Christmas Eve 2011
I suppose most of us give little thought to angels for most of the year. It is only at Christmas with carols such as Hark the herald angels sing and with images on Christmas cards etc. that we think about angels. And for most of us any thought we give to angels is brief. But for some people angels are really important.
A few weeks ago I was on a course looking at how to get people of the baby boomer generation interested in church once again. The baby boomer generation is seen as those people born between 1946 and 1964. For the most part these people attended Sunday School as children and in surveys express themselves as spiritual people. But they do not attend church and the conference was looking at ways of addressing this.
As I say, surveys find that Baby Boomers are spiritual people but they don’t always look to the church for answers. Very often they are looking to so called “new age” religions.
We were shown a film about this and clearly some people feel angels are real and present part of their lives. In one film clip a woman had gone to an “Angel reader” who apparently has the ability to put people in touch with their guardian angel!
The word angels simply means “messenger” coming from the Greek “angelos”. So given this why would people want to focus on the messenger rather than on the message?
Angels have always lain at the edge of Christian faith and not at its centre. And therefore it seems odd that the writer of Hebrews spends so much time writing about angels in the first chapter of his letter. Was the writer himself interested in them? Or was it more the case that some of his readers were interested in angels and he felt the need to address the issue? Was it the case that for some of the writer’s readers, angels had moved from the edge of the Christian faith to the centre and he felt he needed to talk about this?
The answer is we do not know why he wrote in this way. We do not know how important angels were to the people in the early church. We do not know whether they worshipped them or not. We do not know whether in the early church Christians believed in angels and tried to appease them in some way.
That said, for Jewish people – and remember of course this letter is written to the Hebrews – angels did have a part to play.
For Jewish people angels were the beings who brought God’s word and the working of God’s will in the universe to men. And Jews believed a whole lot of things about angels. Angels were said to be made of some ethereal fiery substance like blazing light. Angels were said to be immortal though God could annihilate them. They did not eat or drink and they did not have children.
The cherubim, seraphim and ofanim were always around the throne of God.
They were thought to have more knowledge than men, especially of the future. But only because they were part of God’s entourage.
There were millions and millions of angels. But it was not until quite late in time that Jews assigned names to some angels. And the angles who were named were the arch angels the principle ones being Raphael, Uriel, Phanuel, Gabriel – the angel who brought God’s message to Mary – and Michael the angel who presided over the destinies of Israel.
In the Jewish faith angels had many duties; They brought God’s messages to men. They intervened for God in the events of history. Two hundred angels controlled the movements of the stars. Another angel controlled the never-ending succession of years, months and days. There was an angle in control of the sea. Another angel for frost, the dew, the rain, the snow, the hail, the thunder and lightening. Every nation had a guardian angel. Even little children had their own angels. IN fact according to the Rabbis there were so many angels that “Every blade of grass has its angels.”
At the time of Jesus, and the time of the writer to the Hebrews, Jews were more and more concerned with what is called the transcendence of God. That is that God is completely outside of and beyond the world. As contrasted with the notion that God is manifested in the world God is present in the world in other words. Jews felt more and more the distance and difference between God and people. Consequently Jewish people thought of as angels as intermediaries between God and people.
The writer to the Hebrews is telling his readers this has changed. In Jesus God is manifest. God is here! There is no gap. God is Jesus and Jesus is God. The writer is saying why put your faith in angels and ask them to be go betweens between you and God when Jesus us God and Jesus is here!
Given this you’d think wouldn’t you that today people would have no need for belief in angels? But they do. It’s no coincidence I feel that in 2005 Robbie Williams’ song angels was chosen as the most popular song to have at a funeral.
Why this obsession with angels?
I can only assume that for people in this day and age who are obsessed with angels it is because they do not understand or do not know that in Jesus we now have the means of bridging that gap between earth and God. IN Jesus, God is present in the world. We don’t need angels to be in touch with God for we have Jesus. And yet many people think we do. And whilst Robbie Williams’ song may be regarded as only a nice song – I must admit I like it – the words of the song perpetuate the false ideas people have about angels.
I sit and wait
Does an angel contemplate my fate
And do they know
The places where we go
When we're grey and old
'Cause I have been told
That salvation lets their wings unfold
Our fate is not determined by angels. Our fate is determined by the baby in the manger. Salvation comes through Jesus. Not through angels.
Once we grasp the importance of this relationship we have with Jesus, our brother, and once you come to the realization that through Jesus we are part of God’s family we are his own children, angels are nothing!
The author of the book of Hebrews says that Jesus is the mirror image of God.Let me read the exact words from the first chapter of Hebrews, the third verse:
"He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word."
That's pretty strong stuff to be said about a baby born in a stable. About a humble carpenter from Nazareth! It goes to prove you can't judge where a person will end up by where he or she began.
