26th June 2013
Just back from seeing the new Superman film "Man of Steel". It was alright but it went on a bit. However, I was struck by some of the Christian symbolism in it. I don't want to say too much in case you've not seen it and want to go. But it certainly has messages that would prove useful discussion starters for a youth group say.
I'm not claiming that this is my original thought. I heard a theology lecturer make the same point on BBC Radio 4 last week and a quick trawl on the net will find plenty of people saying the same thing for example http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-chock-full-of-christian-dog-whistles/
(Just a comment to the film makers. I'm pretty sure it is standard operating procedure for air dispatchers, in the back of large transport planes, to be fitted with a tethered safety line. If this had happened Lois Lane wouldn't have fallen out)
Today has been a bit quieter. I had a staff meeting with the various ministers at the church today. That was interesting and fun. I'm going to enjoy working with them over the next few weeks. Got into an interesting discussion with the Music Director and Worship Leader about contemporary worship music in Britain. I'm not a great authority but mentioned Stuart Townend (especially the most recent album "The Journey") Also St Graham of Kendrick and Lou Fellingham / Phatfish. (They had heard of Matt Redman.)
But the most important thing achieved today was the purchase of a big mug for my morning cuppa. There are only standard size mugs in the parsonage and a standard size mug of tea in the morning isn't good enough. I was trying to decide where I could find a pint sized mug when inspiration struck. I called into a service station of the kind used by truckers over here. From previous visits to the States I know that such places frequently sell very large insulated mugs for truckers. And I wasn't disappointed. So now I'm fully equipped in the breakfast stakes.
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
Take me out to the ball game
Tuesday 25th June
Slept a bit better last night. Awake at 4am and read for a while but did go back to sleep for an hour. Feeling much more with it today.
Struck by the warmth of welcome of so many people who have been dropping into the church to say hello. And their helpfulness. One chap spent a couple of hours sorting out the network at church to make sure I could log on with my lap top and connect to the network printer. (Yes “network” and “network printer” phrases I haven’t heard for about 7 years since leaving the work place.)
We were taken for lunch at a little café on Main Street. And Main Street could be straight out of an archetypal small town America movie. I half expected to see Spencer Tracey getting out of a 1950s Buick. It’s not surprising that it is used for films (and part of the area was sealed off today as filming was taking place.)
But what’s interesting about Main Street Mooresville is that it has reinvented itself. Many of the shops are now art galleries and cafes. It is somewhere to relax not to shop. (People shop in the various out of town shopping malls.)
Chatting over lunch I was struck by how there are so many similar issues facing churches on both sides of the pond. Mooresville is served by 4 United Methodist Churches each with its own pastor (and one assumes team of ministers.) But we were told how one church (in a very prominent position) is facing the possibility of closure as its members are refusing to consider change. Where have we heard this before? Those 6 words guaranteed to ensure a church is doomed to die “We’ve always done it this way”
And the assumption on the British side of the pond is that American churches get it right.
To finish today off Tom and I went to see Fairview UMC softball team play another church – The Cove (http://www.covechurch.org/) Fairview’s team was made up of young and old all shapes and sizes who wanted to play for fun. The Cove’s team talk it far more seriously.
Now if people sometimes say that baseball is rounders, softball really is rounders played with a bigger bat and ball. And a softball game lasts about as long as a game of rounders, in other words much shorter than a baseball game. Which is probably just as well for Fairview lost 20 – 0. It was a bit like The Bad News Bears http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074174/
A fun evening
Slept a bit better last night. Awake at 4am and read for a while but did go back to sleep for an hour. Feeling much more with it today.
Struck by the warmth of welcome of so many people who have been dropping into the church to say hello. And their helpfulness. One chap spent a couple of hours sorting out the network at church to make sure I could log on with my lap top and connect to the network printer. (Yes “network” and “network printer” phrases I haven’t heard for about 7 years since leaving the work place.)
We were taken for lunch at a little café on Main Street. And Main Street could be straight out of an archetypal small town America movie. I half expected to see Spencer Tracey getting out of a 1950s Buick. It’s not surprising that it is used for films (and part of the area was sealed off today as filming was taking place.)
But what’s interesting about Main Street Mooresville is that it has reinvented itself. Many of the shops are now art galleries and cafes. It is somewhere to relax not to shop. (People shop in the various out of town shopping malls.)
Chatting over lunch I was struck by how there are so many similar issues facing churches on both sides of the pond. Mooresville is served by 4 United Methodist Churches each with its own pastor (and one assumes team of ministers.) But we were told how one church (in a very prominent position) is facing the possibility of closure as its members are refusing to consider change. Where have we heard this before? Those 6 words guaranteed to ensure a church is doomed to die “We’ve always done it this way”
And the assumption on the British side of the pond is that American churches get it right.
To finish today off Tom and I went to see Fairview UMC softball team play another church – The Cove (http://www.covechurch.org/) Fairview’s team was made up of young and old all shapes and sizes who wanted to play for fun. The Cove’s team talk it far more seriously.
Now if people sometimes say that baseball is rounders, softball really is rounders played with a bigger bat and ball. And a softball game lasts about as long as a game of rounders, in other words much shorter than a baseball game. Which is probably just as well for Fairview lost 20 – 0. It was a bit like The Bad News Bears http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074174/
A fun evening
Monday, 24 June 2013
The Grays (well two of them) have landed
Sunday 23rd / Monday 24th June
We set out for the airport at 05.00 UK time. I’m not going to go through all the details of flights etc. as that would be boring though they were all on time which was a bonus.
The way our travel agent had found flights to suit Tom and I meant we went via Atlanta. A glance at a map will show you that Atlanta is several hundred miles south of Charlotte NC (our final destination airport.) So it was quite depressing to see on the plane’s flight tracker screen that we flew over Charlotte only to fly back to it later.
Atlanta is a major “hub” airport. To get from the international terminal to the relevant internal flight terminal means getting on an underground railway that connects the terminals. But despite its size it was very efficient. From getting off the plane, clearing Homeland security to collecting our bags took about 20 minutes. Clearing security is quite scary (or maybe I just have a guilty conscience!)
