A new commandment

Today is Maundy Thursday a day in which Christians remember Jesus sharing the Last Supper with his friends on the night before he died on the cross on Good Friday. The word “Maundy” is derived from the first words of a traditional Latin anthem “Mandatum novum do vobis” or in English “A new commandment I give to you”. These words come from John’s Gospel where Jesus is recorded as saying at the Last Supper:

‘A new command I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.’
John 13: 34 – 35

John records Jesus saying these words after Jesus has knelt at the feet of the disciples and washed their feet. This is an act they clearly are embarrassed about. A servant would kneel before someone and wash their feet. But now the disciples find their Rabbi, their Master, carrying out this menial task.

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. ‘Do you understand what I have done for you?’ he asked them. ‘You call me “Teacher” and “Lord”, and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
John 13: 12 – 16

The command by Jesus that his followers should love one another and the requirement that his followers should have a heart for servant ministry, are very challenging. And if we are being honest most Christians would acknowledge that we fall short of obeying the command all the time and certainly fall short of having a heart for being a servant.

Over the last week or so David Cameron has talked on a couple of occasions about his Christian faith. Alistair Campbell, the arch spin doctor for Tony Blair’s government once said that “We don’t do God” when the press asked if they could talk to Tony Blair about his faith. For the first 3 years or so of his time as Prime Minister David Cameron also chose not to do God either. However, this seems to have changed.

I feel it is refreshing that such a public figure is wiling to talk about their faith in public. And clearly from the various reports in the press David Cameron drew comfort from the church before and after the death of his young son.

In an article in the Church Times of 17th April David Cameron explores what he means by being a Christian and how he feels this country is a Christian country.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/17-april/comment/opinion/my-faith-in-the-church-of-england

I have to say that my reading of the article is more about why David Cameron is a member of the Church of England than why he is a Christian. And the two don’t necessarily go together. Just as being a Methodist doesn’t mean you are necessarily a Christian.
In the Church Times article David Cameron says that the key Christian values are:

“responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, and love”

I find this definition interesting. I certainly recognise the last four as being marks of being a follower of Jesus. And I suppose “responsibility” is part of this. After all if we are to conider who our neighbours are. Again as Jesus commanded, then we need to have responsibility to them. But the “hard work” has more to do with church doctrine (“the Protestant work ethic”) than Christ’s teachings.

That said, a Tory of an earlier age, who was also a member of the Church of England did once say that as Christians we should:

“Earn all you can, give all you can, save all you can” John Wesley.

I suspect Mr. Cameron (like Margaret Thatcher before him) would relate to that. But the quote is taken from John Wesley’s sermon “The right use of money”. And in the sermon Wesley clearly makes the point that money must be earned legitimately and not exploitatively. And that money should be used for the good of all. It’s not as simple as earning wedge of cash and doing what you like with it.

“Do you not know that God entrusted you with that money (all above what buys necessities for your families) to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to help the stranger, the widow, the fatherless; and, indeed, as far as it will go, to relieve the wants of all mankind? How can you, how dare you, defraud the Lord, by applying it to any other purpose?”
― John Wesley

That self same Church of England priest also once said:

“Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can.”

I am genuinely pleased that Mr. Cameron wishes to talk about his faith. And I am pleased that he is talking about faith during Holy Week.

But please Mr. Cameron, can I urge you to get a complete copy of the Bible. I’ll happily send you one if you like. The Authorised Tory version seems to miss out crucial parts relating to the rich and the poor.

The following is an abridged version of a sermon preached on Palm Sunday 2014. It draws on Borg & Crossan's book "The last week"

One spring day in the year 30 – or there abouts – two processions entered the city of Jerusalem. It was the beginning of the week of Passover, the most sacred week in the Jewish year.

One procession was made up of peasants and the other was a Roman imperial procession. From the east the procession was led by a Galilean called Jesus who rode a donkey down the Mount of Olives. He was cheered on by his followers who waved palm branches and laid their cloaks on the road way.

From the west, on the opposite side of the city, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the territory that included Idumea, Judea and Samaria, enetered at the head of a column of imperial cavalry and soldiers.