When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, it was not to affluent parents. He received no special education, though my guess is that Mary and Joseph were the most conscientious of parents. And yet He grew up to change the entire relationship between God and humanity. As the writers of the New Testament looked back on the effect Jesus had on everyone who met him, as they reflected on the nature of his resurrection and ascension, they knew that this was no ordinary man.
Who was Jesus? He was the very Son of God. Or in the words of the writer of Hebrews, "He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being....
That is something that angels aren’t. They are merely messengers. Jesus is God. If you have seen the Son you have seen the Father.
As John puts it in the prologue to his Gospel:
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Our as Robbie might have put it “I’m loving Jesus instead”!
Monday, 26 December 2011
Saturday, 3 December 2011
A dream of Christmas
One of the less well known Christmas pop songs is called “I believe in Father Christmas” by Greg Lake. It reached number 2 in the charts in December 1975 but because the lyrics seem quite bleak, it has not achieved the recognition of some other Christmas pop songs.
It is a song about an adult looking back at Christmas and remembering how as a child he was told that Christmas would be perfect. There would be snow and Father Christmas would come. So Christmas seemed like a magical time. But then the reality hits. On Christmas Day it rains and as a child he began to realise that Christmas wasn’t as magical as he’d been told.
“And I believed in Father Christmas
And I looked to the sky with excited eyes
'Till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn
And I saw him and through his disguise”
Something that marks this song out from many Christmas pop songs is that it mentions the real Christmas story. It is debateable whether or not Greg Lake is being anti-religious. (In interviews he has said he wasn’t.)
“They sold me a dream of Christmas
They sold me a Silent Night
And they told me a fairy story
'Till I believed in the Israelite”
He claims that he was protesting more at the way Christmas is commercialised and the way everything – even the birth of Jesus – is sold like a product.
All of us know that very often the true Christmas story gets lost in the commercialisation of Christmas. But even if it is heard, very often people just have a romanticised image of the “little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay”. But we are not worshipping a cute baby. We are celebrating the birth of God’s own son who came bringing salvation to us all.
Hail the heav’nly Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings,
Ris’n with healing in His wings.
Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them second birth.
Amen to that.
It is a song about an adult looking back at Christmas and remembering how as a child he was told that Christmas would be perfect. There would be snow and Father Christmas would come. So Christmas seemed like a magical time. But then the reality hits. On Christmas Day it rains and as a child he began to realise that Christmas wasn’t as magical as he’d been told.
“And I believed in Father Christmas
And I looked to the sky with excited eyes
'Till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn
And I saw him and through his disguise”
Something that marks this song out from many Christmas pop songs is that it mentions the real Christmas story. It is debateable whether or not Greg Lake is being anti-religious. (In interviews he has said he wasn’t.)
“They sold me a dream of Christmas
They sold me a Silent Night
And they told me a fairy story
'Till I believed in the Israelite”
He claims that he was protesting more at the way Christmas is commercialised and the way everything – even the birth of Jesus – is sold like a product.
All of us know that very often the true Christmas story gets lost in the commercialisation of Christmas. But even if it is heard, very often people just have a romanticised image of the “little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay”. But we are not worshipping a cute baby. We are celebrating the birth of God’s own son who came bringing salvation to us all.
Hail the heav’nly Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings,
Ris’n with healing in His wings.
Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them second birth.
Amen to that.
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Passing on the mantle
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!
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, 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.
Sunday, 14 August 2011
Britain's Holy Trinity - profit, speculation and consumption?
Drawing on 1 Kings 12: 10 – 16, Proverbs 1: 8 – 19, Matthew 12: 22 – 30
The passage from 1 Kings needs a brief explanation. Following the death of King Solomon, Rehoboam succeeded Solomon as King. Rehoboam was taking over a united kingdom that had existed under Saul, David and Solomon. It was united in the sense that all the 12 tribes of Israel had accepted Saul, David and Solomon as their king. But things were now about to change.
On his succession to the throne, Rehoboam called a meeting of the tribes in order for them to give their approval to his reign.
1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all the Israelites had gone there to make him king.
No doubt Rehoboam thought this was pretty much a formality. But things were about to take a dramatic change. Enter Jeroboam.
Jeroboam was the son of Nebat a member of the Tribe of Ephraim. While still young, Jeroboam was promoted by Solomon to be chief superintendent of the "burnden", i.e. the bands of forced labourers.
Influenced by the words of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29-39), Jeroboam began to form conspiracies with the view of becoming king of the ten tribes; but these were discovered, and he fled to Egypt, where he remained under the protection of Shoshenq I until the death of Solomon.
It would seem that the tribes appointed Jeroboam as some kind of negotiator (or at least he took the role on himself.) For we get the impression that he went to speak to Rehoboam.
4 “Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labour and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you.”
It’s pretty clear what this means. Under Solomon the tribes felt they had been harshly treated. So they were now saying that if Rehoboam rules more fairly and justly, then they would remain loyal to him.