In the words of the stewardess on the plane “They don’t have a sense of humour so don’t make jokes” and she was right. The officer I dealt with was efficient in a Herr Flick kind of way. (Come to think of it he looked like Herr Flick – but I wasn’t going to point that out.) “Where are you going after Atlanta?" (Despite the customs card giving an address.) “When did you last visit the USA?” (Despite my passport showing a date stamp.) “What is the purpose of your visit?” “Are you working here?” (I truthfully answered ‘No’ as I don’t work!) I was starting to get twitchy. But then when he took my finger prints and a photograph I knew I was in.
Unlike say Heathrow, there are plenty of airport staff on hand to explain which terminal to go to next, how to check in bags once again and so on. All were friendly and courteous and everyone was African American. In fact many of the customer service staff in the airport shops, bars and cafes were African American. In the McDonalds we used (yes I know, but I promise that is the first and last time) all the staff (at least a dozen) were all African American.
In contrast, the vast majority of airline staff I saw (and I think the terminal we were in was exclusively for Delta airlines) were white whether pilots (queuing at McDonalds – so given the choice pilots refuse airline food too) or cabin crew or check in desk staff.
According to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/1304000.html in 2012 the population of Atlanta as estimated at 443,775. With 54% of these being “Black persons” (the term used by the US Census.)
I couldn’t help but feel that there is still a divide in society in Atlanta (at least in the airport) where the great majority of those in the service industry were black and the great majority of professionals were white.
Now this may not be a statistically valid sample and in fact may well be a distortion. But that is my perception. And this is my blog so there!
Thanks to jet lag having gone to bed at around 8pm I then woke at 4.30am. So today has been a bit fuzzy round the edges. But it was good to meet many of the staff at Fairview today and see the impressive set up. I’ll have plenty to interest me I’m sure.
Finally having pulled into a petrol station / come grocery store this afternoon for some supplies (beer if truth be told) I was surprised to see that the store operated a “Challenge 40” policy. In other words if they thought you were under 40 they’d ask for ID. The guy behind the cash desk said to me “Would you like me to ask you for some ID?” which was a polite way of saying “You look well past 40 pal.” But nevertheless I said “Yes please and produced my British photo ID driving licence. He was confused by the date format but eventually figured out I’m almost 50.
“So you guys are British right? Do you like Top Gear?”
We set out for the airport at 05.00 UK time. I’m not going to go through all the details of flights etc. as that would be boring though they were all on time which was a bonus.
The way our travel agent had found flights to suit Tom and I meant we went via Atlanta. A glance at a map will show you that Atlanta is several hundred miles south of Charlotte NC (our final destination airport.) So it was quite depressing to see on the plane’s flight tracker screen that we flew over Charlotte only to fly back to it later.
Atlanta is a major “hub” airport. To get from the international terminal to the relevant internal flight terminal means getting on an underground railway that connects the terminals. But despite its size it was very efficient. From getting off the plane, clearing Homeland security to collecting our bags took about 20 minutes. Clearing security is quite scary (or maybe I just have a guilty conscience!)
In the words of the stewardess on the plane “They don’t have a sense of humour so don’t make jokes” and she was right. The officer I dealt with was efficient in a Herr Flick kind of way. (Come to think of it he looked like Herr Flick – but I wasn’t going to point that out.) “Where are you going after Atlanta?" (Despite the customs card giving an address.) “When did you last visit the USA?” (Despite my passport showing a date stamp.) “What is the purpose of your visit?” “Are you working here?” (I truthfully answered ‘No’ as I don’t work!) I was starting to get twitchy. But then when he took my finger prints and a photograph I knew I was in.
Unlike say Heathrow, there are plenty of airport staff on hand to explain which terminal to go to next, how to check in bags once again and so on. All were friendly and courteous and everyone was African American. In fact many of the customer service staff in the airport shops, bars and cafes were African American. In the McDonalds we used (yes I know, but I promise that is the first and last time) all the staff (at least a dozen) were all African American.
In contrast, the vast majority of airline staff I saw (and I think the terminal we were in was exclusively for Delta airlines) were white whether pilots (queuing at McDonalds – so given the choice pilots refuse airline food too) or cabin crew or check in desk staff.
According to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/1304000.html in 2012 the population of Atlanta as estimated at 443,775. With 54% of these being “Black persons” (the term used by the US Census.)
I couldn’t help but feel that there is still a divide in society in Atlanta (at least in the airport) where the great majority of those in the service industry were black and the great majority of professionals were white.
Now this may not be a statistically valid sample and in fact may well be a distortion. But that is my perception. And this is my blog so there!
Thanks to jet lag having gone to bed at around 8pm I then woke at 4.30am. So today has been a bit fuzzy round the edges. But it was good to meet many of the staff at Fairview today and see the impressive set up. I’ll have plenty to interest me I’m sure.
Finally having pulled into a petrol station / come grocery store this afternoon for some supplies (beer if truth be told) I was surprised to see that the store operated a “Challenge 40” policy. In other words if they thought you were under 40 they’d ask for ID. The guy behind the cash desk said to me “Would you like me to ask you for some ID?” which was a polite way of saying “You look well past 40 pal.” But nevertheless I said “Yes please and produced my British photo ID driving licence. He was confused by the date format but eventually figured out I’m almost 50.
“So you guys are British right? Do you like Top Gear?”
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
God is still speaking - but are we listening?
If your church follows the Lectionary for its Bible readings on Sunday then you’ll have noticed that we currently have a series of readings from Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
We think that what prompted Paul to write to the churches in Galatia (part of modern day Turkey) was his concern that the Christians there were being taught the wrong things about Jesus.
Paul’s angry and passionate letter provide us with a glimpse of a controversy that surrounded the early church as it expanded into Gentile communities around the eastern Mediterranean. And at the heart of this controversy was a thorny question. Were these churches to be understood as branches on a tree that was Judaism, or were they to be understood as belonging to a new community neither Jewish or Pagan?
The question was crucial, for if these fledging churches were going to be thought of as Jewish sects, then they would be subject to Jewish values and practices. This meant following all the Jewish laws and for men the unkindest cut of all - circumcision.
