This was partly lifted from Roots again (lack of time)
This year there has been a very successful charity song called “Hero” which has raised money for the Haig fund. It is most encouraging because it is from the X factor, and shows a desire among the young to continue to remember. At any victory celebration there must be two emotions: joy that the war is over and sadness at the appalling cost of that victory (which we express today). It used to be the custom on this day to focus on the two world wars of the twentieth century, but in a new century, and as time marches on, we acknowledge with sadness that there are still many conflicts in the world; there are still millions of victims and thousands of heroes and in any consideration of war, we must remember them too, pray for them and press for solutions to be sought. We may have different opinions here about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the faithfulness and courage of her majesty’s armed forces today in going to those places – as Lt Col Stephen Hughes from Stebbing Green has done, returning a couple of weeks ago to Basra, makes them all heroes.
One of the marks of a true hero is their willingness to lay down his or her life in the full knowledge of what will happen to them. Jesus died so that others may have life. St Maximilian Kolbe was interned in a concentration camp and voluntarily took on the death sentence of a young Polish Officer. Before the 2nd world war he had an extensive ministry across the world, setting up Franciscan communities – including one in Nagasaki, Japan. At his base in Poland he and his fellow brothers undertook publication work, including materials considered anti-Nazi. For this work the presses were shut down, the congregation suppressed, the brothers dispersed, and Maximilian was imprisoned in Pawiak prison, Warsaw, Poland on 17 February 1941. On 28 May 1941 he was transferred to Auschwitz and branded as prisoner 16670. He was assigned to a special work group staffed by priests and supervised by especially vicious and abusive guards. His calm dedication to the faith brought him the worst jobs available, and more beatings than anyone else. At one point he was beaten, lashed, and left for dead. The prisoners managed to smuggle him into the camp hospital. When he returned to the camp, Maximilian ministered to other prisoners, including delivering communion using smuggled bread and wine. In July 1941 there was an escape from the camp. Camp protocol, designed to make the prisoners guard each other, required that ten men be slaughtered in retribution for each escaped prisoner. Francis Gajowniczek, a married man with young children was chosen to die for the escape. Maximilian volunteered to take his place, and died as he had always wished - in service. In 1982 when Maximilian Kolbe was decalred a saint by Pope John Paul II in Rome, among the crowd in St Peter’s Square was Francis Gajowniczek, and his children and grandchildren. A very concrete example of Jesus’ words “Greater love has no one than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends,” and also a clear example to today’s generation of the way that heroes of the faith end up as saints.
In these times of financial uncertainty it is particularly encouraging that Remembrance time remains a priority. For those who struggle financially it is tempting to think of ones self, not others. We might even be tempted to make a comparison between the daily news of financial losses and the reporting of war dead – thankfully now not every day, but still quite frequent. Both will bring a sense of hopelessness and despair to some, but there is a difference; shares do regain value, but dead soldiers don’t come home.
A sense of perspective then is helpful. We might be suffering, but that is nothing compared to those under fire now or in the past. We might have had to transfer our trusts and shares and savings to another bank, but that is insignificant when compared to soldiers of many armies in many wars since 1918 who had to transfer their trust from a dead officer to a new one who might only just be out of his teens.
The transfer of trust, while it sounds like a financial act really sums up the solution to some of the dilemmas we face at Remembrance time. How do we see an end to this violence? How can we find hope? Was the sacrifice of so many lives worth it?
Just as we might transfer our savings from one bank to another, to be a Christian means making a transfer of trust from humanity to God – from human power to the saving power of Jesus Christ.
There is always talk of sacrifice on Remembrance Sunday, and those who know me well will understand I’m not going to let the chance go to talk of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
This is not to disparage the sacrifice of the many who laid down their lives in the world wars. It may be true that the war to end all wars, which came to an end 90 years ago, didn’t fulfil its potential, but Europe would be a very different place today had not millions of people given their lives for the cause of freedom in two world wars. Individual bravery and sacrifice continues today – its not a co-incidence that medals given for bravery and valour are called crosses, for they echo and recall to mind the cross of Christ, its sacrifice and also its victory.
And that’s what we are transferring our trust into – the power of the cross, a once for all sacrifice that truly is the death to end death. Hope arises from the cross because Christ gave his life, and then overcame death itself in the resurrection; if we trust in the cross it is not to dwell upon death, but to know the power of the resurrection, and the love of God, poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
Supremely, also, the sacrifice of the cross brought about reconciliation between humanity and God. Today as every Sunday we pray for reconciliation between warring nations and factions; without the reconciliation won by the cross of Christ this would be a futile exercise. “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” – God sets the precedent in enabling us to be reconciled to him; the outworking of that reconciliation comes in he bringing of true peace – more than just an absence of war - to the conflict-ravaged places we see and hear about every day.
As Jesus said, “This is my command, Love each other”.
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Adriana and Nicky's wedding sermon
Not to be outdone by the Korean baptism sermon, here is an Italian version of the sermon from today's wedding, for the benefit of the bride's Itailian family
Voi sapete che è difficile pensare a una buona barzelletta sul matrimonio, quando la coppia prima che siete stati insieme per tutto il tempo che questi due -, ma io sono solo contento di avere avuto a qui. Così, invece di uno scherzo I'll iniziare con un punto di grave. Per guardare questi due in condizioni normali di vita quotidiana, si può dire per quanto tempo essi sono stati insieme? Pochi anni fa un uomo era in attesa di un amico in aeroporto. Come egli stava cercando per il suo amico, ha notato un uomo a venire verso di lui portando due sacchetti di luce. Egli ha osservato come l'uomo fermato per salutare la sua famiglia. In primo luogo egli motioned al suo figlio più giovane (forse sei anni) come egli stabilisce la sua sacchetti. Hanno dato reciprocamente una lunga e amorevole abbraccio. Poiché separati abbastanza per guardare gli uni negli altri il volto, il padre disse: "E 'così bello vedere voi, figlio. Ti ho perso così tanto!" Suo figlio sorrise un po 'timidamente, scongiurato i suoi occhi e dolcemente risposto, "Io, troppo, papà!" Allora l'uomo si alzò, guardava negli occhi del figlio più anziano (forse nove o dieci) e imbutitura, mentre suo figlio il volto nelle sue mani ha detto: "Stai già abbastanza il giovane. Ti amo molto, Zach!" Hanno abbracciato anche uno più amorevole, tenero abbraccio. Mentre questo stava accadendo, una bambina (forse uno-anno-vecchio) è stato squirming excitedly nelle sue braccia della madre, mai una volta che i suoi occhi poco al largo della