So begins the opening chapter of an excellent book of the American theologians Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan called “The Last Week” .

The book is a commentary on the Bible passages covering Holy Week but it is also gives a lot of the history and culture of the time to put the Bible passages into context.

Now you may think the bit about the Imperial processions entering Jerusalem is made up. Well it is made up in the sense that we have no way of knowing whether Jesus’ procession and Pilate’s procession arrived in the city at the same time. That is a bit of dramatic licence by the writers. However, historically they are accurate in saying that the Romans would have enetered Jerusalem in this way.

As I’ve already said, Passover week was hugely significant for Jewish people. And consequently Jerusalem – their Holy City – became packed. It is estimated that at the time of Jesus Jerusalem probably had a population of around 40,000. During Passover perhaps another 200,000 pilgrims would come to the city. With this many people the Romans would take no chances of rebellion springing up. Therefore, the Roman garrison in Jerusalem – Fort Antonia overlooking the temple complex - would be reinforced for the duration of Passover. Hence the procession.

The procession on the eastern side of the city was very different of course. Headed as it was by someone riding a donkey and without any troops.

The king riding the donkey will be a king of peace.

Pilate’s procession embodied the power, the glory and the violence of the Roman Empire. Jesus’ procession embodied and alternative vision – the kingdom of God. This contrast between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Caesar is central to the story of the Jesus and early Christianity. And, as we’ll see later, is central today as well.

It is worth remembering that Jerusalem wasn’t just any city. It symbolised so much.

At its heart was the temple. Originally founded by King David and his son Solomon. The temple was regarded as God’s dwelling place on earth. And whilst Jews believed God was everywhere, God was especially present in the temple. To be in the temple was to be in God’s presence.

But if the temple represented God and also his forgiveness – for people went there to be forgiven by God – it also had come to represent, by the time of Jesus, something else. The temple represented what could be called “the domination system”. For the political classes in Jewish society were associated with the temple and what it represented

Political oppression – a powerful and wealthy elite ruled the land and were closely linked to the temple

Economic exploitation – a high percentage of the society’s wealth coming mainly from taxes and tithes of peasant farmers – went to the temple and those associated with it

And this was all under pinned by the religious leaders and laws they had made. In other words it represented Religious Oppression.

In entering Jerusalem Jesus is on a collision course with the authorities – the Roman authorities, the Jewish authorities.

Matthew tells us

10 When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, ‘Who is this?’ Matthew 21:10

Some translations render this as “the whole city was in turmoil” but Matthew used the Greek word “Seio” literally “to shake to and fro”. It’s the root of our word “Seismic”. And that’s how we need to think of this. Jesus’ procession was shaking things up. What Jesus was talking about was threatening to shake up the authorities. What Jesus was doing was seismic.

It is seismic because Jesus is proclaiming God’s kingdom. A kingdom of justice and joy and peace. God’s Kingdom now and hereafter.

Jesus knows of course that by the end of the week he will be arrested and will be crucified. His followers will see this as a failure. We, with 2,000 years of hindsight know that it was anything but for Jesus in dying conquered death for us and gave us salvation from our sins. Those are hallmarks of the Kingdom of God.

But we have still failed to grasp what the Kingdom of God can be like in the here and now - a place of justice. A place of peace and a place of joy.

Jesus’ challenge to his followers was then and is now is to bring in that Kingdom. But what do we see? We still see the domination systems that applied in Jerusalem applying today.

All around the world the domination systems that promote Political Oppression and Economic Exploitation and Religious Oppression hold sway. And sadly at times God’s people have colluded with that. For many hundreds of years parts of the body of Christ, the Church, have operated domination systems through church taxes, through inequality and so on. But this is not the way of Christ.
Lest we be too critical of the powers in Jerusalem, ask yourself this question: What city even today would not be shaken by Jesus' entry into it?

Imagine Jesus entering London or Moscow or Washington or Beijing. I'm sure we'd welcome him with our hosannas - at first, anyway. We'd line the streets and strike up the band and have a grand parade right down Main Street. But I'm equally sure that, by the end of the week, we'd have him nailed to a cross, too. Why? Because the Kingdom Jesus came to establish still threatens the kingdoms of this world - your kingdom and mine - the kingdoms where greed, power, and lust rule instead of grace, mercy, and peace.

