Britain's Holy Trinity - profit, speculation and consumption?

Drawing on 1 Kings 12: 10 – 16, Proverbs 1: 8 – 19, Matthew 12: 22 – 30

The passage from 1 Kings needs a brief explanation. Following the death of King Solomon, Rehoboam succeeded Solomon as King. Rehoboam was taking over a united kingdom that had existed under Saul, David and Solomon. It was united in the sense that all the 12 tribes of Israel had accepted Saul, David and Solomon as their king. But things were now about to change.
On his succession to the throne, Rehoboam called a meeting of the tribes in order for them to give their approval to his reign.
1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all the Israelites had gone there to make him king.
No doubt Rehoboam thought this was pretty much a formality. But things were about to take a dramatic change. Enter Jeroboam.
Jeroboam was the son of Nebat a member of the Tribe of Ephraim. While still young, Jeroboam was promoted by Solomon to be chief superintendent of the "burnden", i.e. the bands of forced labourers.
Influenced by the words of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29-39), Jeroboam began to form conspiracies with the view of becoming king of the ten tribes; but these were discovered, and he fled to Egypt, where he remained under the protection of Shoshenq I until the death of Solomon.
It would seem that the tribes appointed Jeroboam as some kind of negotiator (or at least he took the role on himself.) For we get the impression that he went to speak to Rehoboam.
4 “Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labour and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you.”
It’s pretty clear what this means. Under Solomon the tribes felt they had been harshly treated. So they were now saying that if Rehoboam rules more fairly and justly, then they would remain loyal to him.
Rehoboam decides he needs to discuss this with his advisors. Firstly he consults the senior statesmen as it were. A bit like I suppose the Queen speaking to Winston Churchill when she first came to the throne.
6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.
7 They replied, “If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favourable answer, they will always be your servants.”
It seems like sound advice. However, Rehoboam wasn’t too impressed with the answer he was given so instead he decided he’d ask someone else. And so he spoke to the young men he had grown up with. And they gave him the answer he wanted to hear:
10 The young men who had grown up with him replied, “Tell these people who have said to you, ‘Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter’—tell them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist. 11 My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.’”
And sure enough, three days later when Jeroboam came back to meet him Rehoboam said exactly that.
Unsurprisingly the tribes were not impressed by what Rehoboam said and this led to the kingdom being split. With the kingdom of Judah in the south and the kingdom of Israel in the north. Originally only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the House of David (Rehoboam) but soon after the tribe of Benjamin joined. In essence the northern tribes felt shut out of Rehoboam’s plans for government and although Rehoboam tried to join the two kingdoms together the northern tribes felt rebuffed by him. Particularly his harsh threats
15 So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfil the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.
The king did not listen to his people leading to unrest, disruption and the country fracturing.
The two kingdoms, Judah in the south and Israel in the north, co-existed uneasily after the split, until the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in c.722/721 left Judah as the sole remaining kingdom. And after that point only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are accounted for in history. The other 10 disappear from Biblical and all other historical accounts after the kingdom was destroyed in about 720 BC by ancient Assyria.
What is it with rulers and politicians that they don’t do listening? They always know best. They listen to those who tell them what they want to hear not to those who tell the uncomfortable truths.
In the light of the recent riots it would be very easy for me to draw the analogy between Rehoboam and David Cameron or Nick Clegg or Michael Gove or Teresa May. But I’m not going to do that. And in fact as much as I am no admirer of them, I suspect that Ed Milliband, Harriet Harmon or Ed Balls would be exactly the same if needs be. Listening to their advisers rather than the people or the wisest people in society. The elders of you like.
No doubt in a few months there will be a public enquiry set up to look into the recent riots. Just like the Scarman inquiry was set up to look into the causes of the Brixton riots in 1981. In 1981 the Scarman inquiry found that: the riots then were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents. Lord Scarman stated that "complex political, social and economic factors" created a "disposition towards violent protest". The Scarman report highlighted problems of racial disadvantage and inner-city decline, warning that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".
In essence the Scarman report found that the Brixton riots were the result of a backlash against the police. This time it seems that there is no so much of a racial element and not so much of s resentment towards the police. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised that a 2011 report would also find "complex political, social and economic factors”.
We can all put forward views about the cause of the riots – ill-discipline in the home or in the school or both; yobbish behaviour; pure criminality. I am sure all these contributed. But for what it is worth my feeling is that what we are seeing with the riots is evidence of the moral breakdown in our society.