splendida vista del suo ritorno il padre. L'uomo ha detto: "Ciao, bambina!" come egli ha preso delicatamente il bambino dalla madre. Ha baciato rapidamente il suo volto su tutti i detenuti e quindi la sua stretta al suo petto, mentre il suo dondolo da un lato all'altro. La bambina istantaneamente semplicemente rilassato e di cui la testa sulla sua spalla, immobile in puro appagamento. Dopo alcuni momenti, ha consegnato la sua figlia al figlio più anziano e ha dichiarato, "Ho salvato il meglio per ultimo", e ha proceduto a dare la propria moglie un lungo, appassionato bacio. Egli guardava in suoi occhi per alcuni secondi e poi silenziosamente bocca, "Ti amo così tanto!" Essi stared ad ogni altro gli occhi, grandi sorrisi trasmissione via IR a un altro, mentre si tiene entrambe le mani. Il astante poi realizzato totalmente assorbito come è stato nella splendida esposizione di autentico amore accanto a lui. Egli ha improvvisamente sentito a disagio, come se si trattasse di qualcosa di sacro invasori, ma è stato sorpreso di sentire la propria voce chiedere nervosamente, "Wow! Quanto tempo avete due stato sposato? " "Stato sposato dodici anni", ha risposto l'uomo. "Beh, allora, per quanto tempo sei stato via?" l'astante ha chiesto. "Due intere giornate!" è arrivata la risposta ... DUE GIORNI? Il astante è stato stordito. Con l'intensità del saluto, ha assunto l'uomo era stato fatto per almeno qualche settimana, se non mesi. Quasi offhandedly, sperando di porre fine alla sua intrusione con una certa parvenza di grazia l'astante ha detto, "spero che il mio matrimonio è ancora appassionato che, dopo dodici anni!" L'uomo improvvisamente smesso di sorridere. Egli guardò il astante dritto negli occhi, e con forza che bruciò a destra nella sua anima, ha detto una cosa che ha lasciato l'astante una persona diversa. Egli ha detto, "Non speranza, amico ... DECIDERE!" Ho letto un libro una volta da Bear Grylls. Potreste averlo visto in TV. Egli è stato il più giovane persona mai a salire l'Everest, che è piuttosto un risultato, ma mi ha scommessa non ha mai avuto per organizzare un matrimonio come questo! Ma il motivo per cui ho citato questo cap non è solo quello di confrontare i preparativi per l'arrampicata oggi con il mondo della montagna più alta. E 'anche perché nel suo libro sulla salita dà una definizione di impegno, che egli crediti a sua madre. Grylls ha detto la signora, "L'impegno è fare la cosa che ha detto che non avevo molto tempo dopo l'umore lei ha detto che ha lasciato in voi". Lei ha detto che nel contesto di arrampicata montagne, ma credo che si adatta molto bene con il matrimonio. Oggi è un giorno molto speciale, il culmine di mesi di preparazione, e, auspicabilmente, la fine di un tempo molto occupato. Ma in sostanza non è la fine, è l'inizio di una nuova vita insieme, come Adriana e Nicky hanno deciso di diventare marito e moglie. E la signora Grylls' dicendo si adatta molto bene, perché questo è un giorno meraviglioso, ma Adriana e Nicky dovrà affrontare molti giorni a venire, quando essi potrebbero sentire che il matrimonio non è una cosa meravigliosa, e che, mi auguro ricordare questo giorno come il tempo Essi si sono impegnati a fare qualcosa, anche se l'umore di un giorno di nozze non può durare una vita. Adriana e Nicky stanno andando a fare una alleanza insieme oggi, e noi siamo i loro testimoni. In questa alleanza si donano reciprocamente. Per una alleanza è di dare a l'altra persona, non da loro. È grave decisione che hanno fatto, e al quale ci accingiamo ad essere i testimoni. Molti di voi qui oggi possono sentirsi molto negativamente sul matrimonio come un impegno per tutta la vita, come mi delineando oggi, e in cui Adriana e Nicky sta per entrare. Riconosco i tuoi sentimenti, ma non ho scuse per celebrare il dono di Dio del matrimonio. Non so circa voi, ma nella mia famiglia celebrazioni di solito coinvolgere cioccolato in qualche modo o in un altro, così ho pensato che avevo alcuni mettono insieme oggi. Ma ho scelto questo tipo di cioccolato per un motivo particolare, che è quello che fornisce una eccellente illustrazione visiva per il matrimonio cristiano. La maggior parte delle barrette di cioccolato sono 2 dimensionale - piana, ma Toblerone ha tre lati. Questa è una buona immagine di come in un matrimonio fatta alla presenza di Dio, ci sono tre parti - il marito, moglie, e Dio, tutti lavorano insieme per rendere il matrimonio e la vita dando vita a lungo. Se vogliamo aprire il pacchetto vedremo che sotto il cartone abbastanza ordinario vi è una fascia d'oro, questo è un quadro di come prezioso Adriana e Nicky, e il loro matrimonio, è quella di Dio; egli tesori, e vuole essere parte di la loro vita, come egli fa per tutti noi. Abbiamo iniziato oggi, riconoscendo che il matrimonio è un dono di Dio. Si tratta di un dono ama dare, e vuole che noi di godere di essa! Ora quelli di voi conosce questa marca di cioccolato sarà consapevole del fatto che quando si riesce a passare la fascia a sé il bar è un intrigante forma, ma ha picchi e valli. Si tratta di una foto del alti e bassi della vita coniugale; i tempi che abbiamo già accennato, quando l'umore della celebrazione odierna sembra difficile da recuperare. Eppure, il bar continua ad avere tre lati, anche in trogoli; Dio cammina con noi nella buona e il duro volte, e se lasciamo che lui, Dio ci aiuterà a rendere grazie. La nostra lettura da Romani ci ha dato alcuni buoni posti per iniziare a fare questo. Ora ho fatto molto del fatto che il matrimonio è destinato ad essere lunga vita, così alcuni di voi potrebbero essere speranza per me e per la produzione di infinite Toblerone per illustrare questo. Purtroppo il bilancio non viene eseguito a ciò, ma devo dire che questo bar è un fine, il sermone è prossimo alla sua fine; si concluderà oggi, ma Adriana e Nicky dovrebbe essere fiducioso che oggi inizio darà loro un dolce matrimonio, pieni di cose buone, e alcune sorprese, ma non hanno nessuno dire che può contenere tracce di noci.
Voi sapete che è difficile pensare a una buona barzelletta sul matrimonio, quando la coppia prima che siete stati insieme per tutto il tempo che questi due -, ma io sono solo contento di avere avuto a qui. Così, invece di uno scherzo I'll iniziare con un punto di grave. Per guardare questi due in condizioni normali di vita quotidiana, si può dire per quanto tempo essi sono stati insieme? Pochi anni fa un uomo era in attesa di un amico in aeroporto. Come egli stava cercando per il suo amico, ha notato un uomo a venire verso di lui portando due sacchetti di luce. Egli ha osservato come l'uomo fermato per salutare la sua famiglia. In primo luogo egli motioned al suo figlio più giovane (forse sei anni) come egli stabilisce la sua sacchetti. Hanno dato reciprocamente una lunga e amorevole abbraccio. Poiché separati abbastanza per guardare gli uni negli altri il volto, il padre disse: "E 'così bello vedere voi, figlio. Ti ho perso così tanto!" Suo figlio sorrise un po 'timidamente, scongiurato i suoi occhi e dolcemente risposto, "Io, troppo, papà!" Allora l'uomo si alzò, guardava negli occhi del figlio più anziano (forse nove o dieci) e imbutitura, mentre suo figlio il volto nelle sue mani ha detto: "Stai già abbastanza il giovane. Ti amo molto, Zach!" Hanno abbracciato anche uno più amorevole, tenero abbraccio. Mentre questo stava accadendo, una bambina (forse uno-anno-vecchio) è stato squirming excitedly nelle sue braccia della madre, mai una volta che i suoi occhi poco al largo della splendida vista del suo ritorno il padre. L'uomo ha detto: "Ciao, bambina!" come egli ha preso delicatamente il bambino dalla madre. Ha baciato rapidamente il suo volto su tutti i detenuti e quindi la sua stretta al suo petto, mentre il suo dondolo da un lato all'altro. La bambina istantaneamente semplicemente rilassato e di cui la testa sulla sua spalla, immobile in puro appagamento. Dopo alcuni momenti, ha consegnato la sua figlia al figlio più anziano e ha dichiarato, "Ho salvato il meglio per ultimo", e ha proceduto a dare la propria moglie un lungo, appassionato bacio. Egli guardava in suoi occhi per alcuni