more closely connected to an event in the news than we might think.
I am sure that you like me were shocked by the recent riots. As you’ll remember the riots started in Tottenham. You will remember those awful pictures of the Carpetright store being burnt to the ground. Just around the corner from that shop stands St Marks Methodist Church. The minister of the church Revd Dr Valentin Dedji was very active in the community before the riots and since the rots he has been trying to bring some of Jesus’ peace and healing to bear.
We in this part of Swindon are now connected to St Mark’s. Of course on one level we are connected because it is a fellow Methodist Church and in Methodism we think of the Connexion. That is the links between all Methodist churches in the UK. But our link with St Marks is more than just through the Connexion. It is personal as well.
About 6 weeks ago a couple came to St Andrews on a Sunday morning. As it happened I was taking the service and I spoke to them afterwards. I found out that they were from London and I saw afterwards they were chatting to a couple of people from church.
But it was only after the riots that I found out that the church people the visitors had been talking to had remembered the visitos were from Tottenham. So Jean (from church - not her real name) wrote to them care of the church and soon received an email back.
We are all familiar with the story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus told this story having been asked by a lawyer who he (as a devote Jew) should regard as a neighbour. And the punch line was that to followers of Jesus all people are neighbours.
The world we live in today, a world of mass communication and frequent foreign travel, means that the question “Who is my neighbour?” takes on a whole new meaning. Now we are neighbours with people in Tottenham, we are neighbours with people in Salford, we are neighbours with people in Somalia. Regardless of six degrees of separation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)