Again, it would be easy for me to have a go at this government. But that would be wrong. Because the moral breakdown has been going on for decades. In fact I suppose we could say it has been going on since the time of Adam and Eve. But perhaps things have got worse in recent years. Some might say the swinging 60s were the start of it. Some might blame Thatcher’s Britain. There’s a good case for saying that despite Tony Blair saying his government would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they weren’t.
I don’t know where we could start. One thing I do believe though is that the moral decay is not just limited to housing estates in Tottenham or here in Swindon for that matter. It is rife throughout our society.
On Wednesday morning (10th August 2011) on the Today programme, a French journalist called Agnes Poirer was interviewed about what the French papers were saying. She was reminded that after all the French know something about rioting. She agreed. But said that French riots can generally be pinpointed as relating to something specific e.g. the Paris riots in 2005 were directed against the police following the death of a teenager.
But she said she felt the English riots of 2011 were motivated not so much as challenging the government or the police, but rather they were fuelled by envy and greed. I was so challenged by what she what saying that I went back and used the listen again feature on the internet.
“Looting is not a sign of protest. Looting is a sign of disgruntled consumers. It is a sign of consumption.”
“London is the epitome of inequality in the Western world. The gap between the richest and poorest in London is the widest of any place in the Western world.”
She went on to make the point that given this it is not surprising that riots turn to looting with people taking goods that in many cases they could not otherwise afford.
Then, this next quote was the one that really got me thinking. She said:
“Profit, speculation and consumption are Britain’s Holy Trinity.”
She made the point that wealth and acquiring wealth and possessions is at the heart of our society. And this is wrong. Whilst acknowledging that French society has its problems too “Money is not at the heart of French society.”
Agnes Poirer writes for The Guardian amongst others. So her thoughts might be regarded as a bit left wing. Imagine my surprise therefore to find in the Daily Telegraph on Friday an article saying a very similar thing. An article in which Peter Oborne, a confirmed right winger makes the point that:
“ … there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.
I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.
It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington.”
And he goes on to criticise not only politicians but businessmen such as Sir Philip Green and Sir Richard Branson who on the one hand are rewarded with knighthoods but at the same time move their companies off shore so as not to pay tax in the UK.
“Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.
“The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.”
Now one thing a preacher should never do is find a passage of scripture, or more precisely a verse from scripture, and use it to prove a point. I have to confess that I now going to break that rule, because I want to take a verse from the passage from Matthew 12:
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
Jesus was talking about overcoming sin specifically Satan. And showing that Satan is conquered because his kingdom has been divided and is fighting against itself because of Jesus conquering the power of sin.
Nevertheless, I do think this verse is really powerful
25 “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
For it shows us how the sin in our society – greed, excess wealth, avarice, corruption, is dividing our society and ruining it.
I feel that until we see the values of God’s Kingdom established, or at the very least people becoming reacquainted with those values as a starter, the unrest, the dissatisfaction, the cynicism in our society will continue to grow. Until we see people valuing God’s kingdom, people will continue to worship the Golden Calf of money and fame and future.
Anne Atkins on Thought for Day on Today Thursday 11th August referred to a series of letters The Times published 100 years ago all on the topic of “What’s wrong with the world?” One correspondent wrote in reply “Dear Sirs, I am. Yours faithfully G. K. Chesterton.”
Given Chesterton’s Catholic faith that is a very Christian reply. Because it is always easy to blame someone else. But the truth is we need to realise that all human beings are flawed to a greater or lesser degree and that includes you and me. And whilst I don’t see you lot looting the Co-Op after the service, all human beings have the potential for doing bad, evil sinful things.
But whilst all of us are the thing that is wrong with the world, those of us who believe in God can show that there is a better way.
I was greatly moved by the humility of Tariq Jahan the father of one of the men murdered in Birmingham during the riots there. The way Mr Jahan called for peace and in subsequent interviews has talked of how God’s love and the need for forgiveness, is a glimmer of light and hope in a dark world.
If each of us is what’s wrong with the world, then equally we can be the thing that is right with the world. People of faith have an important role in healing the damage to our society and to remind those in Parliament that there is another way. The way of the kingdom of God and all that means for all people including the rioter in Tottenham, the MP and the businessman. A way demonstrated by the people who came to sweep up perhaps?
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

© David Gray 14th August 2011





 

Riots

Like many people I suspect I've been watching the riots in London (and now in Birmingham and Bristol) with a lot of mixed feelings. The seemingly organised scale of the looting suggests this isn't just disaffected young people. But then again maybe disaffection is part of the cause. Time (and no doubt a costly public enquiry) will tell.