secondi e poi silenziosamente bocca, "Ti amo così tanto!" Essi stared ad ogni altro gli occhi, grandi sorrisi trasmissione via IR a un altro, mentre si tiene entrambe le mani. Il astante poi realizzato totalmente assorbito come è stato nella splendida esposizione di autentico amore accanto a lui. Egli ha improvvisamente sentito a disagio, come se si trattasse di qualcosa di sacro invasori, ma è stato sorpreso di sentire la propria voce chiedere nervosamente, "Wow! Quanto tempo avete due stato sposato? " "Stato sposato dodici anni", ha risposto l'uomo. "Beh, allora, per quanto tempo sei stato via?" l'astante ha chiesto. "Due intere giornate!" è arrivata la risposta ... DUE GIORNI? Il astante è stato stordito. Con l'intensità del saluto, ha assunto l'uomo era stato fatto per almeno qualche settimana, se non mesi. Quasi offhandedly, sperando di porre fine alla sua intrusione con una certa parvenza di grazia l'astante ha detto, "spero che il mio matrimonio è ancora appassionato che, dopo dodici anni!" L'uomo improvvisamente smesso di sorridere. Egli guardò il astante dritto negli occhi, e con forza che bruciò a destra nella sua anima, ha detto una cosa che ha lasciato l'astante una persona diversa. Egli ha detto, "Non speranza, amico ... DECIDERE!" Ho letto un libro una volta da Bear Grylls. Potreste averlo visto in TV. Egli è stato il più giovane persona mai a salire l'Everest, che è piuttosto un risultato, ma mi ha scommessa non ha mai avuto per organizzare un matrimonio come questo! Ma il motivo per cui ho citato questo cap non è solo quello di confrontare i preparativi per l'arrampicata oggi con il mondo della montagna più alta. E 'anche perché nel suo libro sulla salita dà una definizione di impegno, che egli crediti a sua madre. Grylls ha detto la signora, "L'impegno è fare la cosa che ha detto che non avevo molto tempo dopo l'umore lei ha detto che ha lasciato in voi". Lei ha detto che nel contesto di arrampicata montagne, ma credo che si adatta molto bene con il matrimonio. Oggi è un giorno molto speciale, il culmine di mesi di preparazione, e, auspicabilmente, la fine di un tempo molto occupato. Ma in sostanza non è la fine, è l'inizio di una nuova vita insieme, come Adriana e Nicky hanno deciso di diventare marito e moglie. E la signora Grylls' dicendo si adatta molto bene, perché questo è un giorno meraviglioso, ma Adriana e Nicky dovrà affrontare molti giorni a venire, quando essi potrebbero sentire che il matrimonio non è una cosa meravigliosa, e che, mi auguro ricordare questo giorno come il tempo Essi si sono impegnati a fare qualcosa, anche se l'umore di un giorno di nozze non può durare una vita. Adriana e Nicky stanno andando a fare una alleanza insieme oggi, e noi siamo i loro testimoni. In questa alleanza si donano reciprocamente. Per una alleanza è di dare a l'altra persona, non da loro. È grave decisione che hanno fatto, e al quale ci accingiamo ad essere i testimoni. Molti di voi qui oggi possono sentirsi molto negativamente sul matrimonio come un impegno per tutta la vita, come mi delineando oggi, e in cui Adriana e Nicky sta per entrare. Riconosco i tuoi sentimenti, ma non ho scuse per celebrare il dono di Dio del matrimonio. Non so circa voi, ma nella mia famiglia celebrazioni di solito coinvolgere cioccolato in qualche modo o in un altro, così ho pensato che avevo alcuni mettono insieme oggi. Ma ho scelto questo tipo di cioccolato per un motivo particolare, che è quello che fornisce una eccellente illustrazione visiva per il matrimonio cristiano. La maggior parte delle barrette di cioccolato sono 2 dimensionale - piana, ma Toblerone ha tre lati. Questa è una buona immagine di come in un matrimonio fatta alla presenza di Dio, ci sono tre parti - il marito, moglie, e Dio, tutti lavorano insieme per rendere il matrimonio e la vita dando vita a lungo. Se vogliamo aprire il pacchetto vedremo che sotto il cartone abbastanza ordinario vi è una fascia d'oro, questo è un quadro di come prezioso Adriana e Nicky, e il loro matrimonio, è quella di Dio; egli tesori, e vuole essere parte di la loro vita, come egli fa per tutti noi. Abbiamo iniziato oggi, riconoscendo che il matrimonio è un dono di Dio. Si tratta di un dono ama dare, e vuole che noi di godere di essa! Ora quelli di voi conosce questa marca di cioccolato sarà consapevole del fatto che quando si riesce a passare la fascia a sé il bar è un intrigante forma, ma ha picchi e valli. Si tratta di una foto del alti e bassi della vita coniugale; i tempi che abbiamo già accennato, quando l'umore della celebrazione odierna sembra difficile da recuperare. Eppure, il bar continua ad avere tre lati, anche in trogoli; Dio cammina con noi nella buona e il duro volte, e se lasciamo che lui, Dio ci aiuterà a rendere grazie. La nostra lettura da Romani ci ha dato alcuni buoni posti per iniziare a fare questo. Ora ho fatto molto del fatto che il matrimonio è destinato ad essere lunga vita, così alcuni di voi potrebbero essere speranza per me e per la produzione di infinite Toblerone per illustrare questo. Purtroppo il bilancio non viene eseguito a ciò, ma devo dire che questo bar è un fine, il sermone è prossimo alla sua fine; si concluderà oggi, ma Adriana e Nicky dovrebbe essere fiducioso che oggi inizio darà loro un dolce matrimonio, pieni di cose buone, e alcune sorprese, ma non hanno nessuno dire che può contenere tracce di noci.
Monday, 6 October 2008
Lindsell and Stebbing, 5th October 2008
This in a way is the follow up to last month's Stebbing and Lindsell double header, ending as it does on the matter of my CLP project, which is why ther are differnt endings for each church.
On Wednesday evening at Stebbing, when we as a deanery welcomed Cilla in her new role as deanery priest, Bishop Christopher made the important point that God does not send us out to where he is not going, or instead of him, but he sends us out to proclaim his kingdom and his gospel – the heart of which is of course the fact that he is coming in power. God is not an absentee landlord; that’s what the incarnation is about – God became one of us to redeem us and transform our lives.
Absentee landlords were not popular in Palestine; many of Jesus' hearers will have been on the tenants' side, when he told this parable, at least until the murders start. In a society where people believed there was only a fixed amount of wealth, one person's wealth was another one's loss. The absentee landlord was making his wealth out of the labour of those who owned no land.
That’s a big difference for us; today I don’t think we do live as if there is a fixed amount of wealth; instead we live as if even the sky is not the limit to how much money and consequently how much material wealth – stuff – we can obtain for ourselves. But we do have absentee landlords of many kinds, and some of them I guess at the moment are finding their property devaluing pretty fast.
But we need to remember that Matthew makes no criticism of the people, the generators of the fruit, but only of those who govern them, the tenant farmers - a big challenge, then, to the prevailing attitude, and the opposite way round to the last vineyard parable we looked at a couple of weeks back from Matthew chapter 20. The main difference is the absentee landlord; the interpretation of this element in the parable seems to suggest that the Jewish people are in a new kind of captivity, held away from God. God's anger does not respond by destroying them, but by wrenching them away from their rulers and putting them in new hands.
By using this image to make the reference to Israel and its leaders implied by the 'vineyard' image, common in the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus was creating unsettling juxtapositions. Was God understood to have been an absentee landlord? Perhaps people did feel God had abandoned Israel to its fate under the tyranny of Rome. If so, in whose hands had it been left? Are these tenants the Jewish leaders or Roman collaborators or both? Perhaps that dichotomy is reflected in the reality that both Pilate and Herod ended up bowing to pressure and condemning Jesus to death.
