Open our gates - out of love for God

In John’s Gospel there are 7 sayings of Jesus that start with the “I am” These include “I am the way the truth and the life”, “I am the light of the world” “I am the bread of life” and “I am the Good shepherd” perhaps being the most famous. But one of them “I am the gate” is perhaps not so easily recalled.

A gate brings to mind something that separates those on the outside from those on the inside. It could be said that a gate is there for two purposes; For protection and / or privilege.

Last Bank Holiday Monday we went on a walk organised by the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust. We walked from Chippenham to Lacock and back. And part of the route followed a public footpath that skirts the Duchess of Cornwall’s house at Ray Mill just outside Lacock. And there were definitely gatekeepers and gates there I can tell you. And although you can’t see the gates from the footpath, the gates are there for protection and also a sign of privilege.

We may get that idea of a gate and its purpose. But when we think of Jesus in that context, and indeed the idea of gates and gatekeepers for our churches, what message is that saying?

I suppose that for two thousand years the church’s proclamation that Jesus is the gate has served both ideas – the idea of Protection and of Privilege. And this thinking makes sense when we take perhaps the most famous of Jesus’s “I am” sayings in
John 14:6

6 Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

What Jesus is saying is:

You come in to the Kingdom of God via the gate that is me Jesus Christ. I will offer you protection and by entering in to the Kingdom you are adopted into God’s family. So therefore you are privileged.

And it’s worth remembering that for those John was writing for, those who entered by the gate that was Christ had to then close the gate on the flock that remained in the Synagogues and in the Temple. They were turning their backs on the old way and they needed to put in place barriers - spiritual and physical - for their own protection. Jesus was the gate to a new way of life and the Kingdom of God.

However, from that time onwards such an understanding had led to concern. Questions of exclusion and inclusion have raged ever since. Who was in or out theologically, morally or ethnically? And since John’s time, a whole multitude of divisions have grown up in the Church haven’t they so that the flock is now in many different folds.

And it seems to me that we in the church have decided that having Jesus as the gate isn’t enough and so we have chosen to build our own gates inside his gate!

The Church of Christ has been putting up its own gates for centuries. There were the differences between the Celtic and Augustinian Christians. Then there have been splits between what would now be termed the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. And of course in the 15th and 16th century the Protestant Church split from the Catholic Church. And now within the Protestant Church are many denominations. And let’s not forget that at one time the Methodist Church in this country was split – chiefly between Wesleyan Methodists and Primitive Methodists.

Christians like to be within the fold but we then we seem to want to put up our own gates to keep others out.

It’s quite possible that some of you here remember a practice that was common in many Methodist Church certainly until the early 1970s. And that was what could be termed “A fenced table” or “A closed table." A fenced table or a closed table is the practise whereby communion is open only to accredited members of the Christian community. This practice meant that only members of the Methodist Church – and I mean the very specific definition of being a Member within Methodism – could receive communion. I certainly remember as a child that at the end of a Sunday service those who weren’t Members were asked to leave or at least it was made clear they would not be allowed to receive communion because they weren’t members.

Fencing the table is thus the opposite of open communion, where the invitation to the sacrament is extended to "all who love the Lord" and members of any denomination are welcome at their own discretion.

The phrase “Fencing the table” goes back to early Scottish Calvinism, where the communion table literally had a fence around it, with a gate at each end. The members of the congregation were allowed to pass the gate on showing their communion token, a specially minted coin which served as an admission ticket. And the token was given only to those who were in good standing with the local congregation and could pass a test of the catechism.

Of course in Methodism now it is the practice for all who love the Lord to receive communion if they wish. But what message were we in Methodism sending in the past with our practice?

St Augustine apparently described the church as “a hospital for sinners” which I think is a good description. But by putting in our own standards and restrictions, such as a closed table, it seems to me that the message is sent that if the Church is a hospital for sinners, some are more sinful than others. Which is not the case in Christ’s eyes.

My point is that as Christians those of us who are in the fold can seem too keen to impose rules to keep out those on the outside. We want to be the gate keepers rather than the gate openers. Why?

Is it because somehow we see ourselves as needing to be gatekeepers in order to protect the morally weak and vulnerable within the fold from the thieves and bandits who might come in and taint us?

Or is more about the fact we like to see ourselves as a privileged community of the ethically pure?

Or do we like to be gatekeepers in order to keep out the wrong sort of people?

Just before Easter I saw a story about a statue placed in front of a church in Davidson North Carolina USA. Now when I was in America last year I visited Davidson a number of times. It is a small pretty which is very affluent. It is home to Davidson College a very exclusive University.

The statue is of a homeless Jesus The statue, a work by Canadian sculptor Timothy Schmalz, places Jesus on a park bench, sleeping in a thin shawl. The man is unidentifiable as Christ save for crucifixion wounds on his feet.

The statue depicts Jesus as a vagrant sleeping on a park bench. St. Alban's Episcopal Church installed the homeless Jesus statue on its property in the middle of an upscale neighbourhood filled with well-kept town homes.

"One woman from the neighbourhood actually called police the first time she drove by," says David Boraks, editor of DavidsonNews.net. "She thought it was an actual homeless person."