That said it is ironic that Nick Clegg a couple of weeks before the 2010 election predicted that a Tory government could bring rioting to our streets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo&feature=player_embedded

And who knows once the cuts really start to bite then there could be more unrest. But for now, my gut feel (for what it is worth) is that this is just criminals jumping on a band wagon.

As a police chaplain I naturally think of he officers caught up in all of this. The adrenalin rush is what some of them live for it has to be said. But after that will come the after effects. The coping with physical injuries and the mental traumas. So my thoughts and prayers are with them.

I've been thinking back to the 1981 riots and to the Broadwater Farm riots in Tottenham in 1985 (that saw PC Keith Blakelock murdered.)

This morning I recalled a Saturday afternoon in Newport in mid July 1981. Riots had been happening elsewhere in the country and even in Newport there was almost a sense of expectation that a riot might happen. People were talking about how Newport had been the centre of the Chartist Riots in 1839 and maybe now was the time for another riot.

The brass bad I was part of (Crosskeys Band) were playing in John Frost Square in the town centre. We'd been there from 9am and were playing through to 6pm as a sponsored fund raising exercise. Mid afternoon a gang of punks and skinheads started to hover round. We started to get twitchy. The youth band were playing at the time and parents of some of the younger kids (aged 10 or so) were looking worried. We started to play music from Bizet's L'Arlésienne suite. And suddenly the mood lifted.

Suddenly the punks and skinheads were dancing. To music from a 19th century French composer! Why?

L'Arlésienne suite contains a piece of music that ironically was in the charts at that time. The music used for the Can Can. And Bad Manners had a hit with a ska version at that time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoKcaanbh5E

We must have played it 4 or 5 times.

There weren't any riots in Newport. I don't think that was anything to do with Crosskeys Band. But I really remember how tense it felt and how the tension lifted due to Can Can.

In 1985 I was living in London. In Muswell Hill North London. About 5 or 6 miles from Tottenham. So other than rading about the riots in the Evenin Standard and seeing it on the news I knew nothing about them. But I remember one afternoon as I was walking along Muswell Hill Broadway, opposite the police station, everything went quiet. And next thing I knew the hearse carrying PC Blakelock's body was driven slowly past. Very moving.

I'm no lover of this government. And there is plenty to protest about. Unfair tax regime, cuts, student fees, NHS in danger, youth unemployment. Protest but not like this.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

Levy Bellfield started a life imprisonment sentence on 23^rd June after being convicted of the murder of Milly Dowler. Bellfield was already serving prison sentences for murdering other women. Clearly Bellfield is a violent and dangerous man described by the judge as a cruel and pitiless killer.

After the trial the Dowler family were said to want “an eye for an eye”. Milly’s sister Gemma said Bellfield should pay “the ultimate price” for the killing.

“You brutally murder someone, you should pay the ultimate price – a life for a life,’ she said. (Daily Express 25 June 2011.)

Given Milly’s murder and the way the Dowler family were subject to a harrowing cross examination by Belfield’s barrister, it is hardly surprising that they reacted in this way. And it is hardly surprising that tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Express and Daily Mail should latch on to that aspect of the story.

So should a murder conviction mean “a life for a life”?

In Matthew’s Gospel we find Jesus discussing the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Jesus is seeking to discuss what is laid out in Exodus 21:24 – 25. These two verses are part of a whole section of laws setting out the conduct of people in relation to disputes with slaves, the management and use of property and justice in respect of personal injury. And it is clear that this ancient Jewish law wishes to make clear what is fair. In other words, if Person A injures Person B and Person B loses his eye, then Person B can demand that Person A has an eye removed.

But Jesus’ teaching challenges this. For Jesus says that his followers are to react differently. We are to turn the right cheek; we are to go the extra mile. And we are to love our enemies. (Matthew 5: 38 – 48)

We are not to seek revenge but we are to love our enemies and try to be reconciled to them. It’s a huge challenge and it goes against human instincts. It also seems to go against our ideas of what is fair and just. But Jesus’ values are very different to ours. Jesus’ values are not about revenge but about love.

The Dowler family’s reaction is very natural. But is not the reaction of followers of Jesus.

As Ghandi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

Welcome. Croeso. Bienvenue...