Matthew uses this parable to drive home again the growing opposition in his day between the emerging Jewish leadership and the Christian movement. God is the landowner, the slaves are the prophets and the son is Jesus. And after the destruction of Jerusalem, God's project has been put in new hands: the new people of God who comprise the Church. Interestingly Paul uses a vineyard theme in the letter to the Romans when he writes of the gentiles being grafted in to the plant that he sees Israel as.
How does this fit with the passage from Philippians? Perhaps the key is Paul's recognition that, despite having been in his pre-Christian past a member of the Pharisaic group that leads popular Judaism, he has nothing worth relying on other than Christ. He is a tenant who did not throw out the son, but welcomed him.
In Philippians 3.4b-14, Paul is engaged in argument with those who want the nascent Church to be more Jewish in its practice and observance, and uses the rhetorical device of pointing out that he himself is as Jewish as they come. The things he had no choice over – his circumcision, his language, his tribe, his ancestry – make him fully authentic. The choices he made – to become a Pharisee, to be zealous about the law, to oppose the early Jesus movement – showed his commitment to Judaism. No one could accuse him of special pleading, so his argument deserves a hearing.
In reality, however, all these things of which he has every right to be proud he regards as worthless. What he then goes on to say has been variously interpreted. He clearly suggests that the 'prize' – the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus – is still ahead of him. He hasn't yet reached his goal. He still needs to 'know' Christ by becoming like him in his death. But already he is content that he doesn't have to establish his own righteousness, because he has a righteousness that comes from God and is based on faith. These verses don't fit any of the neat theological schemes Christians are wont to adopt, but they do fit the common experience of Christian believers, that our salvation is both 'now' and 'not yet'.
LINDSELL I did say we would be taking our little questionnaires a little further, and this is the theme of that further work; where are we heading, what is our purpose and goal. I will take names of 4 or 5 people after the service today that would be willing to help me with this project.
STEBBING You may remember last month I asked you to consider some questions about your church; how you felt most blessed and what you hoped for in the future. Some of you shared with me after the service and that was a great blessing.
So for now let us rejoice that we, the church, are the people that God has entrusted his vineyard to, and let us reach out to him for the power, the grace and the love with which we can bear fruit. Let us remember that the vineyard is not to be identified with the church, but with God’s Kingdom, his world in the world.
On Wednesday evening at Stebbing, when we as a deanery welcomed Cilla in her new role as deanery priest, Bishop Christopher made the important point that God does not send us out to where he is not going, or instead of him, but he sends us out to proclaim his kingdom and his gospel – the heart of which is of course the fact that he is coming in power. God is not an absentee landlord; that’s what the incarnation is about – God became one of us to redeem us and transform our lives.
Absentee landlords were not popular in Palestine; many of Jesus' hearers will have been on the tenants' side, when he told this parable, at least until the murders start. In a society where people believed there was only a fixed amount of wealth, one person's wealth was another one's loss. The absentee landlord was making his wealth out of the labour of those who owned no land.
That’s a big difference for us; today I don’t think we do live as if there is a fixed amount of wealth; instead we live as if even the sky is not the limit to how much money and consequently how much material wealth – stuff – we can obtain for ourselves. But we do have absentee landlords of many kinds, and some of them I guess at the moment are finding their property devaluing pretty fast.
But we need to remember that Matthew makes no criticism of the people, the generators of the fruit, but only of those who govern them, the tenant farmers - a big challenge, then, to the prevailing attitude, and the opposite way round to the last vineyard parable we looked at a couple of weeks back from Matthew chapter 20. The main difference is the absentee landlord; the interpretation of this element in the parable seems to suggest that the Jewish people are in a new kind of captivity, held away from God. God's anger does not respond by destroying them, but by wrenching them away from their rulers and putting them in new hands.
By using this image to make the reference to Israel and its leaders implied by the 'vineyard' image, common in the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus was creating unsettling juxtapositions. Was God understood to have been an absentee landlord? Perhaps people did feel God had abandoned Israel to its fate under the tyranny of Rome. If so, in whose hands had it been left? Are these tenants the Jewish leaders or Roman collaborators or both? Perhaps that dichotomy is reflected in the reality that both Pilate and Herod ended up bowing to pressure and condemning Jesus to death.
Matthew uses this parable to drive home again the growing opposition in his day between the emerging Jewish leadership and the Christian movement. God is the landowner, the slaves are the prophets and the son is Jesus. And after the destruction of Jerusalem, God's project has been put in new hands: the new people of God who comprise the Church. Interestingly Paul uses a vineyard theme in the letter to the Romans when he writes of the gentiles being grafted in to the plant that he sees Israel as.
How does this fit with the passage from Philippians? Perhaps the key is Paul's recognition that, despite having been in his pre-Christian past a member of the Pharisaic group that leads popular Judaism, he has nothing worth relying on other than Christ. He is a tenant who did not throw out the son, but welcomed him.
In Philippians 3.4b-14, Paul is engaged in argument with those who want the nascent Church to be more Jewish in its practice and observance, and uses the rhetorical device of pointing out that he himself is as Jewish as they come. The things he had no choice over – his circumcision, his language, his tribe, his ancestry – make him fully authentic. The choices he made – to become a Pharisee, to be zealous about the law, to oppose the early Jesus movement – showed his commitment to Judaism. No one could accuse him of special pleading, so his argument deserves a hearing.
In reality, however, all these things of which he has every right to be proud he regards as worthless. What he then goes on to say has been variously interpreted. He clearly suggests that the 'prize' – the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus – is still ahead of him. He hasn't yet reached his goal. He still needs to 'know' Christ by becoming like him in his death. But already he is content that he doesn't have to establish his own righteousness, because he has a righteousness that comes from God and is based on faith. These verses don't fit any of the neat theological schemes Christians are wont to adopt, but they do fit the common experience of Christian believers, that our salvation is both 'now' and 'not yet'.
LINDSELL I did say we would be taking our little questionnaires a little further, and this is the theme of that further work; where are we heading, what is our purpose and goal. I will take names of 4 or 5 people after the service today that would be willing to help me with this project.
STEBBING You may remember last month I asked you to consider some questions about your church; how you felt most blessed and what you hoped for in the future. Some of you shared with me after the service and that was a great blessing.
So for now let us rejoice that we, the church, are the people that God has entrusted his vineyard to, and let us reach out to him for the power, the grace and the love with which we can bear fruit. Let us remember that the vineyard is not to be identified with the church, but with God’s Kingdom, his world in the world.
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Michaelmas at Little Saling and Little Easton
I departed from the script in the morning at Little Saling, as it was a bit gung ho on first reading, and ad libbed a bit on the Lord of the Rings (as it was on TV last night).
Readings 2 Kings 6, 8-17, John 1 47 - the end
Have you ever heard someone exclaim to a friend, “Oh, what are you like?” This is usually an expression of exasperation and amusement, when its intended target has clearly shown what they are like by acting stupid!
Michael, whose feast, along with all angels we celebrate today, means, “Who is like God” in Hebrew. Some have concluded that the name refers to “one who is like God”, which may be at the origin of various sub-Christian and New Age ideas about Michael being in some strange sense divine.
But actually it’s a question, “Who is like God?”
In the Bible, when God intervenes supernaturally, as he does for Elisha in 2 Kings 6, he does so frequently by a means we might describe as angelic. “The angel of the Lord” has a key role in the annunciation to Mary - but was that God, or an angel? Was that God, or an angel that wrestled with Jacob? Was that God or three angels who visited Abraham? The line is sometimes very blurred, so Michael’s name gives us a clue as to how to think properly of angels – “who is like God?” – Angels show us a little of what he is like but our new testament reading fills out the answer with specific reference to how angels worship the Son of Man.