That's right. Somebody called the cops on Jesus.

"Another neighbour, who lives a couple of doors down from the church, wrote us a letter to the editor saying it creeps him out," Boraks added.

Some neighbours feel that it's an insulting depiction of the son of God, and that what appears to be a hobo curled up on a bench demeans the neighbourhood.

Some in the community disagree with the message the statue sends. "Jesus is not a vagrant, Jesus is not a helpless person who needs our help," Cindy Castano Swannack, who called police after seeing the statue, told WCNC. "We need someone who is capable of meeting our needs, not someone who is also needy."

Source: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/302019921/statue-of-a-homeless-jesus-startles-a-wealthy-community

Now this is the reaction to a statue of a homeless person. Imagine what the reaction would have been if a real homeless person turned up at that church? I suspect many would have wanted the gate keepers to keep that person out.

For years St. Anthony's Catholic Church in San Francisco has served meals to people in need. Over the doorway to its dining room the church has posted a sign bearing the inscription: Caritate Dei. One day a young man, just released from jail and new to St. Anthony's, entered the door and sat down for a meal. A woman was busy cleaning the adjoining table. "When do we get on our knees and do the chores, lady?" he asked.

"You don't," she replied. "Then when's the sermon comin'?" he inquired.

"Aren't any," she said. "How 'bout the lecture on life, huh?" "Not here," she said.

The man was suspicious. "Then what's the gimmick?" The woman pointed to the inscription over the door. He squinted at the sign. "What's it mean, lady?" "Out of love for God," she said with a smile, and moved on to another table.

Caritate Dei – Out of love for God. Maybe all churches should have that painted above our doorways to remind us to keep the gate open to those who want to come and know the Lord.
 

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.

Flog it!

Those of you of a nervous disposition may wish to look away now, for "this blog contains matters of a sexual nature that some readers may find disturbing" as the TV continuity announcers say.

The Independent newspaper carried a story today about a young woman called Elizabeth Raine (apparently not her real name) who is going to auction her virginity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elizabeth-raine-medical-student-plans-to-auction-her-virginity-9208342.html


According to the story Ms Raine, a medical student in America, is doing this for “money, the adventure, the eroticism, the scandal, the absurdity”. But apparently she plans to donate 35% of the winning bid to a charity bringing education to women in developing countries.

Now I suppose it is entirely up to Miss Raine to do with her body whatever she wants. But I cannot help but reflect on the irony of how, in effect, she is prostituting herself in order to educate women in developing countries. These would be the women who in many developing countries are often treated as chattels themselves or at least as second class citizens. Miss Raines seems to be saying "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you"

(By the way, apparently the auction is due to start on 1st April and I wonder whether there is some connection?)

This coming Sunday (23rd March) the Gospel reading from the Lectionary is John 4: 5 - 42. It tells of Jesus' encounter with a Samaritan woman at a well.

Jews, notes John, do not associate with Samaritans. And later in the story it is suggested that this was also a woman of questionable morals.

And yet Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

As they talk something real begins to happen in this woman’s life. As they talk a transformation starts.

As I said a moment ago there is a suggestion that the woman has a somewhat chequered history. Jesus says to her to go and tell her husband what they have been talking about and she replies

‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband.

And usually this is interpreatted as meaning she has slept with five men and is now living in sin as it were with a sixth.
However, I should point out that this can be interpreted in a different way. The fact that the woman has had five husbands and is now with a sixth man may suggest a scarlet woman. But it is very possible that the woman was subject to what is termed Levirate marriage – which was a tradition in some parts of Judaism.

Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother. A levirate marriage is mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5-6 of the Hebrew Bible and obliges a brother to marry the widow of his childless deceased brother, with the firstborn child being treated as that of the deceased brother.

The passage suggests that the woman realises her need for forgiveness – no matter what the sin is.

The woman said to him, ‘Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.’

And later

She said to the people, 29 ‘Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah,[e] can he?’
The woman wants forgiveness for whatever reason and she is clearly given forgiveness by Jesus. Jesus’ grace forgives her no matter what she may – or may not – have done. This really is an example of “Hear then the words of grace ‘your sins are forgiven’”

Forgiveness through grace comes about following repentance.

In the newspaper article Miss Raine says that:

“I have never been very religious. This probably explains in part why I am able to do this without moral objection”
“I am not devoid of a moral code though, as some might like you to believe. I have just formed my own code - one I like to believe is founded on a world education and human emotion.”

As I said a moment ago I accept that it is up to Miss Raine what she does. I am not judging her - just as Jesus did not judge the woman at the well. But there may come a time in the future when Miss Raine regrets what she has done and may well feel guilty about it. If so, I hope that she will then find the moral code of Jesus that provides forgiveness and healing.

There’s a season for everything and a time for every matter under the heavens

On 6th January this year I conducted the marriage of Hayley and Will Tsang. The wedding had come about through the generosity of the people of Swindon and because Hayley wanted the marriage to take quickly to enable her father, Gary Savory, to be there to walk her down the aisle. Gary was suffering from terminal cancer.