Paul had founded the churches of Galatia during his missionary travels in Asia Minor sometime after the meeting in Jerusalem that he describes in Galatians 2: 1 – 10. And everything points to the members of the churches in Galatia being pagan converts. And these were healthy, thriving churches. Paul tells us in his letter about baptisms, about the Holy Spirit coming on the churches and all in all the churches seem to be running well. We don’t know how long Paul spent with them, but he must have had reason to believe that, when he left them, all would be well.
However, at the time Paul writes his letter, he has received word that his work is being undermined by Jewish – Christian missionaries who had arrived on the scene and were preaching a different gospel. And they were also persuading the Gentile Galatians that they needed to be circumcised.
Now it is worth remembering that these Missionaries were not Jews trying to persuade the Galatians to abandon their new faith. No, they were Jewish Christians who were arguing that for new converts to be followers of Jesus, they needed to take on what it means to be Jewish which includes circumcision. They arrived in Galatia and started to preach that Paul had got it wrong. Paul had not instructed the Galatians about God’s law.
On hearing what was happening, Paul penned his letter to dissuade the Galatian churches from accepting this message from the Missionaries.
The basic element of the Missionaries’ message is clear. They believed Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel and they saw themselves as summoning Gentiles in the name of Jesus, to come under the Law of Moses. In short, they represented a form of traditional Jewish teaching that called for observance of the Law. And they sought, in the name of Jesus, to extend the Good News about the Law of God to the Gentiles.
But in Paul’s eyes the Missionaries were betraying the Gospel of Jesus because it is God’s grace, which was shown through the death of Jesus on the cross that brings salvation. It is the cross not the law that is the basis of a relationship with God. And God’s grace is for all people.
In Galatians 3:28 Paul writes:
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Paul was sure that what he was preaching was the Gospel.
In Galatians 1:11 - 12 he says:
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Paul’s bold, almost boastful, claims of superiority and his assuredness that he was given the Gospel directly by Jesus Christ, is uncomfortable. Because we can be reminded of those strands of the Church today who seem so sure about everything. Who believe they are infallible. Who know their stand point to be true. You know the type. Attempts to discuss with them differences of theology and biblical interpretation and biblical and church authority, can often result in comments like:
“Hey, you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the Word of God.”
This is something that concerns me over the current debate over gay marriage.
I think it is worth noting that according to one article I read recently:
In the Bible there are 7 verses that talk about homosexuality. (Incidentally Jesus says nothing on the subject.) There are 12 against divorce. There are 2,350 verses about money. 300 verses about social justice and the poor. Shouldn’t we have more to say on those topics? But no we seem obsessed about homosexuality.
The United Church of Christ denomination in the USA is similar to the United Reformed Church in this country. The United Church of Christ has as its slogan “God is still speaking.” Apparently this is taken from something the comedienne Gracie Allen wrote to George Burns “Don’t put a full stop where God has put a comma. God is still speaking”
I really like that. “God is still speaking.” In other words, God is still leading us on to understand more of him and of his truth. In John’s Gospel Jesus says:
12 ‘I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, the Spirit will guide you into all the truth;
(John 16:12-13).
In other words, we don’t know the whole of the Gospel – the Good News. It is constantly being revealed to us and the Holy Spirit helps us to understand God’s further revelations. The Holy Spirit helps us hear God speak. For God is still speaking. So we should not assume that everything God said was in a book parts of which were written 4,000 years ago. In my view those Christians who think God stopped speaking 2,000 years ago, and by the way He spoke in the language of the King James Bible, are just plain wrong!
There are those in the Church today who are like the Missionaries Paul spoke out against. The Missionaries believed, when you boil it down, that Jesus merely came to add to the Jewish law. But this was the very thing Jesus did not do. In Matthew Jesus says:
Matthew 5:17
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
But there are some today in Church who hold on to the Law and forget about the Gospel. They forget what we are told in
John 1:17
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
And that grace and truth brings with it freedom. A point Paul goes on to make in chapter 5 of the letter to the Galatians. We are freed from the burden of obeying laws.
14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
We are freed from the burden of sin. We are freed through Christ Jesus. Through his love for us. Through his dying for us and rising for us.
There is a story about an ancient Persian king who had injured his ankle quite severely. None of his court physicians knew how to help him. A member of his court told him about a certain slave who was said to have a great insight into matters of the body.
The Persian king sent for the slave who was brought to him weighted down with chains and dressed in rags. However, the slave was indeed able to give him great assistance with his problem. The pain ceased and the ankle soon healed. The king was elated and justly grateful for the slave's help. He was so grateful that he sent the slave a gift - a new set of golden chains.
Some people shy away from Christianity because they are afraid that they may be trading in one set of chains for another. Some Christians can do that to people, but not Jesus Christ. Christ sets us free! And he is still speaking!
We think that what prompted Paul to write to the churches in Galatia (part of modern day Turkey) was his concern that the Christians there were being taught the wrong things about Jesus.
Paul’s angry and passionate letter provide us with a glimpse of a controversy that surrounded the early church as it expanded into Gentile communities around the eastern Mediterranean. And at the heart of this controversy was a thorny question. Were these churches to be understood as branches on a tree that was Judaism, or were they to be understood as belonging to a new community neither Jewish or Pagan?
The question was crucial, for if these fledging churches were going to be thought of as Jewish sects, then they would be subject to Jewish values and practices. This meant following all the Jewish laws and for men the unkindest cut of all - circumcision.
Paul had founded the churches of Galatia during his missionary travels in Asia Minor sometime after the meeting in Jerusalem that he describes in Galatians 2: 1 – 10. And everything points to the members of the churches in Galatia being pagan converts. And these were healthy, thriving churches. Paul tells us in his letter about baptisms, about the Holy Spirit coming on the churches and all in all the churches seem to be running well. We don’t know how long Paul spent with them, but he must have had reason to believe that, when he left them, all would be well.
However, at the time Paul writes his letter, he has received word that his work is being undermined by Jewish – Christian missionaries who had arrived on the scene and were preaching a different gospel. And they were also persuading the Gentile Galatians that they needed to be circumcised.