“Who is like God?” – Jesus, ands the angels give him honour and glory – the glory bit fits with the idea of showing who God really is.
Yet there is something that distinguishes this calendar feast from most others, because the person we remember and celebrate is not a human being, but a heavenly one. Michael may be famous for various supernatural appearances on earth but he never lived an earthly life. I enjoy the saint’s days in the calendar, but that is usually because I take heart and encouragement from the way God uses ordinary men and women in extraordinary ways. You can’t do that at Michaelmas, because Michaelmas is the season for looking to heavens for inspiration, and to build up our common faith. This is what Elisha did, and this is also what Jesus told Nathaniel he would one day do too.
But you know, the language of Scripture is coming to us with a radically different cosmology, compared to the scientific advances of the modern era. Many people of all ages struggle with the idea that heaven is “up there”, and so reject out of hand the Bible stories of angels and clouds and the like. Yet the angelic host that came to Elisha’s aid wasn’t like that; the army of the Lord simply appeared to those who were able to see them. This reading I guess is included in the lectionary for today because of Michael’s reputation as a warrior – in Paradise Lost it is Michael who takes on Satan in armed combat and wounds him. Famous images of Michael such as the statue at the end of Boulevard St Michel in Paris often depict him as a helmeted warrior, or fighting a dragon, as he is described doing in Revelation 12. Angels sometimes seem to get the job of God’s hit men, carrying out emergency work at a moments notice- actually scrub that, it make s them sound like plumbers!
So how is this festival relevant for us today? It has long been a tradition to ordain people at Michaelmas; indeed I went to such a service yesterday. I want to suggest that there are two simple ways we can draw inspiration from St Michael and all angels.
Firstly, remember the meaning of his name “Who is like God?” It is the task of the church today to live work and speak in ways that point to God. We need to remember that Christian means “Christ-like”, our evangelism should be founded on the church’s self definition as the body of Christ, a people seeking to be Christ-like, in our reverence for God and for Creation, in our care for the poor and the outcast, and in sacrificial living.
And secondly, and following on from that, there is a sense that we can be inspired by the angelic hosts – not to acts of physical violence against our perceived enemies, as might have been the case hundreds of years ago, but to a spiritual battle. When we despair at the state of the nation, with every report of knife crime or infanticide, when we weep at the injustices of Zimbabwe or South Ossetia or Gaza, we can be inspired also to pray, to invoke the power of God in these situations, to prevail upon him to send his angels, and to stand with the Lord of hosts against the power of evil.
In conclusion it is worth remembering that the purpose of any Christian festival is to glorify God, to point to Christ. That is perhaps the most powerful image from the New Testament reading. The angels are ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
While casting from our minds all thoughts of angels on escalators, let us consider what it was that angels – cherubim and seraphim - hovered over in the Old Testament – that’s rights, the Ark of the Covenant.
Jesus saw Nathaniel as a true Israelite, someone for whom the concept of the ark, the Law of Moses, the holy of holies, the presence of God in the Temple, would have been of the utmost importance, yet Jesus says it will one day be the Son of Man over whom the angels ascend and descend. In other words, Jesus Christ was to replace the things central of Jewish worship, with himself.
Who is Like God?
Jesus Christ.
Readings 2 Kings 6, 8-17, John 1 47 - the end
Have you ever heard someone exclaim to a friend, “Oh, what are you like?” This is usually an expression of exasperation and amusement, when its intended target has clearly shown what they are like by acting stupid!
Michael, whose feast, along with all angels we celebrate today, means, “Who is like God” in Hebrew. Some have concluded that the name refers to “one who is like God”, which may be at the origin of various sub-Christian and New Age ideas about Michael being in some strange sense divine.
But actually it’s a question, “Who is like God?”
In the Bible, when God intervenes supernaturally, as he does for Elisha in 2 Kings 6, he does so frequently by a means we might describe as angelic. “The angel of the Lord” has a key role in the annunciation to Mary - but was that God, or an angel? Was that God, or an angel that wrestled with Jacob? Was that God or three angels who visited Abraham? The line is sometimes very blurred, so Michael’s name gives us a clue as to how to think properly of angels – “who is like God?” – Angels show us a little of what he is like but our new testament reading fills out the answer with specific reference to how angels worship the Son of Man.
“Who is like God?” – Jesus, ands the angels give him honour and glory – the glory bit fits with the idea of showing who God really is.
Yet there is something that distinguishes this calendar feast from most others, because the person we remember and celebrate is not a human being, but a heavenly one. Michael may be famous for various supernatural appearances on earth but he never lived an earthly life. I enjoy the saint’s days in the calendar, but that is usually because I take heart and encouragement from the way God uses ordinary men and women in extraordinary ways. You can’t do that at Michaelmas, because Michaelmas is the season for looking to heavens for inspiration, and to build up our common faith. This is what Elisha did, and this is also what Jesus told Nathaniel he would one day do too.
But you know, the language of Scripture is coming to us with a radically different cosmology, compared to the scientific advances of the modern era. Many people of all ages struggle with the idea that heaven is “up there”, and so reject out of hand the Bible stories of angels and clouds and the like. Yet the angelic host that came to Elisha’s aid wasn’t like that; the army of the Lord simply appeared to those who were able to see them. This reading I guess is included in the lectionary for today because of Michael’s reputation as a warrior – in Paradise Lost it is Michael who takes on Satan in armed combat and wounds him. Famous images of Michael such as the statue at the end of Boulevard St Michel in Paris often depict him as a helmeted warrior, or fighting a dragon, as he is described doing in Revelation 12. Angels sometimes seem to get the job of God’s hit men, carrying out emergency work at a moments notice- actually scrub that, it make s them sound like plumbers!
So how is this festival relevant for us today? It has long been a tradition to ordain people at Michaelmas; indeed I went to such a service yesterday. I want to suggest that there are two simple ways we can draw inspiration from St Michael and all angels.
Firstly, remember the meaning of his name “Who is like God?” It is the task of the church today to live work and speak in ways that point to God. We need to remember that Christian means “Christ-like”, our evangelism should be founded on the church’s self definition as the body of Christ, a people seeking to be Christ-like, in our reverence for God and for Creation, in our care for the poor and the outcast, and in sacrificial living.
And secondly, and following on from that, there is a sense that we can be inspired by the angelic hosts – not to acts of physical violence against our perceived enemies, as might have been the case hundreds of years ago, but to a spiritual battle. When we despair at the state of the nation, with every report of knife crime or infanticide, when we weep at the injustices of Zimbabwe or South Ossetia or Gaza, we can be inspired also to pray, to invoke the power of God in these situations, to prevail upon him to send his angels, and to stand with the Lord of hosts against the power of evil.
In conclusion it is worth remembering that the purpose of any Christian festival is to glorify God, to point to Christ. That is perhaps the most powerful image from the New Testament reading. The angels are ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
While casting from our minds all thoughts of angels on escalators, let us consider what it was that angels – cherubim and seraphim - hovered over in the Old Testament – that’s rights, the Ark of the Covenant.
Jesus saw Nathaniel as a true Israelite, someone for whom the concept of the ark, the Law of Moses, the holy of holies, the presence of God in the Temple, would have been of the utmost importance, yet Jesus says it will one day be the Son of Man over whom the angels ascend and descend. In other words, Jesus Christ was to replace the things central of Jewish worship, with himself.
Who is Like God?
Jesus Christ.
Monday, 22 September 2008
Lindsell and Great Saling 21st September 2008
This is a bit cobbled together from Rootsontheweb and some other thoughts I've been having about the credit crunch. It's short because there was a baptism at Lindsell (the child's father is an investment banker, so the lectionary was truly inspired in choosing Matthew 20, 1-16.