Sadly, on 1st March, Gary died at home and I was hugely honoured when the family asked me to conduct the funeral.

The local press had been following the story since the wedding and they were at the funeral - with the family's permission - yesterday. You can see the report here. http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/11076416.Farewell_as_doting_dad_seen_off_with_a_blast_of_reggae/?ref=mr

Inevitably the newspaper report doesn't really capture what I said at the funeral so I'm sharing an abridged version, in the hope that people will be able to take comfort from my words:

Outside the window of my office are some bushes. What kind of bushes they are I can’t tell you, as we’ve only been in the house about 3 weeks. But in that three weeks I’ve noticed a change come about. In the middle of February they had a dead look of winter but now – following the sunshine of last weekend - they are starting to come in to leaf. It is almost as if the bushes need to be greeted by warm sunshine to enable them to grow.

Love is to a child what sunshine is to a flower. The experience of being loved as a child gives us something that no amount of money can buy. Love gives us a warm feeling about life. The love of parents and the love within a family enables us to feel good about ourselves and for us to grow – physically and emotionally.

God is love and God entrusted the important task of passing on love through our parents. It is from them that we got our first and most important experience of love. Parents don’t have to be clever, or talented or rich. All they need is a warm heart.

(At this point I shared Gary's life story with the congregation.)

I suppose all of us here today must be thinking “It’s not fair that Gary died at 53”. I’d include myself in this. It isn’t fair. And it is a question Christians constantly try to find an answer to. How can God who loves us allow suffering? There is no answer. It is one of life’s mysteries.

Earlier I read a passage of scripture from an ancient part of the Bible called Ecclesiastes. (Ecclesiastes 3: 1 - 8) You may know the words if you’re familiar with 1960s pop music, as The Byrds had a hit single called “Turn turn turn” which used these words.

The Bible passage is a poem really and what the poet was trying to get over was the message that although we may not understand it at the time, things happen at the right time and for a purpose. This can be hard for us to accept – especially when we are gathered for the funeral of someone we knew and loved.

And yet Hayley, in the words she asked me to read on behalf of the family, hit upon something

Dad when you came back in our lives, it felt you hadn’t ever been away, it was meant to be, you made us complete. I know you never wanted to leave us again, it doesn’t seem real, it doesn’t seem fair. I’m so grateful for the years we had with you. You’re no longer in pain and now at peace,

The time was right for Gary to come back into the family and for the family to be complete again. It isn’t fair that Gary developed cancer and it isn’t fair that he died at 53 he died before his time we may think. But death came at the right time to free Gary from his pain and suffering.

What Gary has taken with him, from this life into eternal life, is the knowledge of the love that surrounded him. The love of his family, but also the love of all of you here today. But most of all I believe that in death Gary would have known the greatest love of all – the love of Jesus Christ. A love that promised that those who believe have nothing to be afraid of in death for they have the promise of eternal life in heaven.

God is love, and those who live in love live in union with God and God lives in union with them. 1 John 4:16

God bless you Gary. Amen.

Photograph from Swindon Advertiser

The long goodbye

Someone who reads this blog regularly, recently commented that I'd not posted anything for five weeks. That's true but I have been a bit distracted. In fact I've been a bit distracted for the last 6 months or more.

To recap. Last summer I spent 6 weeks in Mooresville North Carolina as part of an exchange. (If you've been following this blog, you'll know all about that.) It was a very transformative experience. We made some friendships that will be lifelong. I learned so much and we had a wonderful time. And I was tempted to explore being a minister in the USA.

At the time of the exchange I had been in Swindon for six years. I went to Mooresville feeling tired and if I am honest feeling somewhat jaded. The love and care people at Fairview showed me (and my family) was restorative. I came back from the exchange feeling refreshed and reenergised and with a sense of “What does God have for me next?” I was not expecting this and I have felt blessed by the exchange.

But I also went to Mooresville knowing that the Chairman of District was asking me to move from Swindon early (I was due to be there until 2015) to take up a difficult vacant appointment elsewhere in the District.

On returning from the exchange (in late August 2013) I had a meeting with the Chairman of District and a couple of colleagues about the move and I visited Chippenham. It felt right and God was in the move. So I agreed to move.

But this was only the start. Because I had to break the news to friends at my three churches. I was surprised how hard they took the news. I suppose I had no idea how much they cared for me and valued my ministry. There was a lot of anger - though none of it directed towards me but at the system that allowed this to happen.

So we prepared for the move to Chippenham. And the process of saying goodbye began. And also the round of "Lasts" - Last school assembly, last school governors meeting etc etc. Christmas was hard as I entered the round of last Carol services. And all the while I felt I was not being true to the people in Swindon as I started to think about Chippenham.

And then the time to say final goodbyes to the churches arrived. With the big final goodbye being a joint service for all three churches. This turned out to be hugely special. There was a very good representation from each of the three churches (a combined congregation of around 140.) The service included a baptism of an 8 year old boy who has been attending St Andrews with his mum, for some time. And communion.

It was communion that was so special as virtually everyone in the congregation came forward. And as they received, so many memories came back about the connections I'd made with these people.

And now I'm in Chippenham and the next adventure begins. Watch this space