It's the blind man, can I come in

Last weekend we met a group of friends for lunch. One friend was reminded of a time when he was regaling the group with a story and when he came to the somewhat saucy story and the pub they were in went quiet at the precise moment he came to the punch line. This caused him much embarassment and gave the friends a huge laugh.

I was then reminded of the time something similar happened to me when I was retelling a joke from the end of an episode of the Vicar of Dibley which involved a nun and a blind man. I'm not going to relate the joke here. Google it. All I will say is that at the precise moment I came to the punchline, a waitress leaned over me.

In a strange coincidence, in the week I had a visit from a blind man. That is a man who came to measure up a window for some Venetian blinds.

He had been due to arrive about 4pm but had phoned just before to say he was struck in traffic. By the time he arrived he was close on an hour late. I was hoping he'd be quick as I needed to get on with cooking dinner before my wife came home and in order for me to get out to a meeting. But the blind man wanted to talk once he realised I was a minister.

It turned out he'd been brought up in a Christian home and had attended a baptist church for many years. But as an adult he'd drifted away. But clearly his grounding had had an effect.

He shared several things he'd experienced recently. These included a conversation he'd had with a client who was a primary school teacher who wanted an old style of blinds. "I said to her 'These went out with the ark'. And she said 'What's the ark?' And I said 'You know, Noah and the ark.' But she really didn't know anything about it. What's the world coming to?"

He shared a few other things too.

He went on to tell me about a good friend of his who had been diagnosed with motor neurone disease last autumn. And the man poured out his great sadness about his friend. And he said how he felt he wished there was some way that his friend would not have to go through the great suffering that will inevitably come about as the illness develops.

Close on an hour after he arrived he left. Having poured out his heart and leaving a quote for some new blinds.

Simple Gifts

The following is an abridged version of a sermon preached at Central Methodist Church Chippenham at the Folk Festival Service 25th May 2014

The hymn Lord of the dance – was written by English songwriter Sydney Carter in 1963.

From the moment he wrote it the hymn became popular, soon entering the standard Anglican collection Hymns Ancient and Modern and becoming a firm favourite of church congregations, folk camps and school assemblies.

According to Sydney Carter’s obituary in the Daily Telegraph in 2004:

“The hymn's success stems from two elements. It has a lively, catchy tune, adapted from an air of the American Shaker movement. But the optimistic lines "I danced in the morning when the world was begun/ and I danced in the moon and the stars and the sun" also contain a hint of paganism which, mixed with Christianity, makes it attractive to those of ambiguous religious beliefs or none at all”

Carter himself admitted that in writing the hymn he had been partly inspired by the statue of Hindu god Shiva which sat on his desk; and, whenever he was asked to resolve the contradiction, between a Christian hymn and this Indian god he would declare that he had never tried to do so.

I am not going to get into a debate about the theology of “Lord of the dance” – though for many years the hymn was ignored by the Methodist Church. It wasn’t included in the 1981 book “Hymns & Psalms”. However, it has been include in our new book “Singing the faith”.

Personally, I’m not entirely convinced by what the hymn is trying to say. So why then have I included it this morning – apart from the reference to dance of course? I’ve included it because of the tune.

Again, according to Sydney Carter’s obituary, many who first heard the hymn “naively assumed that it must be several centuries old; but others detected a disturbing ambiguity beneath its Nonconformist inspiration.” But Carter wrote it in the 1960s and he used a tune written in America in the mid 19th century by Joseph Brackett a member of the Shaker Christian sect. The song was called “Simple Gifts”.

The song was largely unknown outside Shaker communities until Aaron Copland used its melody for the score of Martha Graham's ballet Appalachian Spring, first performed in 1944. Copland used "Simple Gifts" a second time in 1950 in his first set of Old American Songs for voice and piano, which was later orchestrated. Many people thought that the tune of "Simple Gifts" was a traditional Celtic one but both the music and original lyrics are actually the compositions of Brackett. "Simple Gifts" has been adapted or arranged many times since by folksingers and composers.