'It's not fair!'
Mum had had enough. All she heard every meal time was 'It's not fair!', 'He's got more than me'. She decided to change things. Mum went into the kitchen and began to put her plan into action. She prepared the food and then put it out on plates ready for everyone.
'Dinner time', Mum shouted. The children ran to the table and jumped onto their chairs. Mum picked up baby James and fastened him into his high chair. Then she passed out the plates.
First James got his food. It was just the right amount for a baby boy. Next mum gave a plate to Grace who was four. She had exactly the same amount as James. Grace looked puzzled. Mum brought out Daniel's food. Daniel was eight. He had exactly the same amount as James. 'Mum that's not enough' Daniel moaned.
Mum turned, walked back into the kitchen and brought out 14-year-old Sam's food. He had exactly the same as James. 'That's not fair', 'I've not got enough', 'I want more' everyone shouted.
Everyone except James, who began to eat.
'I need more food than James,' Sam said. 'I'll be hungry if I only eat this,' Grace grumbled.Mum looked at all the children. 'I've given you all an equal amount haven't I? Is that not fair?'
'No' said Sam, 'I'm a lot bigger than the others so I need more food.'
'You're right' Mum replied 'equal amounts isn't fair here. Do you think I know how much you need and what is fair?' Grace, Sam and Daniel looked at Mum, 'Yes' they all chorused. 'OK then' Mum said as she walked into the kitchen and returned with enough food for everyone.
This week the news has been all about the credit crunch, with banks being taken over, Mortgage firms going under and insurance companies being bailed out. A cursory glance at any Western newspaper will tell you tales of woe, and of not enough money to go around. Times are looking a little fragile. So as we baptise young Freddy today, what kind of a world, what kind of a worldview, are we bringing him in to?
What does God think about the credit crunch? It is tempting to think that he is just gloating and saying “I told you so!”, but actually I think the message of today’s reading is that envy and greed and jealously – I want what they’ve got, and so on, run counter to the free gift of undeserved grace that God offers us in Christ; we do not deserve God’s Riches, but they are ours at Christ’s expense. Like the mother in that modern day parable, God knows what we all need, so we should neither gloat because we have more than someone else, nor, it seems, feel hard done by or jealous if we feel short changed.
However, of course, this parable is not about money, it’s about God’s generosity in his grace. He gives of that freely to all, whether on the day of their baptism or the day of their death. How we receive that grace – and pass it on to those in our care, will perhaps depend on how we think of God.
So do you think God is generous, or do you think he could give you more for your trouble?
Let’s not imagine for a minute that we can blame our generous God for the financial situation our society finds itself in – or at least the papers tell us we’re in it, there may be better qualified people than me who could comment on that later! As I have said, part of the love and justice of God is that the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
God has a habit of turning our lives upside down, but that may be just to give us his point of view.
'It's not fair!'
Mum had had enough. All she heard every meal time was 'It's not fair!', 'He's got more than me'. She decided to change things. Mum went into the kitchen and began to put her plan into action. She prepared the food and then put it out on plates ready for everyone.
'Dinner time', Mum shouted. The children ran to the table and jumped onto their chairs. Mum picked up baby James and fastened him into his high chair. Then she passed out the plates.
First James got his food. It was just the right amount for a baby boy. Next mum gave a plate to Grace who was four. She had exactly the same amount as James. Grace looked puzzled. Mum brought out Daniel's food. Daniel was eight. He had exactly the same amount as James. 'Mum that's not enough' Daniel moaned.
Mum turned, walked back into the kitchen and brought out 14-year-old Sam's food. He had exactly the same as James. 'That's not fair', 'I've not got enough', 'I want more' everyone shouted.
Everyone except James, who began to eat.
'I need more food than James,' Sam said. 'I'll be hungry if I only eat this,' Grace grumbled.Mum looked at all the children. 'I've given you all an equal amount haven't I? Is that not fair?'
'No' said Sam, 'I'm a lot bigger than the others so I need more food.'
'You're right' Mum replied 'equal amounts isn't fair here. Do you think I know how much you need and what is fair?' Grace, Sam and Daniel looked at Mum, 'Yes' they all chorused. 'OK then' Mum said as she walked into the kitchen and returned with enough food for everyone.
This week the news has been all about the credit crunch, with banks being taken over, Mortgage firms going under and insurance companies being bailed out. A cursory glance at any Western newspaper will tell you tales of woe, and of not enough money to go around. Times are looking a little fragile. So as we baptise young Freddy today, what kind of a world, what kind of a worldview, are we bringing him in to?
What does God think about the credit crunch? It is tempting to think that he is just gloating and saying “I told you so!”, but actually I think the message of today’s reading is that envy and greed and jealously – I want what they’ve got, and so on, run counter to the free gift of undeserved grace that God offers us in Christ; we do not deserve God’s Riches, but they are ours at Christ’s expense. Like the mother in that modern day parable, God knows what we all need, so we should neither gloat because we have more than someone else, nor, it seems, feel hard done by or jealous if we feel short changed.
However, of course, this parable is not about money, it’s about God’s generosity in his grace. He gives of that freely to all, whether on the day of their baptism or the day of their death. How we receive that grace – and pass it on to those in our care, will perhaps depend on how we think of God.
So do you think God is generous, or do you think he could give you more for your trouble?
Let’s not imagine for a minute that we can blame our generous God for the financial situation our society finds itself in – or at least the papers tell us we’re in it, there may be better qualified people than me who could comment on that later! As I have said, part of the love and justice of God is that the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
God has a habit of turning our lives upside down, but that may be just to give us his point of view.
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Lindsell and Stebbing 7th September 08
This is a bit of a weird text as it was an interactive sermon with questions. The readings were Romans 13, 8-the end and Matthew 18, 15-20
There was a rather pithy quotation in an article by Kris Akabusi in the Guardian, on the eve of the Olympics. He wrote, “The past is for reference, not for residence”.
It was written in the context of sportsmen and women looking onward and upward as they went into the Olympics, but I find it has an enormous resonance for the church.
Today we are going to be thinking about the past, the present and the future of our church, and I am going to ask you three questions in a while that will help us to understand what has happened here, what is happening, and what we would like to happen in the future.
First we are going to look briefly at two passages with enormous relevance for the church, because they tell us how to live as Christians together, and in the face of a hostile reaction from those around us.
That does not mean we are meant to be living in an ivory tower, cut off from the evils of the world, not does it mean that we are to assimilate entirely with the patterns of behaviour that society in general treats as normal.
Romans is Paul's letter of self-introduction to a Church he has never yet visited. None of the Gospels has yet been written, but the stories of Jesus are circulating among the Churches, and Paul is echoing one – his suggestion that love is the fulfilling of the law. Though it may be that he didn't get this from Jesus, but from his teacher Gamaliel, as it was a teaching not unknown among the rabbis.
Paul's concept of 'the flesh', or the sinful nature (verse 14) needs some understanding. For Paul, the flesh is the realm of rebellion against God. As I have said in another sermon recently, the term does not in itself imply anything specifically sexual or even necessarily specifically sinful. It contrasts with the realm of the spirit, which is where we encounter God. Christ has freed us to live in the realm of the spirit, but we still have desires for the realm of the flesh. Christ is our armour against them.
I think it is most significant that Paul uses the imagery of armour on more than one occasion in his letters; clearly he did not expect Christians to have an easy life. In Ephesians 6 Paul expands his metaphor, with detailed applications of the different elements of armour to elements of the Christian life; You may well remember he speaks of the breastplate of righteousness, but there is no armour for the soldier’s back; the armour of light is not designed for running away, but for advancing, advancing the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 18.15-20 is one of the gospel sections found only in Matthew, and reflects the context of the loose network of house churches and travelling preachers that seems to have made up Matthew's original readers. It was a community under pressure, facing opposition both from other Jewish groups and from Roman authorities, and it was coping with its own potentially volatile mix of Jews and Gentiles. Discipline mattered, and is here presented as stemming from Jesus himself. But it is ordered discipline, not the arbitrary whim of a leader or elder. The aim is restoration, and reconciliation of a comunity.