⁴⁰ “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. ⁴¹ Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. ⁴² And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

Matthew 10:40 – 42

This short passage from Matthew’s Gospel comes at the end of what is sometimes referred to as the Missionary Discourse. That is for most of chapter 10 of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus outlines what he expects of his disciples.

Firstly Jesus tells is followers that they are to share the Gospel

⁶ Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. ⁷ As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ ⁸ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,^[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

Jesus then makes it clear to the disciples that they may expect a difficult time on occasion:

¹⁶ “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. ¹⁷ Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. ¹⁸ On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.

The disciples are called to behave courageously.

²⁸ Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

And they can expect a cost to their discipleship

³⁸ Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹ Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

The finally we get to these 3 verses at the end of the Gospel in which Jesus tells the disciples how they should share the presence of Christ.

The disciples are authorised and empowered to be representatives of Jesus on earth. And to give added importance they are reminded that as Jesus is God incarnate then the disciples are representing God.

⁴⁰ “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.

It should be noted that when we talk of disciples here, we are not just thinking of the original followers of Jesus. Matthew is writing his Gospel at least 40 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Possibly even longer.

Most scholars today think that the audience for Matthew’s Gospel would have been Jews who had “converted” to Christianity. And it is fair to say that they could be regarded as an early church. This is an important point to remember because when we come to consider this morning’s passage, it is not being written with just itinerant disciples in mind i.e. disciples who are travelling around preaching the Gospel. Matthew is writing to Christians who are gathered together but who still need to be reminded of the need to be disciples.

These are the “little children” Matthew quotes Jesus as speaking about. Little children is the term Matthew uses to refer to “ordinary” Christians.

So “little children” what is this passage saying to us to day?

Well to me it seems that this passage is clearly talking about the need for hospitality and the need to welcome in people as part of discipleship.

But why? Why do we need to welcome people as part of discipleship? Is it just so when I have to send in figures to the Methodist Church every October the numbers have gone up? Or is it merely to survive as an institution? Or to ensure we have enough finance? The answer is no to all three of those.

Robert Schnase in an excellent book called “Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations”[1] makes the point that fundamentally the church – the Body of Christ – exists to draw people to God through a relationship with Jesus Christ. And part of God’s plan for that to happen is for people to live in community with others. On one level such a community is a congregation and a congregation, an individual church, Schnase says, should be a school of love, a place where we are formed by God’s spirit and where we learn to give and receive love from friends, neighbours and strangers.

Robert Schnase says that such behaviour, showing such love, can be termed “Radical hospitality”.

I need to explain the phrase a bit a more. When we hear the word “hospitality” we can tend to think of offering people food or perhaps some where to stay. Certainly years ago when preachers and ministers would perhaps come from a way away then an offer of “hospitality” meant the spare bedroom at a steward’s house and Sunday lunch!

But hospitality is more than that. For it seems to me that greatest contribution any of us can make to the Body of Christ is inviting someone else to be part of the place where we find love or helping a newcomer feel so genuinely welcome that he or she receives what we have received.

So what is “radical hospitality”? Radical can mean “arising from the source” and in the context of hospitality it means practices that are rooted in Jesus who is the source of everything we do in his name. And these practises should radiate out into the lives of others. Radical also means “drastically different from ordinary practice, outside the normal.”

And Robert Schnase says churches that are characterised by Radical Hospitality are not just friendly and courteous, passively receiving visitors warmly. Instead they exhibit restlessness because they realise that so many people do not have a relationship with Jesus and are in desperate need of the love he brings.

We who are already part of the Body of Christ can forget what church offers to those in need. Love and fulfilment. And most importantly a place where we can encounter God’s love.

People need to know that God loves them. People need to know that their life is of supreme importance to God and that he values them all. People need to find peace in their lives. People need to know how to offer and accept forgiveness. And if a congregation is operating as God wants then it will be a school of love practising radical hospitality to all.

David Wiggs in his book “Who needs a welcome?” related this story.

I saw him in the church building for the first time on Wednesday. He was in his mid-70’s with thinning silver hair and a neat brown suit. Many times in the past I had invited him to come. Several other Christian friends had talked to him about the Lord and had tried to share the good news with him. He was well respected, honest, a man of good character. He acted much like a Christian would act, but he never came to church or professed Christ. After I got to know him well and we had talked about a wide range of subjects I asked him if he had ever been to a church service.