Now it is worth remembering that these Missionaries were not Jews trying to persuade the Galatians to abandon their new faith. No, they were Jewish Christians who were arguing that for new converts to be followers of Jesus, they needed to take on what it means to be Jewish which includes circumcision. They arrived in Galatia and started to preach that Paul had got it wrong. Paul had not instructed the Galatians about God’s law.
On hearing what was happening, Paul penned his letter to dissuade the Galatian churches from accepting this message from the Missionaries.
The basic element of the Missionaries’ message is clear. They believed Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel and they saw themselves as summoning Gentiles in the name of Jesus, to come under the Law of Moses. In short, they represented a form of traditional Jewish teaching that called for observance of the Law. And they sought, in the name of Jesus, to extend the Good News about the Law of God to the Gentiles.
But in Paul’s eyes the Missionaries were betraying the Gospel of Jesus because it is God’s grace, which was shown through the death of Jesus on the cross that brings salvation. It is the cross not the law that is the basis of a relationship with God. And God’s grace is for all people.
In Galatians 3:28 Paul writes:
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Paul was sure that what he was preaching was the Gospel.
In Galatians 1:11 - 12 he says:
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Paul’s bold, almost boastful, claims of superiority and his assuredness that he was given the Gospel directly by Jesus Christ, is uncomfortable. Because we can be reminded of those strands of the Church today who seem so sure about everything. Who believe they are infallible. Who know their stand point to be true. You know the type. Attempts to discuss with them differences of theology and biblical interpretation and biblical and church authority, can often result in comments like:
“Hey, you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the Word of God.”
This is something that concerns me over the current debate over gay marriage.
I think it is worth noting that according to one article I read recently:
In the Bible there are 7 verses that talk about homosexuality. (Incidentally Jesus says nothing on the subject.) There are 12 against divorce. There are 2,350 verses about money. 300 verses about social justice and the poor. Shouldn’t we have more to say on those topics? But no we seem obsessed about homosexuality.
The United Church of Christ denomination in the USA is similar to the United Reformed Church in this country. The United Church of Christ has as its slogan “God is still speaking.” Apparently this is taken from something the comedienne Gracie Allen wrote to George Burns “Don’t put a full stop where God has put a comma. God is still speaking”
I really like that. “God is still speaking.” In other words, God is still leading us on to understand more of him and of his truth. In John’s Gospel Jesus says:
12 ‘I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, the Spirit will guide you into all the truth;
(John 16:12-13).
In other words, we don’t know the whole of the Gospel – the Good News. It is constantly being revealed to us and the Holy Spirit helps us to understand God’s further revelations. The Holy Spirit helps us hear God speak. For God is still speaking. So we should not assume that everything God said was in a book parts of which were written 4,000 years ago. In my view those Christians who think God stopped speaking 2,000 years ago, and by the way He spoke in the language of the King James Bible, are just plain wrong!
There are those in the Church today who are like the Missionaries Paul spoke out against. The Missionaries believed, when you boil it down, that Jesus merely came to add to the Jewish law. But this was the very thing Jesus did not do. In Matthew Jesus says:
Matthew 5:17
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
But there are some today in Church who hold on to the Law and forget about the Gospel. They forget what we are told in
John 1:17
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
And that grace and truth brings with it freedom. A point Paul goes on to make in chapter 5 of the letter to the Galatians. We are freed from the burden of obeying laws.
14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
We are freed from the burden of sin. We are freed through Christ Jesus. Through his love for us. Through his dying for us and rising for us.
There is a story about an ancient Persian king who had injured his ankle quite severely. None of his court physicians knew how to help him. A member of his court told him about a certain slave who was said to have a great insight into matters of the body.
The Persian king sent for the slave who was brought to him weighted down with chains and dressed in rags. However, the slave was indeed able to give him great assistance with his problem. The pain ceased and the ankle soon healed. The king was elated and justly grateful for the slave's help. He was so grateful that he sent the slave a gift - a new set of golden chains.
Some people shy away from Christianity because they are afraid that they may be trading in one set of chains for another. Some Christians can do that to people, but not Jesus Christ. Christ sets us free! And he is still speaking!
Sunday, 14 April 2013
You'll be surprised who God lets into heaven .....
This blog is adapated from a sermon preached on Sunday 14th April 2013 at St Andrews Methodist Church Swindon.
One of the passages of scripture for use this Sunday is John 21: 1 – 19. In this passage we hear of Jesus’ appearance to the disciples while they are fishing on the Sea of Tiberius. The passage is sometimes referred to as the epilogue to John’s Gospel. And, if you’re interested, it is thought by some that it was added by another writer after John. The reason for this is that John 20:31 suggests the end of the book:
31 But these are written that you may believe[a] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
I’m not too hung up about that. What I’m more interested in is the truths contains in John 21. And for me the most important part of the epilogue comes with Christ asking Peter three times if Peter loves him. When we hear this, we recall Christ’ prediction that Peter would deny him three times and the sad scene where the prediction comes to fruition.
It would be so easy to think only of Peter’s unfaithfulness. But the epilogue reminds us, that far more important than Peter’s denials, is the grace of Christ. The willingness to forgive and then to entrust such an important ministry to Peter – a man whose life so far has been marked by impetuosity and denial that shows the power of grace.
The grace expressed so famously in John Newton’s hymn “Amazing grace that saved a wretch like me.”
It is Christ’s grace, so vividly expressed in this passage of scripture, that for me is the key to this passage. The grace that forgives Peter. The grace that forgave John Newton his sins. The grace that forgives you and me.
I think it is helpful to think of a definition of grace
Grace in Christianity is the free and unmerited favour of God as shown in the salvation of sinners and the bestowing of blessings. It is God's gift of salvation granted to sinners for their salvation.
And it is useful to hear Paul’s words
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
It may have escaped your attention, but last week Margaret Thatcher died. For the most part the press, the TV and the radio were all falling over themselves to be complimentary about her.
You know me well enough by now to know that I am not a fan of Margaret Thatcher and all she stood for. And I find I cannot agree with David Cameron’s comment that
"Margaret Thatcher didn’t just lead our country – she saved our country."
And according to Ian Duncan Smith she “changed Britain for the better.”