Matthew and Paul write for the infant church, which had its own issues, yet prevailed and was able with the help of God to spread the gospel beyond their own borders and ultimately over time around the world. We are the inheritors of their faithfulness, but also of their task of being the church for our generation. Like them, we may have our issues, but we also have much to celebrate!
Now, lets get to our questions. I have been brief, to allow you the space to think about these;
First, Remembering your entire experience at our church, when were you most alive, most motivated and excited about your involvement? What made it exciting? Who else was involved? What happened? What was your part? Describe what you felt.
Second, What do you value most about our church? What activities or ingredients or ways of life are most important? What are the best features of this church?
Finally, Make three wishes for the future of this church.
There was a rather pithy quotation in an article by Kris Akabusi in the Guardian, on the eve of the Olympics. He wrote, “The past is for reference, not for residence”.
It was written in the context of sportsmen and women looking onward and upward as they went into the Olympics, but I find it has an enormous resonance for the church.
Today we are going to be thinking about the past, the present and the future of our church, and I am going to ask you three questions in a while that will help us to understand what has happened here, what is happening, and what we would like to happen in the future.
First we are going to look briefly at two passages with enormous relevance for the church, because they tell us how to live as Christians together, and in the face of a hostile reaction from those around us.
That does not mean we are meant to be living in an ivory tower, cut off from the evils of the world, not does it mean that we are to assimilate entirely with the patterns of behaviour that society in general treats as normal.
Romans is Paul's letter of self-introduction to a Church he has never yet visited. None of the Gospels has yet been written, but the stories of Jesus are circulating among the Churches, and Paul is echoing one – his suggestion that love is the fulfilling of the law. Though it may be that he didn't get this from Jesus, but from his teacher Gamaliel, as it was a teaching not unknown among the rabbis.
Paul's concept of 'the flesh', or the sinful nature (verse 14) needs some understanding. For Paul, the flesh is the realm of rebellion against God. As I have said in another sermon recently, the term does not in itself imply anything specifically sexual or even necessarily specifically sinful. It contrasts with the realm of the spirit, which is where we encounter God. Christ has freed us to live in the realm of the spirit, but we still have desires for the realm of the flesh. Christ is our armour against them.
I think it is most significant that Paul uses the imagery of armour on more than one occasion in his letters; clearly he did not expect Christians to have an easy life. In Ephesians 6 Paul expands his metaphor, with detailed applications of the different elements of armour to elements of the Christian life; You may well remember he speaks of the breastplate of righteousness, but there is no armour for the soldier’s back; the armour of light is not designed for running away, but for advancing, advancing the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 18.15-20 is one of the gospel sections found only in Matthew, and reflects the context of the loose network of house churches and travelling preachers that seems to have made up Matthew's original readers. It was a community under pressure, facing opposition both from other Jewish groups and from Roman authorities, and it was coping with its own potentially volatile mix of Jews and Gentiles. Discipline mattered, and is here presented as stemming from Jesus himself. But it is ordered discipline, not the arbitrary whim of a leader or elder. The aim is restoration, and reconciliation of a comunity.
Matthew and Paul write for the infant church, which had its own issues, yet prevailed and was able with the help of God to spread the gospel beyond their own borders and ultimately over time around the world. We are the inheritors of their faithfulness, but also of their task of being the church for our generation. Like them, we may have our issues, but we also have much to celebrate!
Now, lets get to our questions. I have been brief, to allow you the space to think about these;
First, Remembering your entire experience at our church, when were you most alive, most motivated and excited about your involvement? What made it exciting? Who else was involved? What happened? What was your part? Describe what you felt.
Second, What do you value most about our church? What activities or ingredients or ways of life are most important? What are the best features of this church?
Finally, Make three wishes for the future of this church.
Sunday, 17 August 2008
Lindsell and Great Saling 17th August 08
This is a first, a sermon derived from a blog entry! It also owes a lot to the work of Morna Hooker, and is on the theme of Inclusion. The readings were Romans 11 and Matthew 15, 10-28
I watched "Make me a Christian" on channel 4 last Sunday night. It was quite good viewing but raised a number of concerns for me too.It's like a cross between "the Monastery", Big Brother, and Supernanny. The idea is that a motley selection of people of all ages and social backgrounds are mentored by a group of Christian ministers as they attempt to live a Christian life for three weeks.All the Biblical input was fine; the starting point was "God loves you, no matter what you've done".The mentors were then shown visiting some of the group in their homes to get to know them. This looked fairly innocuous to start with, but then the alarms went off because there was some pretty heavy insistence on change - removal of books and other items from houses and flats, and an enforced change in behaviour (in the case of a sexually promiscuous man).Now here's the rub; in real life, when dealing pastorally with someone new to the faith, you might want them to change certain things but (in my book) you wouldn't wade in quite so heavily, being instead a little more patient, loving and reliant on the power of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of the church, to transform the life of the disciple.In this show, though, the starting point is not a conversion to a living faith, but a TV camera driven decision to live by a set of rules; this is not the same thing. I don't think prayer got much of a mention last Sunday night, although Bible reading was high on the agenda.I guess the time constraints and what gets loosely referred to as “editorial control” have meant that things are hurried up, but in real life if I gave this kind of pastoral care to someone I wouldn't see them for dust! It may well be that this would be the case on the show were it not for the 15 minutes of fame that having cameras along will bring.What worries me most is that people like the participants - say "seekers" or whatever you want to call them, will watch this show and think that all ministers behave in this way towards their flocks. Nothing could be further from the truth from my perspective.Yet it wasn't that I disagreed with the aim - it was just the means that made me cross. In "Make me a Christian", what would be many church leaders' underlying personal beliefs and moral practices are dragged to the surface and put into practice jackboot style, for reasons of brevity and "to make good TV". We all wish things would move along faster, but it would be disastrous if we pushed them this hard in real life.Don't get me wrong, I do believe in the power of God to transform lives overnight, I just think that "Make me a Christian" is doing it the wrong way round and seems therefore to have shut God out of the process.
It is so important that we as churches find the right line between moral uprightness and a welcoming approach to outsiders.
And you’ll be glad to know it’s not a new problem; Paul agonised over the issue of the Jews in his epistle to the Romans.
In chapter 11.1-2a, 29-32 Paul spells out the problem that is so important to him. If the Jews have failed to respond to the gospel, does this mean that God has rejected his people? The fact that few Jews accepted the gospel was not only painful to Paul, but presented a theological problem: had God's promises failed, and was he unfaithful to his people? His readers might suppose that the fact that he, Paul, was preaching to Gentiles implied that God had abandoned Israel. Paul is adamant that this is not so; it is not God who is unfaithful, but Israel.
Moreover, there are still some Jews who have responded – Paul himself, for example! But he is not alone. His words echo those of Elijah, whose story is spelt out in verses 2b-4. A remnant has been chosen to be faithful.
Talk of a remnant might suggest a scaling-down of God's promises: never mind the many – a few, at least, will be saved. For Paul, however, the remnant is a promise of something greater. To me this is a great encouragement for the small church.
Israel's fall has led to salvation for the Gentiles (v. 11); the branches cut out of the olive tree can (contrary to normal horticultural practice!) be grafted in again (vv. 17- 24). God has hardened Israel for a purpose – to bring in the Gentiles – but that will bring Israel herself to repent. In the end, all Israel will be saved (v. 26).