The song was composed in 1848 by Shaker Elder Joseph Brackett as an easy-to-learn tune for Shaker worship. Shakers were as vigorous in their worship as they were in their work. They were Christians who believed that Jesus would return to judge the world, so they had better be ready. Men and women were separated in Shaker villages and agreed to lead celibate lives. They lived simply, with few personal possessions.

Their workshops, which supported their villages, were famous for their creativity. They were not shy about sharing their products or their songs with the public, because the survival of their celibate church depended on recruiting new members.
The one time each week when everyone stopped working and men and women mingled was during worship, which involved singing and dancing that sometimes got so wild that outsiders gave the group its common name, Shakers.

The original words to Joseph Brackett’s tune are:

Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight
'Till by turning, turning we come round right.

This song for Shaker worship is perhaps not in the same league as a Charles Wesley hymn for theology! And yet the words suggest to me anyway something really important to the Christian faith the need to turn our lives around from sin. And also to recognise the gifts we have been given by God. And how in recognising those gifts, and accepting them, and using them, we will feel right with God.

Perhaps the most famous passage in the Bible that mentions gifts is that in 1 Corinthians 12 we heard read a moment ago.
The church Paul founded in Corinth clearly gave him concerns. Across 1 Corinthians, it is clear that Paul is concerned that this group of believers is divided over so many things. The divisions are in part due to what the BBC reporter Robert Peston might call “socio economic grounds”. In other words, there was division because some people were rich and others poor. Some were Greeks former pagans and others were Jewish. Then there were divisions about the treatment of the Lord’s Supper.

But perhaps the biggest division was over what are termed “spiritual gifts”. Or more accurately, there were divisions over how the spiritual gifts should be used.

Now I think it is important to realise that Paul recognised that within the church in Corinth, just as in other churches, and indeed in all communities, there was diversity. That is fine in his eyes. Paul realises that people will be different and will have different gifts. It is when the diversity leads to divisions that Paul is concerned.

Paul sees the different gifts within the church at Corinth as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit and these diverse gifts enrich the community in a God given way. Paul realises that having people with different callings and different life circumstances is all evidence of people having been blessed by the Holy Spirit.

Now, I need to say that in the passage from 1 Corinthians we’ve heard read, Paul is focusing specifically on what are often termed “spiritual gifts”. And throughout his writings Paul lists many examples. But it’s fair to say that these are not a full list. And as the Christian writer Paul Sampley points out in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, although Paul is discussing spiritual gifts specifically, the same is true about all we are granted to do as believers. Whether that takes place as some service for others or some kind of ministry or whether in a work context.

So, when I’m talking about gifts, I’m not just thinking of the spiritual gifts, such as speaking in tongues or gifts of healing. I’m thinking much wider than that.

Paul recognises that there are apportionments of gifts, servings of gifts and of workings of gifts:

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, 1 Cor 12 NRSV

When we look at a diverse group of people, we begin to see what Paul means. In this congregation today there will be many, many gifts. Some will be gifts of musicianship in order perhaps to lead worship and sing of God’s love. Others will be more practical such as a gift of woodworking. And in this town over the folk festival we will see evidence of many gifts. Now it may be that some of the people with gifts do not recognise them as coming from God. But their gifts are given from God. And even if they do not realise that their gifts are God given, if the gifts have produced happiness, laughter, joy and pleasure, then how cannot that be a gift from God? These things can be thought of as fruits of the spirit.

It is no accident that people have certain gifts. Paul tells us:

11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses. 1 Cor 12 NRSV

The Holy Spirit is the source of all gifts and the Holy Spirit allocates such gifts as the Holy Spirit chooses.
Paul also makes the point that whilst accepting the diverse allocation of gifts, whatever gifts one has been given, the gift is not given in order to vaunt oneself but the gifts are designed to serve the common good of the community:

7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good

That is a quite a challenge. I’m sure we can all think of examples of people who have been given a talent but who then use that gift in an abusive way or in a way that isn’t for the common good.