And if truth be told who among us really wants to surrender our lives to that Kingdom and that King?

How do you solve a problem like Maria?

Dennis Skinner made the quip in the House of Commons the other day (referring to Maria Miller) “How do we solve a problem like Maria?” Today she solved it herself (in part anyway) by resigning from the cabinet.

I’m not going over the background to the story here. There has been enough coverage about it for the last week. I just wish to make some observations.

Who guards the guards?

I was the first boy in my school to fail “O” level Latin. (Not quite as dramatic as it seems. We were the first year to sit it and there were only two boys in the class.) So my grasp of Latin is limited. But I do remember the quotation Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Which is usually translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?" Also sometimes rendered as "Who watches the watchmen?"

In modern usage, it is frequently associated with the problem of political corruption. And the Maria Miller case is a case in point. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for standards found that she had over claimed her expenses by £45,000 and ordered her to repay it all. However, a committee of MPs rejected the independent findings and instead ordered her to repay a much smaller amount and issue and apology. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It’s no good MPs claiming that they are ultimately held to account every five years by the electorate. They need a body to see oversee standards all the time. MPs claim to be professionals but unlike lawyers, doctors and nurses (for example) they do not have an independent professional body to discipline them.

The press can claim some credit for holding MPs to account. So there is some risk that any changes to press freedom could stop the press' ability to challenge. That said, the press cannot criticise MPs policing themselves when that is what the press wants to do to itself.

Expenses

I don’t know of any other job that allows employees to claim expenses like MPs. Yes apparently things have tightened up since the days of Duck Houses and moat cleaning. But to be allowed to claim mortgage payments on a home beggars belief. Other people have to pay their mortgages out of their own pocket. Their employers don’t pay the mortgage for them!

Yes, MPs are in the odd position of needing to have a base in London and a base in (or near) their constituencies. But it would be easy enough to solve the London problem. Each MP would be offered a standard flat to stay in during the time they are in London. And they then buy – from their own pocket - a house in the constituency.

It’s not difficult.

Prosecution

In the job I had immediately before becoming a Methodist minister, I managed a benefit fraud investigation team. A frequent defence of those caught wrongly claiming benefit was “it was a mistake. I’ll pay it back and I won’t do it again”. This didn’t wash with us. We always prosecuted or, for smaller amounts (usually less than £750) they’d either be formally cautioned by the police or made to pay the money back under what was termed an Administrative Penalty. In other words all the money had to be repaid with interest.

Clearly, MPs were satisfied with the “It was a mistake and I’ll pay it back” defence of Maria Miller. None of us know whether there are enough grounds to prosecute Maria Miller. But if there is evidence then it should be tested in the courts. Why should an MP be held to a different standard to a benefit fraudster?

Greed

Like so many of the MPs expenses stories over the last few years, it appears to me that this episode boils down purely to greed. And it is greed and the love of money that is making our society become rotten to the core. Some may question my qualification “become”. I do not think all of society is rotten. But greed – whether the person fiddling their benefit claim, or their taxes or their expenses – seems to cause so much unrest.

We are just about to enter Holy Week. A time of year when Christians recall the last week of Jesus’ earthly life prior to the crucifixion.

I’ve just finished reading an excellent book by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan “The last week – what the Gospels really teach about Jesus’ final days in Jerusalem”. And one of the points they make is that Jesus enetered Jerusalem on a collision course with the Roman and Jewish Temple authorities. His whole ministry was based upon challenging injustice and proclaiming the Kingdom of God. (During the last week Jesus made an attack on the corrupt practices operating in the Temple via the money changers for example.)

The authorities did not like Jesus’ message and had Jesus executed. That is the theme of the book. (I would argue there is more to it than that. But nevertheless that is part of it.)

2,000 years on it is right that the message of justice is still preached and that those of us with a conscience (whether formed by Christian belief or other beliefs) should challenge injustice. From the top to the bottom of society.