So Paul ends triumphantly. Israel has not been rejected, for God is faithful to his words, and his gifts and calling are irrevocable. He is able to use even their disobedience for his purpose, so they are still in a mysterious way included in his plan.
Moving on to the gospel reading, Matthew 15 10-28 we can see that the theme of inclusion and welcome continues …Jesus' teaching in verses 10 to 20 arises from an incident described in verses 1 to 9, where some Pharisees object because Jesus' disciples do not wash their hands before eating. Their complaint had nothing to do with hygiene, but sprang from a concern about possible contamination of the hands by something regarded as 'unclean'. Jesus protests that the Pharisees are so concerned with their own strict interpretation of the law that they have lost sight of the law itself. He insists that what really defiles a person is the evil within him. The various forms of evil listed in verse 19 were all forbidden in the law. The declaration that, 'to eat with unwashed hands does not defile', accords with the law.
So far, then, Jesus is presented as orthodox. But how would Matthew's community have understood the saying in verse 10? Did it perhaps mean that it was permissible to eat foods that had been forbidden by the law? It is clear from Acts that this issue became an important one when Gentiles were converted.
Linked to this incident is the story of the Gentile woman who requests healing for her child. Jesus ignores her and the disciples want to get rid of her. Jesus understands his mission as to Israel alone (v. 24, cf. 10.5-6, 23), and refuses to help. 'Dogs' was a term typically used of Gentiles by Jews. Her answer outwits him, and he agrees to help her because of her remarkable faith. She has acknowledged him as 'Lord, Son of David', and persisted in the face of opposition: she is therefore allowed to share the children's bread.
The story would have been important for Matthew's community. Could Gentiles be included in the Church? Who do we include in our church?
In my ministry I have always sought to ensure that the boundary between “church” and “not church” is a blurry one, and so easier to cross. When new worshippers or just visitors come to us, how will we welcome them? I know I’m preaching to the converted when I assert that we would not as a first action make demands upon their moral lifestyle; it is God’s job to prompt people’s consciences; it is the church’s job to make sure they are listening to him and talking to him as an intimate friend and Lord.
The first step towards doing that is to do it ourselves; let us pray
I watched "Make me a Christian" on channel 4 last Sunday night. It was quite good viewing but raised a number of concerns for me too.It's like a cross between "the Monastery", Big Brother, and Supernanny. The idea is that a motley selection of people of all ages and social backgrounds are mentored by a group of Christian ministers as they attempt to live a Christian life for three weeks.All the Biblical input was fine; the starting point was "God loves you, no matter what you've done".The mentors were then shown visiting some of the group in their homes to get to know them. This looked fairly innocuous to start with, but then the alarms went off because there was some pretty heavy insistence on change - removal of books and other items from houses and flats, and an enforced change in behaviour (in the case of a sexually promiscuous man).Now here's the rub; in real life, when dealing pastorally with someone new to the faith, you might want them to change certain things but (in my book) you wouldn't wade in quite so heavily, being instead a little more patient, loving and reliant on the power of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of the church, to transform the life of the disciple.In this show, though, the starting point is not a conversion to a living faith, but a TV camera driven decision to live by a set of rules; this is not the same thing. I don't think prayer got much of a mention last Sunday night, although Bible reading was high on the agenda.I guess the time constraints and what gets loosely referred to as “editorial control” have meant that things are hurried up, but in real life if I gave this kind of pastoral care to someone I wouldn't see them for dust! It may well be that this would be the case on the show were it not for the 15 minutes of fame that having cameras along will bring.What worries me most is that people like the participants - say "seekers" or whatever you want to call them, will watch this show and think that all ministers behave in this way towards their flocks. Nothing could be further from the truth from my perspective.Yet it wasn't that I disagreed with the aim - it was just the means that made me cross. In "Make me a Christian", what would be many church leaders' underlying personal beliefs and moral practices are dragged to the surface and put into practice jackboot style, for reasons of brevity and "to make good TV". We all wish things would move along faster, but it would be disastrous if we pushed them this hard in real life.Don't get me wrong, I do believe in the power of God to transform lives overnight, I just think that "Make me a Christian" is doing it the wrong way round and seems therefore to have shut God out of the process.
It is so important that we as churches find the right line between moral uprightness and a welcoming approach to outsiders.
And you’ll be glad to know it’s not a new problem; Paul agonised over the issue of the Jews in his epistle to the Romans.
In chapter 11.1-2a, 29-32 Paul spells out the problem that is so important to him. If the Jews have failed to respond to the gospel, does this mean that God has rejected his people? The fact that few Jews accepted the gospel was not only painful to Paul, but presented a theological problem: had God's promises failed, and was he unfaithful to his people? His readers might suppose that the fact that he, Paul, was preaching to Gentiles implied that God had abandoned Israel. Paul is adamant that this is not so; it is not God who is unfaithful, but Israel.
Moreover, there are still some Jews who have responded – Paul himself, for example! But he is not alone. His words echo those of Elijah, whose story is spelt out in verses 2b-4. A remnant has been chosen to be faithful.
Talk of a remnant might suggest a scaling-down of God's promises: never mind the many – a few, at least, will be saved. For Paul, however, the remnant is a promise of something greater. To me this is a great encouragement for the small church.
Israel's fall has led to salvation for the Gentiles (v. 11); the branches cut out of the olive tree can (contrary to normal horticultural practice!) be grafted in again (vv. 17- 24). God has hardened Israel for a purpose – to bring in the Gentiles – but that will bring Israel herself to repent. In the end, all Israel will be saved (v. 26).
So Paul ends triumphantly. Israel has not been rejected, for God is faithful to his words, and his gifts and calling are irrevocable. He is able to use even their disobedience for his purpose, so they are still in a mysterious way included in his plan.
Moving on to the gospel reading, Matthew 15 10-28 we can see that the theme of inclusion and welcome continues …Jesus' teaching in verses 10 to 20 arises from an incident described in verses 1 to 9, where some Pharisees object because Jesus' disciples do not wash their hands before eating. Their complaint had nothing to do with hygiene, but sprang from a concern about possible contamination of the hands by something regarded as 'unclean'. Jesus protests that the Pharisees are so concerned with their own strict interpretation of the law that they have lost sight of the law itself. He insists that what really defiles a person is the evil within him. The various forms of evil listed in verse 19 were all forbidden in the law. The declaration that, 'to eat with unwashed hands does not defile', accords with the law.
So far, then, Jesus is presented as orthodox. But how would Matthew's community have understood the saying in verse 10? Did it perhaps mean that it was permissible to eat foods that had been forbidden by the law? It is clear from Acts that this issue became an important one when Gentiles were converted.
Linked to this incident is the story of the Gentile woman who requests healing for her child. Jesus ignores her and the disciples want to get rid of her. Jesus understands his mission as to Israel alone (v. 24, cf. 10.5-6, 23), and refuses to help. 'Dogs' was a term typically used of Gentiles by Jews. Her answer outwits him, and he agrees to help her because of her remarkable faith. She has acknowledged him as 'Lord, Son of David', and persisted in the face of opposition: she is therefore allowed to share the children's bread.
The story would have been important for Matthew's community. Could Gentiles be included in the Church? Who do we include in our church?
In my ministry I have always sought to ensure that the boundary between “church” and “not church” is a blurry one, and so easier to cross. When new worshippers or just visitors come to us, how will we welcome them? I know I’m preaching to the converted when I assert that we would not as a first action make demands upon their moral lifestyle; it is God’s job to prompt people’s consciences; it is the church’s job to make sure they are listening to him and talking to him as an intimate friend and Lord.
The first step towards doing that is to do it ourselves; let us pray
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)