He hesitated. Then with a twisted grimace told me of an experience he had as a boy. He was raised in a large family. His parents survived the depression but they struggled to provide food and clothing for the family. When he was around ten years old a friend invited him to go to church with his family.

He went – the Sunday School class was great. The songs were fun to sing and the stories, oh the great Bible stories, were exciting to hear. He had never heard anyone read from the Bible before. As class ended the teacher pulled him aside and said, “Son, please don’t come again dressed as you are now. We want to look our best when we come into God’s house.”

He looked down at his old hand me down clothes that were certainly worn and tattered. He thought about that for a moment and said softly, “No ma’am I won’t ever.” Then he looked at me and said, “And you know what… I never did.” It was clear that he was done with that conversation.

David Wiggs goes on, I am sure that the Sunday School teacher meant well and in fact was representing the feeling of the majority of the folks in that church. But what if, what if she had put her arms around the dirty little boy in the ragged clothes and said, “Son, I am thrilled that you came this morning and I hope you will come every chance you get to hear more about Jesus because he loves you so much.” Moreover what if she would have talked with her pastor or her friends in the church and mobilized a full blown outreach effort to help this family make ends meet.

What if that church would have thought, “Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Or whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple will receive a great reward” (v. 40 & 42)

David Wiggs’ story ended like this:

I saw that man in the church house for the first time on Wednesday and I cried as I looked at the immaculately dressed old gentleman lying there in his casket. He was looking his best. But all I could think of were those words of an impressionable little ten-year-old boy echoing in my mind, “No ma’am I won’t ever.”

We may shudder when we hear that story. And we all like to think that we wouldn’t do something like that. We wouldn’t exclude someone. We wouldn’t send someone away from church. But it happens. And sometimes in subtle ways.

Very often church members care for each other so much, and their lives are so entwined with one another; that it can be difficult if not impossible for newcomers to break in. This very closeness that in many ways is the strength of a church can also be its biggest weakness. And those already inside and linked don’t realise what they are doing.

Practising radical hospitality means that we need to be aware of this. And means that we must be prepared to work towards helping others receive what Jesus Christ brings to each one of us already.

⁴⁰ “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. ⁴¹ Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. ⁴² And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

Hospitality is more than politeness to visitors and a warm welcome at the door – though it is those things as well. Radical hospitality is the practice of sharing Christ’s love with all we encounter and our opening up of our church community to receive others.

---

[1] Schnase R. Five practices of fruitful congregations Abingdon Press Nashville 2007

Charity begins at home – but it doesn’t have to stay here!

The Defence Secretary Liam Fox recently wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to scrap the Conservative manifesto commitment, and the coalition agreement, to set in law a promise to spend 0.7% of the UK’s gross national product on overseas aid. It was ironic that Dr Fox’s comments came during Christian Aid week.

Apparently by 2013 (when the 0.7% aid budget would come into place) 0.7% of Gross National Product would equate to £11.4 billion pounds. Last year the British tax payer gave £7.5 billion worth of overseas aid.

Dr Fox clearly feels that the money should be spent in the UK. After all £11.4 billion would pay for about 25% of the new Trident nuclear deterrent.

Jesus was once asked by a lawyer what he had to do to inherit eternal life. When questioned by Jesus the lawyer said that Jewish law stated “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’”

The lawyer then asked Jesus who he should regard as his neighbour. Under Jewish law “neighbours” were other Jews. However, Jesus went on to tell the lawyer the Parable of the Good Samaritan in which a sworn enemy of Jews – the Samaritan – was shown as caring for a Jewish victim of assault.

Jesus’ teaching shows that we are to think of all people as our neighbours no matter where they live. We are to have a wider perspective. To be concerned with all people everywhere.

We’re facing some tough economic times and savings need to be made. But I feel that it is important that we, as one of the richest countries in the world, show an example and provide aid to those many countries that are in need.

The prayer I’m about to use comes from this year’s Christian Aid worship pack.

God, who is more than we can ever imagine,

give us a bigger picture of the world;

give us a broader view of justice;

give us dreams of love

that are not defined by boundaries of geography or race or religion,

or by the limitations of worldly structures and systems.

Enlarge our imaginations and inspire our courage this Christian Aid Week

And all weeks, to put ourselves in that bigger picture.

Keep us struggling,

keep us faithful,

keep us strong,

so that we never give up on the promise of your kingdom,

where the world is transformed,

and all can enjoy life in all its fullness.

In Jesus name we ask it. Amen.