Rehoboam decides he needs to discuss this with his advisors. Firstly he consults the senior statesmen as it were. A bit like I suppose the Queen speaking to Winston Churchill when she first came to the throne.
6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.
7 They replied, “If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favourable answer, they will always be your servants.”
It seems like sound advice. However, Rehoboam wasn’t too impressed with the answer he was given so instead he decided he’d ask someone else. And so he spoke to the young men he had grown up with. And they gave him the answer he wanted to hear:
10 The young men who had grown up with him replied, “Tell these people who have said to you, ‘Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter’—tell them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist. 11 My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.’”
And sure enough, three days later when Jeroboam came back to meet him Rehoboam said exactly that.
Unsurprisingly the tribes were not impressed by what Rehoboam said and this led to the kingdom being split. With the kingdom of Judah in the south and the kingdom of Israel in the north. Originally only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the House of David (Rehoboam) but soon after the tribe of Benjamin joined. In essence the northern tribes felt shut out of Rehoboam’s plans for government and although Rehoboam tried to join the two kingdoms together the northern tribes felt rebuffed by him. Particularly his harsh threats
15 So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfil the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.
The king did not listen to his people leading to unrest, disruption and the country fracturing.
The two kingdoms, Judah in the south and Israel in the north, co-existed uneasily after the split, until the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in c.722/721 left Judah as the sole remaining kingdom. And after that point only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are accounted for in history. The other 10 disappear from Biblical and all other historical accounts after the kingdom was destroyed in about 720 BC by ancient Assyria.
What is it with rulers and politicians that they don’t do listening? They always know best. They listen to those who tell them what they want to hear not to those who tell the uncomfortable truths.
In the light of the recent riots it would be very easy for me to draw the analogy between Rehoboam and David Cameron or Nick Clegg or Michael Gove or Teresa May. But I’m not going to do that. And in fact as much as I am no admirer of them, I suspect that Ed Milliband, Harriet Harmon or Ed Balls would be exactly the same if needs be. Listening to their advisers rather than the people or the wisest people in society. The elders of you like.
No doubt in a few months there will be a public enquiry set up to look into the recent riots. Just like the Scarman inquiry was set up to look into the causes of the Brixton riots in 1981. In 1981 the Scarman inquiry found that: the riots then were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents. Lord Scarman stated that "complex political, social and economic factors" created a "disposition towards violent protest". The Scarman report highlighted problems of racial disadvantage and inner-city decline, warning that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".
In essence the Scarman report found that the Brixton riots were the result of a backlash against the police. This time it seems that there is no so much of a racial element and not so much of s resentment towards the police. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised that a 2011 report would also find "complex political, social and economic factors”.
We can all put forward views about the cause of the riots – ill-discipline in the home or in the school or both; yobbish behaviour; pure criminality. I am sure all these contributed. But for what it is worth my feeling is that what we are seeing with the riots is evidence of the moral breakdown in our society.
Again, it would be easy for me to have a go at this government. But that would be wrong. Because the moral breakdown has been going on for decades. In fact I suppose we could say it has been going on since the time of Adam and Eve. But perhaps things have got worse in recent years. Some might say the swinging 60s were the start of it. Some might blame Thatcher’s Britain. There’s a good case for saying that despite Tony Blair saying his government would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they weren’t.
I don’t know where we could start. One thing I do believe though is that the moral decay is not just limited to housing estates in Tottenham or here in Swindon for that matter. It is rife throughout our society.
On Wednesday morning (10th August 2011) on the Today programme, a French journalist called Agnes Poirer was interviewed about what the French papers were saying. She was reminded that after all the French know something about rioting. She agreed. But said that French riots can generally be pinpointed as relating to something specific e.g. the Paris riots in 2005 were directed against the police following the death of a teenager.
But she said she felt the English riots of 2011 were motivated not so much as challenging the government or the police, but rather they were fuelled by envy and greed. I was so challenged by what she what saying that I went back and used the listen again feature on the internet.
“Looting is not a sign of protest. Looting is a sign of disgruntled consumers. It is a sign of consumption.”
“London is the epitome of inequality in the Western world. The gap between the richest and poorest in London is the widest of any place in the Western world.”
She went on to make the point that given this it is not surprising that riots turn to looting with people taking goods that in many cases they could not otherwise afford.
Then, this next quote was the one that really got me thinking. She said:
“Profit, speculation and consumption are Britain’s Holy Trinity.”
She made the point that wealth and acquiring wealth and possessions is at the heart of our society. And this is wrong. Whilst acknowledging that French society has its problems too “Money is not at the heart of French society.”
Agnes Poirer writes for The Guardian amongst others. So her thoughts might be regarded as a bit left wing. Imagine my surprise therefore to find in the Daily Telegraph on Friday an article saying a very similar thing. An article in which Peter Oborne, a confirmed right winger makes the point that:
“ … there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.