I am not denying that when she came to power this country needed some changes. But I wish I could take David Cameron, Ian Duncan Smith and all the others that have made a saint out of Margaret Thatcher to the Valleys I grew up in and show them what the towns and villages were like before Thatcher and since Thatcher.
I could have a real rant. But I am not going to!
Any criticism of Mrs Thatcher was few and far between and tucked away in the newspapers. Glenda Jackson’s speech in the House of Commons the other day was given coverage.
Given the way most of the press idolised her, it is perhaps inevitable that the only criticisms given publicity was those from the “looney left” as The Sun would put it. People such as George Gallaway who was quoted as saying that he hoped she would burn in hell’s fires. (I make no comment about her being cremated!) But the burning in hell’s fires comment is interesting, for it suggests in our terms a final judgment of God with punishment if needs be.
None of us know how we are judged by God. I know many Christians (let alone non-Christians) find the idea of God sitting in judgment a difficult concept. All I can say to that is we have to look at Jesus’ teachings to form the idea that God does judge. In the famous passage in Matthew 25 where Jesus speaks of the sheep and the goats, Jesus makes it clear there will be some kind of judgment:
44 ‘They also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or ill or in prison, and did not help you?”
45 ‘He will reply, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”
46 ‘Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.’
And it is so tempting when we hear those verses and think “Yes! Thatcher’s off to somewhere warmer!”
It is so tempting to think that someone we dislike will get their comeuppance. That they will stand before God on the day of judgment and God will send them to the hellfires. But there is small obstacle to thinking this way – Grace.
I don’t know of course what Margaret Thatcher’s beliefs were. We’ve been reminded over the last week, in case we didn’t know, that she was raised in a Methodist household. She was married in a Methodist church – Wesley’s Chapel in London and, so I’ve been told, Mark and Carol Thatcher were baptised there. But she seems to have long ago given up her Methodist connections and had become an Anglican. Whether she practised as an Anglican and whether she was in fact a Christian – the two don’t always go together – I can’t tell you.
(As Tony Benn once remarked “There are some Christians in the Church of England just as there are some socialists in the Labour Party.”)
But we’ll assume she did profess to being a Christian. And, assuming once again she was, then grace plays a
part. For grace can redeem sinners and provide salvation. And yes I am saying she was a sinner. But then again aren’t we all?
So my friends don’t be surprised that when we arrive in heaven we find Mrs Thatcher is there. As Desmond Tutu once said:
“We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven. God has a soft spot for sinners. His standards are quite low.”
And God’s standards are quite low because of grace.
However, I believe that there is a price to be paid for receiving God’s grace and that is repentance.
Going back to our scripture for a moment, it seems to me that implicit in Simon Peter’s reaction to Jesus, is a request by Peter to be forgiven and a statement of saying sorry. All this it seems to me is bundled up with Simon Peter saying that he loves Jesus. So grace is bestowed following this request for forgiveness.
And most Christian teachings would uphold that view. Forgiveness through grace comes about following repentance. However, can forgiveness through grace come without repentance? Or without a change of heart?
The German Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a book called “Discipleship”. And one of the most quoted parts of the book deals with the distinction which Bonhoeffer makes between "cheap" and "costly" grace. But what is "cheap" grace? In Bonhoeffer's words:
"cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ."
Or, even more clearly, cheap grace is to hear the gospel preached as follows:
"Of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness."
The main defect of such a proclamation is that it contains no demand for discipleship. That is living the life of a disciple of Jesus. And discipleship means saying sorry. It means a change of life.
In contrast to cheap grace is costly grace. Bonhoeffer said:
"costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." "
The forgiveness is there, the grace is there, but it comes with the person who has been forgiven becoming a true disciple.
I am of the view that grace should be costly. Grace should be received and should then mean becoming a true follower of Jesus. Of wanting to live a life of discipleship. Of wanting to live by the values of God’s kingdom. Not just accepting the gift and do nothing in return.
For Peter, Christ’s grace was costly. Peter ultimately gave his life for his Lord. Christ’s grace was costly for Paul. Christ’s grace was costly for all the disciples. Grace shouldn’t come cheap.
In his book, Remember Who You Are, William H. Willimon of Duke University says that he recalls one thing his mother always told him whenever he left the house to go on a date during his high school days. As he left the house, she would stand at the front door and call after him, "Will, don't forget who you are."
We know what Mrs Willimon meant, don't we? She didn't think Will was in danger of forgetting his name and street address. But she knew that, alone on a date, or in the midst of some party, or while joined by friends, he might forget who he was. She knew that sometimes all of us are tempted to answer to some alien name and to be who we are not. "Don't forget who you are," was the maternal benediction.
We are often told that Margaret Hilda Roberts was raised in a strict Methodist household. Only God will know whether Margaret Hilda Roberts forgot who she was. And only she and God know whether his grace has been afforded to her.
One of the passages of scripture for use this Sunday is John 21: 1 – 19. In this passage we hear of Jesus’ appearance to the disciples while they are fishing on the Sea of Tiberius. The passage is sometimes referred to as the epilogue to John’s Gospel. And, if you’re interested, it is thought by some that it was added by another writer after John. The reason for this is that John 20:31 suggests the end of the book:
31 But these are written that you may believe[a] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
I’m not too hung up about that. What I’m more interested in is the truths contains in John 21. And for me the most important part of the epilogue comes with Christ asking Peter three times if Peter loves him. When we hear this, we recall Christ’ prediction that Peter would deny him three times and the sad scene where the prediction comes to fruition.
It would be so easy to think only of Peter’s unfaithfulness. But the epilogue reminds us, that far more important than Peter’s denials, is the grace of Christ. The willingness to forgive and then to entrust such an important ministry to Peter – a man whose life so far has been marked by impetuosity and denial that shows the power of grace.
The grace expressed so famously in John Newton’s hymn “Amazing grace that saved a wretch like me.”
It is Christ’s grace, so vividly expressed in this passage of scripture, that for me is the key to this passage. The grace that forgives Peter. The grace that forgave John Newton his sins. The grace that forgives you and me.