And in any case as I said earlier Paul reminds us that:

11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.

Therefore, no one should boast of having any particular gift, because the Spirit has doled gifts out as the Spirit sees fit.
Bringing this back to the Folk Festival. What strikes me is the sheer sense of fun and pleasure the performers had. I am sure there could be some Morris Dancers who have “diva” moments, but they are few and far between. What they do is for their enjoyment of course, but the gift they have for dancing and playing music serves no other purpose really but to bring pleasure to others. That is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Likewise those who have been singing or performing. Yes there is enjoyment for oneself, but there is the bringing of pleasure to others.

Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight
'Till by turning, turning we come round right.


Post Script

After the service a church member told me how much "Lord of the dance" means to her. Firstly, she was at a student Christian conference in 1963 when Sydney Carter came and taught them his new hymn. And the lady met the man who would become her husband at the conference.

Then she said how on one occasion her four year old granddaughter had been with her in church and "Lord of the dance" was sung. Later that day Copland's "Appalacian Spring" was on Classic FM. The granddaughter said "Grandma it's the damp settee song" "What do you mean sweetheart?" "We sang it in church. I am the Lord of the damp settee"

Who'd be a school governor anyway?

In a bid to encourage more people to become school governors, schools minister Michael Gove has said

“The thing about being a governor is that it’s not just a touchy-feely, sherry-pouring, cake-slicing exercise in hugging each other and singing Kumbayah.

“The whole point about being as governor is that you ask tough questions. How are our children doing? Is money being spent wisely?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/school-governors-must-be-tougher-insists-michael-gove-9379763.html

In my best Michael Rosen style, this is my letter to Mr Gove.

Dear Mr. Gove,

Having spent 6 years as a school Governor (latterly as Chair of Governors) I can assure you Mr. Gove, that the Board of Governors I was part of, took our role seriously and we all tried to be as professional as possible. The Governors' Support team from the local authority emphasised to us the need to challenge and question. (Due to cuts by your Government and implemented by the local Tory run council, the Governors Support team and training was greatly reduced, by the way.)

But Mr Gove, now for the reality check. If you are expecting that level of professionalism and the confidence to challenge, then you are expecting a certain calibre of person to become a governor. In fact that is a point made by Emma Knights, chief executive of the National Governors Association who notes that the majority of school governors all have a professional or management background.

And whilst I wouldn't want to discourage anyone who doesn't have that kind of background from becoming a governor, the reality is that given the kind of scrutiny that is expected, "ordinary" people may well be put off. (That was the experience I saw at the school where I was governor. Several parent governors stopped being governors as they were put off by the amount of paperwork they had to read and digest.)

It is hard to say how much time I had to give as a governor. Probably as a governor it amounted to something like 4 hours a month. But as chair I spent this amount of time each week. I would frequently be called in to the school to sign papers, or for special meetings over and above those scheduled. I had a fornightly meeting with the Headteacher. And during an OFSTED inspection, I had several meetings with the lead inpector as well as having to be part of the team that picked up the pieces afterwards.

And, by the way Mr. Gove as a volunteer I would have expected some politeness and courtesy from the Inspector. I didn't receive this and neither did the staff. The complaints I made about the inspector afterwards, were ignored. The complaint being dealt with by other inspectors who clearly were going to circle the wagons around their colleague.

Being a governor was rewarding certainly - especially during the times when I was able to interact with students at concerts, presentation evenings etc; but I wouldn't rush to become a governor again. The constant moving of goalposts by you Mr Gove means it is hard to keep up. And, quite frankly, it was demoralising to see the teachers wilting under the constant drip, drip of criticism.

Must go. Sherry to drink, Kumbayah to sing.

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.