I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.
It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington.”
And he goes on to criticise not only politicians but businessmen such as Sir Philip Green and Sir Richard Branson who on the one hand are rewarded with knighthoods but at the same time move their companies off shore so as not to pay tax in the UK.
“Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.
“The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.”
Now one thing a preacher should never do is find a passage of scripture, or more precisely a verse from scripture, and use it to prove a point. I have to confess that I now going to break that rule, because I want to take a verse from the passage from Matthew 12:
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
Jesus was talking about overcoming sin specifically Satan. And showing that Satan is conquered because his kingdom has been divided and is fighting against itself because of Jesus conquering the power of sin.
Nevertheless, I do think this verse is really powerful
25 “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
For it shows us how the sin in our society – greed, excess wealth, avarice, corruption, is dividing our society and ruining it.
I feel that until we see the values of God’s Kingdom established, or at the very least people becoming reacquainted with those values as a starter, the unrest, the dissatisfaction, the cynicism in our society will continue to grow. Until we see people valuing God’s kingdom, people will continue to worship the Golden Calf of money and fame and future.
Anne Atkins on Thought for Day on Today Thursday 11th August referred to a series of letters The Times published 100 years ago all on the topic of “What’s wrong with the world?” One correspondent wrote in reply “Dear Sirs, I am. Yours faithfully G. K. Chesterton.”
Given Chesterton’s Catholic faith that is a very Christian reply. Because it is always easy to blame someone else. But the truth is we need to realise that all human beings are flawed to a greater or lesser degree and that includes you and me. And whilst I don’t see you lot looting the Co-Op after the service, all human beings have the potential for doing bad, evil sinful things.
But whilst all of us are the thing that is wrong with the world, those of us who believe in God can show that there is a better way.
I was greatly moved by the humility of Tariq Jahan the father of one of the men murdered in Birmingham during the riots there. The way Mr Jahan called for peace and in subsequent interviews has talked of how God’s love and the need for forgiveness, is a glimmer of light and hope in a dark world.
If each of us is what’s wrong with the world, then equally we can be the thing that is right with the world. People of faith have an important role in healing the damage to our society and to remind those in Parliament that there is another way. The way of the kingdom of God and all that means for all people including the rioter in Tottenham, the MP and the businessman. A way demonstrated by the people who came to sweep up perhaps?
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)
© David Gray 14th August 2011
The passage from 1 Kings needs a brief explanation. Following the death of King Solomon, Rehoboam succeeded Solomon as King. Rehoboam was taking over a united kingdom that had existed under Saul, David and Solomon. It was united in the sense that all the 12 tribes of Israel had accepted Saul, David and Solomon as their king. But things were now about to change.
On his succession to the throne, Rehoboam called a meeting of the tribes in order for them to give their approval to his reign.
1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all the Israelites had gone there to make him king.
No doubt Rehoboam thought this was pretty much a formality. But things were about to take a dramatic change. Enter Jeroboam.
Jeroboam was the son of Nebat a member of the Tribe of Ephraim. While still young, Jeroboam was promoted by Solomon to be chief superintendent of the "burnden", i.e. the bands of forced labourers.
Influenced by the words of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29-39), Jeroboam began to form conspiracies with the view of becoming king of the ten tribes; but these were discovered, and he fled to Egypt, where he remained under the protection of Shoshenq I until the death of Solomon.
It would seem that the tribes appointed Jeroboam as some kind of negotiator (or at least he took the role on himself.) For we get the impression that he went to speak to Rehoboam.
4 “Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labour and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you.”
It’s pretty clear what this means. Under Solomon the tribes felt they had been harshly treated. So they were now saying that if Rehoboam rules more fairly and justly, then they would remain loyal to him.
Rehoboam decides he needs to discuss this with his advisors. Firstly he consults the senior statesmen as it were. A bit like I suppose the Queen speaking to Winston Churchill when she first came to the throne.
6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.
7 They replied, “If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favourable answer, they will always be your servants.”
It seems like sound advice. However, Rehoboam wasn’t too impressed with the answer he was given so instead he decided he’d ask someone else. And so he spoke to the young men he had grown up with. And they gave him the answer he wanted to hear:
10 The young men who had grown up with him replied, “Tell these people who have said to you, ‘Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter’—tell them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist. 11 My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.’”
And sure enough, three days later when Jeroboam came back to meet him Rehoboam said exactly that.
Unsurprisingly the tribes were not impressed by what Rehoboam said and this led to the kingdom being split. With the kingdom of Judah in the south and the kingdom of Israel in the north. Originally only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the House of David (Rehoboam) but soon after the tribe of Benjamin joined. In essence the northern tribes felt shut out of Rehoboam’s plans for government and although Rehoboam tried to join the two kingdoms together the northern tribes felt rebuffed by him. Particularly his harsh threats
15 So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfil the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.
The king did not listen to his people leading to unrest, disruption and the country fracturing.