I think it is helpful to think of a definition of grace
Grace in Christianity is the free and unmerited favour of God as shown in the salvation of sinners and the bestowing of blessings. It is God's gift of salvation granted to sinners for their salvation.
And it is useful to hear Paul’s words
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
It may have escaped your attention, but last week Margaret Thatcher died. For the most part the press, the TV and the radio were all falling over themselves to be complimentary about her.
You know me well enough by now to know that I am not a fan of Margaret Thatcher and all she stood for. And I find I cannot agree with David Cameron’s comment that
"Margaret Thatcher didn’t just lead our country – she saved our country."
And according to Ian Duncan Smith she “changed Britain for the better.”
I am not denying that when she came to power this country needed some changes. But I wish I could take David Cameron, Ian Duncan Smith and all the others that have made a saint out of Margaret Thatcher to the Valleys I grew up in and show them what the towns and villages were like before Thatcher and since Thatcher.
I could have a real rant. But I am not going to!
Any criticism of Mrs Thatcher was few and far between and tucked away in the newspapers. Glenda Jackson’s speech in the House of Commons the other day was given coverage.
Given the way most of the press idolised her, it is perhaps inevitable that the only criticisms given publicity was those from the “looney left” as The Sun would put it. People such as George Gallaway who was quoted as saying that he hoped she would burn in hell’s fires. (I make no comment about her being cremated!) But the burning in hell’s fires comment is interesting, for it suggests in our terms a final judgment of God with punishment if needs be.
None of us know how we are judged by God. I know many Christians (let alone non-Christians) find the idea of God sitting in judgment a difficult concept. All I can say to that is we have to look at Jesus’ teachings to form the idea that God does judge. In the famous passage in Matthew 25 where Jesus speaks of the sheep and the goats, Jesus makes it clear there will be some kind of judgment:
44 ‘They also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or ill or in prison, and did not help you?”
45 ‘He will reply, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”
46 ‘Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.’
And it is so tempting when we hear those verses and think “Yes! Thatcher’s off to somewhere warmer!”
It is so tempting to think that someone we dislike will get their comeuppance. That they will stand before God on the day of judgment and God will send them to the hellfires. But there is small obstacle to thinking this way – Grace.
I don’t know of course what Margaret Thatcher’s beliefs were. We’ve been reminded over the last week, in case we didn’t know, that she was raised in a Methodist household. She was married in a Methodist church – Wesley’s Chapel in London and, so I’ve been told, Mark and Carol Thatcher were baptised there. But she seems to have long ago given up her Methodist connections and had become an Anglican. Whether she practised as an Anglican and whether she was in fact a Christian – the two don’t always go together – I can’t tell you.
(As Tony Benn once remarked “There are some Christians in the Church of England just as there are some socialists in the Labour Party.”)
But we’ll assume she did profess to being a Christian. And, assuming once again she was, then grace plays a
part. For grace can redeem sinners and provide salvation. And yes I am saying she was a sinner. But then again aren’t we all?
So my friends don’t be surprised that when we arrive in heaven we find Mrs Thatcher is there. As Desmond Tutu once said:
“We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven. God has a soft spot for sinners. His standards are quite low.”
And God’s standards are quite low because of grace.
However, I believe that there is a price to be paid for receiving God’s grace and that is repentance.
Going back to our scripture for a moment, it seems to me that implicit in Simon Peter’s reaction to Jesus, is a request by Peter to be forgiven and a statement of saying sorry. All this it seems to me is bundled up with Simon Peter saying that he loves Jesus. So grace is bestowed following this request for forgiveness.
And most Christian teachings would uphold that view. Forgiveness through grace comes about following repentance. However, can forgiveness through grace come without repentance? Or without a change of heart?
The German Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a book called “Discipleship”. And one of the most quoted parts of the book deals with the distinction which Bonhoeffer makes between "cheap" and "costly" grace. But what is "cheap" grace? In Bonhoeffer's words:
"cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ."
Or, even more clearly, cheap grace is to hear the gospel preached as follows:
"Of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness."
The main defect of such a proclamation is that it contains no demand for discipleship. That is living the life of a disciple of Jesus. And discipleship means saying sorry. It means a change of life.
In contrast to cheap grace is costly grace. Bonhoeffer said:
"costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." "
The forgiveness is there, the grace is there, but it comes with the person who has been forgiven becoming a true disciple.
I am of the view that grace should be costly. Grace should be received and should then mean becoming a true follower of Jesus. Of wanting to live a life of discipleship. Of wanting to live by the values of God’s kingdom. Not just accepting the gift and do nothing in return.
For Peter, Christ’s grace was costly. Peter ultimately gave his life for his Lord. Christ’s grace was costly for Paul. Christ’s grace was costly for all the disciples. Grace shouldn’t come cheap.
In his book, Remember Who You Are, William H. Willimon of Duke University says that he recalls one thing his mother always told him whenever he left the house to go on a date during his high school days. As he left the house, she would stand at the front door and call after him, "Will, don't forget who you are."
We know what Mrs Willimon meant, don't we? She didn't think Will was in danger of forgetting his name and street address. But she knew that, alone on a date, or in the midst of some party, or while joined by friends, he might forget who he was. She knew that sometimes all of us are tempted to answer to some alien name and to be who we are not. "Don't forget who you are," was the maternal benediction.
We are often told that Margaret Hilda Roberts was raised in a strict Methodist household. Only God will know whether Margaret Hilda Roberts forgot who she was. And only she and God know whether his grace has been afforded to her.
Monday, 1 April 2013
Poverty & Lies
Tim Montgomerie was until recently the editor of Tory blog Conservative Home, He’s recently been appointed as Comment Editor for The Times.
In The Times of 1st April he writes an Op Ed piece with the headline “Christians must put families first, not politics.” In order to read the article you either need to buy the newspaper or have a subscription to the web site. As it happens I do both but unfortunately The Times won’t allow links to articles on the web site to Facebook for example. So I’ll précis his article.
I don’t know whether Tim Montgomerie is a Christian but if not, he clearly knows his quotable Christian writers with an opening quote from Tony Campolo and a closing reference to Philip Yancey. The Campolo quote is the old chestnut of the Campolo lecturing his congregation on the importance of giving:
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
It’s a good story. But what relevance it has to Tim Mongomerie’s dubious argument remains to be seen.