The two kingdoms, Judah in the south and Israel in the north, co-existed uneasily after the split, until the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in c.722/721 left Judah as the sole remaining kingdom. And after that point only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are accounted for in history. The other 10 disappear from Biblical and all other historical accounts after the kingdom was destroyed in about 720 BC by ancient Assyria.
What is it with rulers and politicians that they don’t do listening? They always know best. They listen to those who tell them what they want to hear not to those who tell the uncomfortable truths.
In the light of the recent riots it would be very easy for me to draw the analogy between Rehoboam and David Cameron or Nick Clegg or Michael Gove or Teresa May. But I’m not going to do that. And in fact as much as I am no admirer of them, I suspect that Ed Milliband, Harriet Harmon or Ed Balls would be exactly the same if needs be. Listening to their advisers rather than the people or the wisest people in society. The elders of you like.
No doubt in a few months there will be a public enquiry set up to look into the recent riots. Just like the Scarman inquiry was set up to look into the causes of the Brixton riots in 1981. In 1981 the Scarman inquiry found that: the riots then were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents. Lord Scarman stated that "complex political, social and economic factors" created a "disposition towards violent protest". The Scarman report highlighted problems of racial disadvantage and inner-city decline, warning that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".
In essence the Scarman report found that the Brixton riots were the result of a backlash against the police. This time it seems that there is no so much of a racial element and not so much of s resentment towards the police. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised that a 2011 report would also find "complex political, social and economic factors”.
We can all put forward views about the cause of the riots – ill-discipline in the home or in the school or both; yobbish behaviour; pure criminality. I am sure all these contributed. But for what it is worth my feeling is that what we are seeing with the riots is evidence of the moral breakdown in our society.
Again, it would be easy for me to have a go at this government. But that would be wrong. Because the moral breakdown has been going on for decades. In fact I suppose we could say it has been going on since the time of Adam and Eve. But perhaps things have got worse in recent years. Some might say the swinging 60s were the start of it. Some might blame Thatcher’s Britain. There’s a good case for saying that despite Tony Blair saying his government would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they weren’t.
I don’t know where we could start. One thing I do believe though is that the moral decay is not just limited to housing estates in Tottenham or here in Swindon for that matter. It is rife throughout our society.
On Wednesday morning (10th August 2011) on the Today programme, a French journalist called Agnes Poirer was interviewed about what the French papers were saying. She was reminded that after all the French know something about rioting. She agreed. But said that French riots can generally be pinpointed as relating to something specific e.g. the Paris riots in 2005 were directed against the police following the death of a teenager.
But she said she felt the English riots of 2011 were motivated not so much as challenging the government or the police, but rather they were fuelled by envy and greed. I was so challenged by what she what saying that I went back and used the listen again feature on the internet.
“Looting is not a sign of protest. Looting is a sign of disgruntled consumers. It is a sign of consumption.”
“London is the epitome of inequality in the Western world. The gap between the richest and poorest in London is the widest of any place in the Western world.”
She went on to make the point that given this it is not surprising that riots turn to looting with people taking goods that in many cases they could not otherwise afford.
Then, this next quote was the one that really got me thinking. She said:
“Profit, speculation and consumption are Britain’s Holy Trinity.”
She made the point that wealth and acquiring wealth and possessions is at the heart of our society. And this is wrong. Whilst acknowledging that French society has its problems too “Money is not at the heart of French society.”
Agnes Poirer writes for The Guardian amongst others. So her thoughts might be regarded as a bit left wing. Imagine my surprise therefore to find in the Daily Telegraph on Friday an article saying a very similar thing. An article in which Peter Oborne, a confirmed right winger makes the point that:
“ … there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.
I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.
It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington.”
And he goes on to criticise not only politicians but businessmen such as Sir Philip Green and Sir Richard Branson who on the one hand are rewarded with knighthoods but at the same time move their companies off shore so as not to pay tax in the UK.
“Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.
“The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.”
Now one thing a preacher should never do is find a passage of scripture, or more precisely a verse from scripture, and use it to prove a point. I have to confess that I now going to break that rule, because I want to take a verse from the passage from Matthew 12:
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
Jesus was talking about overcoming sin specifically Satan. And showing that Satan is conquered because his kingdom has been divided and is fighting against itself because of Jesus conquering the power of sin.
Nevertheless, I do think this verse is really powerful
25 “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
For it shows us how the sin in our society – greed, excess wealth, avarice, corruption, is dividing our society and ruining it.
I feel that until we see the values of God’s Kingdom established, or at the very least people becoming reacquainted with those values as a starter, the unrest, the dissatisfaction, the cynicism in our society will continue to grow. Until we see people valuing God’s kingdom, people will continue to worship the Golden Calf of money and fame and future.
Anne Atkins on Thought for Day on Today Thursday 11th August referred to a series of letters The Times published 100 years ago all on the topic of “What’s wrong with the world?” One correspondent wrote in reply “Dear Sirs, I am. Yours faithfully G. K. Chesterton.”
Given Chesterton’s Catholic faith that is a very Christian reply. Because it is always easy to blame someone else. But the truth is we need to realise that all human beings are flawed to a greater or lesser degree and that includes you and me. And whilst I don’t see you lot looting the Co-Op after the service, all human beings have the potential for doing bad, evil sinful things.
But whilst all of us are the thing that is wrong with the world, those of us who believe in God can show that there is a better way.
I was greatly moved by the humility of Tariq Jahan the father of one of the men murdered in Birmingham during the riots there. The way Mr Jahan called for peace and in subsequent interviews has talked of how God’s love and the need for forgiveness, is a glimmer of light and hope in a dark world.
If each of us is what’s wrong with the world, then equally we can be the thing that is right with the world. People of faith have an important role in healing the damage to our society and to remind those in Parliament that there is another way. The way of the kingdom of God and all that means for all people including the rioter in Tottenham, the MP and the businessman. A way demonstrated by the people who came to sweep up perhaps?
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)
© David Gray 14th August 2011
Monday, 8 August 2011
Riots
Like many people I suspect I've been watching the riots in London (and now in Birmingham and Bristol) with a lot of mixed feelings. The seemingly organised scale of the looting suggests this isn't just disaffected young people. But then again maybe disaffection is part of the cause. Time (and no doubt a costly public enquiry) will tell.
That said it is ironic that Nick Clegg a couple of weeks before the 2010 election predicted that a Tory government could bring rioting to our streets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo&feature=player_embedded
And who knows once the cuts really start to bite then there could be more unrest. But for now, my gut feel (for what it is worth) is that this is just criminals jumping on a band wagon.
As a police chaplain I naturally think of he officers caught up in all of this. The adrenalin rush is what some of them live for it has to be said. But after that will come the after effects. The coping with physical injuries and the mental traumas. So my thoughts and prayers are with them.
I've been thinking back to the 1981 riots and to the Broadwater Farm riots in Tottenham in 1985 (that saw PC Keith Blakelock murdered.)
This morning I recalled a Saturday afternoon in Newport in mid July 1981. Riots had been happening elsewhere in the country and even in Newport there was almost a sense of expectation that a riot might happen. People were talking about how Newport had been the centre of the Chartist Riots in 1839 and maybe now was the time for another riot.
The brass bad I was part of (Crosskeys Band) were playing in John Frost Square in the town centre. We'd been there from 9am and were playing through to 6pm as a sponsored fund raising exercise. Mid afternoon a gang of punks and skinheads started to hover round. We started to get twitchy. The youth band were playing at the time and parents of some of the younger kids (aged 10 or so) were looking worried. We started to play music from Bizet's L'Arlésienne suite. And suddenly the mood lifted.
Suddenly the punks and skinheads were dancing. To music from a 19th century French composer! Why?
L'Arlésienne suite contains a piece of music that ironically was in the charts at that time. The music used for the Can Can. And Bad Manners had a hit with a ska version at that time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoKcaanbh5E
We must have played it 4 or 5 times.
There weren't any riots in Newport. I don't think that was anything to do with Crosskeys Band. But I really remember how tense it felt and how the tension lifted due to Can Can.
In 1985 I was living in London. In Muswell Hill North London. About 5 or 6 miles from Tottenham. So other than rading about the riots in the Evenin Standard and seeing it on the news I knew nothing about them. But I remember one afternoon as I was walking along Muswell Hill Broadway, opposite the police station, everything went quiet. And next thing I knew the hearse carrying PC Blakelock's body was driven slowly past. Very moving.
I'm no lover of this government. And there is plenty to protest about. Unfair tax regime, cuts, student fees, NHS in danger, youth unemployment. Protest but not like this.
That said it is ironic that Nick Clegg a couple of weeks before the 2010 election predicted that a Tory government could bring rioting to our streets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo&feature=player_embedded
And who knows once the cuts really start to bite then there could be more unrest. But for now, my gut feel (for what it is worth) is that this is just criminals jumping on a band wagon.
As a police chaplain I naturally think of he officers caught up in all of this. The adrenalin rush is what some of them live for it has to be said. But after that will come the after effects. The coping with physical injuries and the mental traumas. So my thoughts and prayers are with them.
I've been thinking back to the 1981 riots and to the Broadwater Farm riots in Tottenham in 1985 (that saw PC Keith Blakelock murdered.)
This morning I recalled a Saturday afternoon in Newport in mid July 1981. Riots had been happening elsewhere in the country and even in Newport there was almost a sense of expectation that a riot might happen. People were talking about how Newport had been the centre of the Chartist Riots in 1839 and maybe now was the time for another riot.