Montgomerie firstly criticises Lord Carey’s recent claim that David Cameron was “overseeing an age in which Christians feel persecuted.” Montgomerie (rightly) says that persecution of Christians is a huge problem in the Middle East but is hardly so here. Then Montgomerie says how the Torys have shown support for Christian schools and have continued giving aid to developing countries. Instead says Montgomerie we had another moan from Lord Carey about gay marriage. And this only goes to reinforce the view held by many younger people that the church simply doesn’t understand the modern world.
Personally, as I have blogged before, I’m in two minds over the gay marriage issue. And I don’t need to discuss that again here. But Mr. Montgomerie neatly side steps a couple of points. 1. That many Conservatives are opposed to gay marriage and 2. Most denominations do feel let down by the way the Government has pushed this through.
Sorry Anglican friends, but to me Lord Carey speaks for the Tory party at prayer wing of the Anglican Church so I’m not too excited about what he has to say. And I can take Tim Montgomerie having a swipe at the noble Lord.
But what made my blood boil this morning was the second part of Montgomerie’s article. And here I quote:
“Lord Carey is not the only leading Christian who has lost touch with modern realities. Yesterday, on Easter Sunday, four leading churches signed a joint letter questioning the government’s welfare cuts. Churches that were silent when youth unemployment soared under Labour have suddenly found their voice when a Conservative led government fights to ensure that more people look for a job rather than to the state for their income.”
I’ve had a quick look on the internet and from some statistics I’ve found that yes youth unemployment did grow in the last years of the Brown government and has continues to grow ever since. But the growth ties in with the general down turn in the economy. And must people agree this was caused by the banks – and the churches have said much about them.
Montgomerie then says more focus should be on the family. And apparently churches don’t say enough about families. This is of course utter nonsense as Tim Montgomerie has clearly never heard of the work of Christian charities such as “Care for the family” and charities such as “Action for children” with Christian values. There is a lot of work Christians do with families.
Tim Montgomerie says:
“If you want my theory why the West is in trouble I’d nominate the collapse of the family as a major cause.”
That may be a factor Tim. But what about the greed values instilled by your pin up girl Margaret Thatcher for example? How damaging have they been?
According to Montgomerie:
“Strong families are better carers of the young, the sick, the old and the disabled than the State.”
They are also essential to education and apparently produce the best nurses too. And no doubt Mr. Montgomerie would argue strong families are able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, not just stop locomotives but lay the tracks they run on too.
Actually, strong families are important to Society, I believe that. And I believe that strong families which are based on a religious ethos have much to offer. But the inference from Tom Montgomerie’s article is that strong families aren’t dependent on welfare but are wholly self-sufficient. And consequently families on benefits aren't strong families.
Well he is wrong. There can be strong families who do need welfare support. And the point of the Poverty & Lies report produced by the Methodist Church, Baptist Church, United Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland is to scotch the myths – no lies – that are peddled about people on benefits. Some people receiving benefits do so because they are low paid.
Tim Montgomerie concludes his piece by quoting another Christian writer Philip Yancey and his book “What’s so amazing about grace?” A favourite book of mine. Montgomerie cites Yancey’s retelling of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. What relation this has to his piece is questionable other than proving a connection with family.
“No civilization can be built without family and its celebration should be the Church’s primary social proclamation.”
No! The Church’s primary proclamation is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and bring in the Kingdom. And that means values of justice and peace love and compassion. Values for families and everyone.
In The Times of 1st April he writes an Op Ed piece with the headline “Christians must put families first, not politics.” In order to read the article you either need to buy the newspaper or have a subscription to the web site. As it happens I do both but unfortunately The Times won’t allow links to articles on the web site to Facebook for example. So I’ll précis his article.
I don’t know whether Tim Montgomerie is a Christian but if not, he clearly knows his quotable Christian writers with an opening quote from Tony Campolo and a closing reference to Philip Yancey. The Campolo quote is the old chestnut of the Campolo lecturing his congregation on the importance of giving:
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
It’s a good story. But what relevance it has to Tim Mongomerie’s dubious argument remains to be seen.
Montgomerie firstly criticises Lord Carey’s recent claim that David Cameron was “overseeing an age in which Christians feel persecuted.” Montgomerie (rightly) says that persecution of Christians is a huge problem in the Middle East but is hardly so here. Then Montgomerie says how the Torys have shown support for Christian schools and have continued giving aid to developing countries. Instead says Montgomerie we had another moan from Lord Carey about gay marriage. And this only goes to reinforce the view held by many younger people that the church simply doesn’t understand the modern world.
Personally, as I have blogged before, I’m in two minds over the gay marriage issue. And I don’t need to discuss that again here. But Mr. Montgomerie neatly side steps a couple of points. 1. That many Conservatives are opposed to gay marriage and 2. Most denominations do feel let down by the way the Government has pushed this through.
Sorry Anglican friends, but to me Lord Carey speaks for the Tory party at prayer wing of the Anglican Church so I’m not too excited about what he has to say. And I can take Tim Montgomerie having a swipe at the noble Lord.
But what made my blood boil this morning was the second part of Montgomerie’s article. And here I quote:
“Lord Carey is not the only leading Christian who has lost touch with modern realities. Yesterday, on Easter Sunday, four leading churches signed a joint letter questioning the government’s welfare cuts. Churches that were silent when youth unemployment soared under Labour have suddenly found their voice when a Conservative led government fights to ensure that more people look for a job rather than to the state for their income.”
I’ve had a quick look on the internet and from some statistics I’ve found that yes youth unemployment did grow in the last years of the Brown government and has continues to grow ever since. But the growth ties in with the general down turn in the economy. And must people agree this was caused by the banks – and the churches have said much about them.
Montgomerie then says more focus should be on the family. And apparently churches don’t say enough about families. This is of course utter nonsense as Tim Montgomerie has clearly never heard of the work of Christian charities such as “Care for the family” and charities such as “Action for children” with Christian values. There is a lot of work Christians do with families.