The brass bad I was part of (Crosskeys Band) were playing in John Frost Square in the town centre. We'd been there from 9am and were playing through to 6pm as a sponsored fund raising exercise. Mid afternoon a gang of punks and skinheads started to hover round. We started to get twitchy. The youth band were playing at the time and parents of some of the younger kids (aged 10 or so) were looking worried. We started to play music from Bizet's L'Arlésienne suite. And suddenly the mood lifted.
Suddenly the punks and skinheads were dancing. To music from a 19th century French composer! Why?
L'Arlésienne suite contains a piece of music that ironically was in the charts at that time. The music used for the Can Can. And Bad Manners had a hit with a ska version at that time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoKcaanbh5E
We must have played it 4 or 5 times.
There weren't any riots in Newport. I don't think that was anything to do with Crosskeys Band. But I really remember how tense it felt and how the tension lifted due to Can Can.
In 1985 I was living in London. In Muswell Hill North London. About 5 or 6 miles from Tottenham. So other than rading about the riots in the Evenin Standard and seeing it on the news I knew nothing about them. But I remember one afternoon as I was walking along Muswell Hill Broadway, opposite the police station, everything went quiet. And next thing I knew the hearse carrying PC Blakelock's body was driven slowly past. Very moving.
I'm no lover of this government. And there is plenty to protest about. Unfair tax regime, cuts, student fees, NHS in danger, youth unemployment. Protest but not like this.
Monday, 27 June 2011
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
Levy Bellfield started a life imprisonment sentence on 23rd June after being convicted of the murder of Milly Dowler. Bellfield was already serving prison sentences for murdering other women. Clearly Bellfield is a violent and dangerous man described by the judge as a cruel and pitiless killer.
After the trial the Dowler family were said to want “an eye for an eye”. Milly’s sister Gemma said Bellfield should pay “the ultimate price” for the killing.
“You brutally murder someone, you should pay the ultimate price – a life for a life,’ she said. (Daily Express 25 June 2011.)
Given Milly’s murder and the way the Dowler family were subject to a harrowing cross examination by Belfield’s barrister, it is hardly surprising that they reacted in this way. And it is hardly surprising that tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Express and Daily Mail should latch on to that aspect of the story.
So should a murder conviction mean “a life for a life”?
In Matthew’s Gospel we find Jesus discussing the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Jesus is seeking to discuss what is laid out in Exodus 21:24 – 25. These two verses are part of a whole section of laws setting out the conduct of people in relation to disputes with slaves, the management and use of property and justice in respect of personal injury. And it is clear that this ancient Jewish law wishes to make clear what is fair. In other words, if Person A injures Person B and Person B loses his eye, then Person B can demand that Person A has an eye removed.
But Jesus’ teaching challenges this. For Jesus says that his followers are to react differently. We are to turn the right cheek; we are to go the extra mile. And we are to love our enemies. (Matthew 5: 38 – 48)
We are not to seek revenge but we are to love our enemies and try to be reconciled to them. It’s a huge challenge and it goes against human instincts. It also seems to go against our ideas of what is fair and just. But Jesus’ values are very different to ours. Jesus’ values are not about revenge but about love.
The Dowler family’s reaction is very natural. But is not the reaction of followers of Jesus.
As Ghandi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Welcome. Croeso. Bienvenue...
40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”
Matthew 10:40 – 42
This short passage from Matthew’s Gospel comes at the end of what is sometimes referred to as the Missionary Discourse. That is for most of chapter 10 of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus outlines what he expects of his disciples.
Firstly Jesus tells is followers that they are to share the Gospel
6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
Jesus then makes it clear to the disciples that they may expect a difficult time on occasion:
16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.
The disciples are called to behave courageously.
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
And they can expect a cost to their discipleship
38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
The finally we get to these 3 verses at the end of the Gospel in which Jesus tells the disciples how they should share the presence of Christ.
The disciples are authorised and empowered to be representatives of Jesus on earth. And to give added importance they are reminded that as Jesus is God incarnate then the disciples are representing God.
40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.
It should be noted that when we talk of disciples here, we are not just thinking of the original followers of Jesus. Matthew is writing his Gospel at least 40 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Possibly even longer.
Most scholars today think that the audience for Matthew’s Gospel would have been Jews who had “converted” to Christianity. And it is fair to say that they could be regarded as an early church. This is an important point to remember because when we come to consider this morning’s passage, it is not being written with just itinerant disciples in mind i.e. disciples who are travelling around preaching the Gospel. Matthew is writing to Christians who are gathered together but who still need to be reminded of the need to be disciples.
These are the “little children” Matthew quotes Jesus as speaking about. Little children is the term Matthew uses to refer to “ordinary” Christians.
So “little children” what is this passage saying to us to day?
Well to me it seems that this passage is clearly talking about the need for hospitality and the need to welcome in people as part of discipleship.