Tim Montgomerie says:
“If you want my theory why the West is in trouble I’d nominate the collapse of the family as a major cause.”
That may be a factor Tim. But what about the greed values instilled by your pin up girl Margaret Thatcher for example? How damaging have they been?
According to Montgomerie:
“Strong families are better carers of the young, the sick, the old and the disabled than the State.”
They are also essential to education and apparently produce the best nurses too. And no doubt Mr. Montgomerie would argue strong families are able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, not just stop locomotives but lay the tracks they run on too.
Actually, strong families are important to Society, I believe that. And I believe that strong families which are based on a religious ethos have much to offer. But the inference from Tom Montgomerie’s article is that strong families aren’t dependent on welfare but are wholly self-sufficient. And consequently families on benefits aren't strong families.
Well he is wrong. There can be strong families who do need welfare support. And the point of the Poverty & Lies report produced by the Methodist Church, Baptist Church, United Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland is to scotch the myths – no lies – that are peddled about people on benefits. Some people receiving benefits do so because they are low paid.
Tim Montgomerie concludes his piece by quoting another Christian writer Philip Yancey and his book “What’s so amazing about grace?” A favourite book of mine. Montgomerie cites Yancey’s retelling of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. What relation this has to his piece is questionable other than proving a connection with family.
“No civilization can be built without family and its celebration should be the Church’s primary social proclamation.”
No! The Church’s primary proclamation is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and bring in the Kingdom. And that means values of justice and peace love and compassion. Values for families and everyone.
Thursday, 28 March 2013
Bring back the TSB
In 1810 a Church of Scotland minister called Henry Duncan decided to set up a savings bank in the Dumfries town of Ruthwell for the benefit of the poorest parishioners in his parish. Rev Duncan felt it would be good to encourage everyone to save if even only a modest amount. Within years the trustee savings bank model was being adopted throughout the country and a quick interest search will find that many cities had their own version. The trustee savings banks provided a safe place for people to bank.
For a more detailed history of trustee savings banks see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee_Savings_Bank#Modern_history_of_the_trustee_savings_banks
Skip forward to 1985. Most of the trustee savings banks have now joined to form one large Trustee Savings Bank and the government (headed by someone called Margaret Thatcher – you may remember her) encouraged the TSB to float on the stock market. This would allow TSB to be a “proper” bank allowing customers the advantages of that. (Cue Rev Duncan turning in his grave at a rapid rate of knots.)
The TSB became “the bank that likes to say yes” as its directors tried to grow market share.
Skip forward now to 1995 and TSB is bought by Lloyds Bank plc. This was seen as a somewhat surprising move to many in the banking industry as Lloyds was regarded as a safe if somewhat conservative institution. It’s had recently acquired Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society but that too was quite staid.
Now your blogger was an employee of the Lloyds Banking Group at the time (within Cheltenham & Gloucester plc) And although Lloyds had bought TSB, it appeared as if the opposite had happened. TSB practices started to take over and a sell anything to anybody approach seemed to take over. (Those of us in credit risk had our own slogan “TSB the bank that can’t say no”.)
Skip forward 10 years or so and now the Lloyds TSB Group finds itself going to the government for a financial bailout. Not helped by Lloyds having acquired the Halifax Bank of Scotland Group HBOS. The government injects £37bn into the bank and in return takes a 40% shareholding in Lloyds Banking Group.
On 27th March the Bank of England announced that it will require all UK banks to up their capital limits by £25bn across the sector. I’m more Ned Flanders than Stephanie Flanders, but I think that means banks will need to have larger reserves to fall back on.
What has emerged from this is that it will not be possible for the Government to privatise Lloyds Bank whilst it needs to raise its capital limits.
So here’s a radical thought. The government has a real opportunity to offer safe banking by allowing part of Lloyds to remain in state ownership or at least be mutualised. The latter model would chime with the Government’s desire to see more John Lewis style organisations. In other words create a trustee savings bank once again.
This model would be very similar to the German Sparkassen model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_public_bank
Go on George give it a try. It would be nice to stop Rev Duncan spinning.
For a more detailed history of trustee savings banks see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee_Savings_Bank#Modern_history_of_the_trustee_savings_banks
Skip forward to 1985. Most of the trustee savings banks have now joined to form one large Trustee Savings Bank and the government (headed by someone called Margaret Thatcher – you may remember her) encouraged the TSB to float on the stock market. This would allow TSB to be a “proper” bank allowing customers the advantages of that. (Cue Rev Duncan turning in his grave at a rapid rate of knots.)
The TSB became “the bank that likes to say yes” as its directors tried to grow market share.
Skip forward now to 1995 and TSB is bought by Lloyds Bank plc. This was seen as a somewhat surprising move to many in the banking industry as Lloyds was regarded as a safe if somewhat conservative institution. It’s had recently acquired Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society but that too was quite staid.
Now your blogger was an employee of the Lloyds Banking Group at the time (within Cheltenham & Gloucester plc) And although Lloyds had bought TSB, it appeared as if the opposite had happened. TSB practices started to take over and a sell anything to anybody approach seemed to take over. (Those of us in credit risk had our own slogan “TSB the bank that can’t say no”.)
Skip forward 10 years or so and now the Lloyds TSB Group finds itself going to the government for a financial bailout. Not helped by Lloyds having acquired the Halifax Bank of Scotland Group HBOS. The government injects £37bn into the bank and in return takes a 40% shareholding in Lloyds Banking Group.
On 27th March the Bank of England announced that it will require all UK banks to up their capital limits by £25bn across the sector. I’m more Ned Flanders than Stephanie Flanders, but I think that means banks will need to have larger reserves to fall back on.
What has emerged from this is that it will not be possible for the Government to privatise Lloyds Bank whilst it needs to raise its capital limits.
So here’s a radical thought. The government has a real opportunity to offer safe banking by allowing part of Lloyds to remain in state ownership or at least be mutualised. The latter model would chime with the Government’s desire to see more John Lewis style organisations. In other words create a trustee savings bank once again.
This model would be very similar to the German Sparkassen model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_public_bank
Go on George give it a try. It would be nice to stop Rev Duncan spinning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)