But why? Why do we need to welcome people as part of discipleship? Is it just so when I have to send in figures to the Methodist Church every October the numbers have gone up? Or is it merely to survive as an institution? Or to ensure we have enough finance? The answer is no to all three of those.
Robert Schnase in an excellent book called “Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations”[1] makes the point that fundamentally the church – the Body of Christ – exists to draw people to God through a relationship with Jesus Christ. And part of God’s plan for that to happen is for people to live in community with others. On one level such a community is a congregation and a congregation, an individual church, Schnase says, should be a school of love, a place where we are formed by God’s spirit and where we learn to give and receive love from friends, neighbours and strangers.
Robert Schnase says that such behaviour, showing such love, can be termed “Radical hospitality”.
I need to explain the phrase a bit a more. When we hear the word “hospitality” we can tend to think of offering people food or perhaps some where to stay. Certainly years ago when preachers and ministers would perhaps come from a way away then an offer of “hospitality” meant the spare bedroom at a steward’s house and Sunday lunch!
But hospitality is more than that. For it seems to me that greatest contribution any of us can make to the Body of Christ is inviting someone else to be part of the place where we find love or helping a newcomer feel so genuinely welcome that he or she receives what we have received.
So what is “radical hospitality”? Radical can mean “arising from the source” and in the context of hospitality it means practices that are rooted in Jesus who is the source of everything we do in his name. And these practises should radiate out into the lives of others. Radical also means “drastically different from ordinary practice, outside the normal.”
And Robert Schnase says churches that are characterised by Radical Hospitality are not just friendly and courteous, passively receiving visitors warmly. Instead they exhibit restlessness because they realise that so many people do not have a relationship with Jesus and are in desperate need of the love he brings.
We who are already part of the Body of Christ can forget what church offers to those in need. Love and fulfilment. And most importantly a place where we can encounter God’s love.
People need to know that God loves them. People need to know that their life is of supreme importance to God and that he values them all. People need to find peace in their lives. People need to know how to offer and accept forgiveness. And if a congregation is operating as God wants then it will be a school of love practising radical hospitality to all.
David Wiggs in his book “Who needs a welcome?” related this story.
I saw him in the church building for the first time on Wednesday. He was in his mid-70’s with thinning silver hair and a neat brown suit. Many times in the past I had invited him to come. Several other Christian friends had talked to him about the Lord and had tried to share the good news with him. He was well respected, honest, a man of good character. He acted much like a Christian would act, but he never came to church or professed Christ. After I got to know him well and we had talked about a wide range of subjects I asked him if he had ever been to a church service.
He hesitated. Then with a twisted grimace told me of an experience he had as a boy. He was raised in a large family. His parents survived the depression but they struggled to provide food and clothing for the family. When he was around ten years old a friend invited him to go to church with his family.
He went – the Sunday School class was great. The songs were fun to sing and the stories, oh the great Bible stories, were exciting to hear. He had never heard anyone read from the Bible before. As class ended the teacher pulled him aside and said, “Son, please don’t come again dressed as you are now. We want to look our best when we come into God’s house.”
He looked down at his old hand me down clothes that were certainly worn and tattered. He thought about that for a moment and said softly, “No ma’am I won’t ever.” Then he looked at me and said, “And you know what… I never did.” It was clear that he was done with that conversation.
David Wiggs goes on, I am sure that the Sunday School teacher meant well and in fact was representing the feeling of the majority of the folks in that church. But what if, what if she had put her arms around the dirty little boy in the ragged clothes and said, “Son, I am thrilled that you came this morning and I hope you will come every chance you get to hear more about Jesus because he loves you so much.” Moreover what if she would have talked with her pastor or her friends in the church and mobilized a full blown outreach effort to help this family make ends meet.
What if that church would have thought, “Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Or whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple will receive a great reward” (v. 40 & 42)
David Wiggs’ story ended like this:
I saw that man in the church house for the first time on Wednesday and I cried as I looked at the immaculately dressed old gentleman lying there in his casket. He was looking his best. But all I could think of were those words of an impressionable little ten-year-old boy echoing in my mind, “No ma’am I won’t ever.”
We may shudder when we hear that story. And we all like to think that we wouldn’t do something like that. We wouldn’t exclude someone. We wouldn’t send someone away from church. But it happens. And sometimes in subtle ways.
Very often church members care for each other so much, and their lives are so entwined with one another; that it can be difficult if not impossible for newcomers to break in. This very closeness that in many ways is the strength of a church can also be its biggest weakness. And those already inside and linked don’t realise what they are doing.
Practising radical hospitality means that we need to be aware of this. And means that we must be prepared to work towards helping others receive what Jesus Christ brings to each one of us already.
40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”
Hospitality is more than politeness to visitors and a warm welcome at the door – though it is those things as well. Radical hospitality is the practice of sharing Christ’s love with all we encounter and our opening up of our church community to receive others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)