Seems Odd To Me

Some years ago I went on a Proclamation Trust preaching conference. My theology has moved on since then but I carry with me a couple of tips about the art of preaching which have stayed with me.

One of them was to look at a passage and ask 'What seems odd to me?' It's a great question. It is appropriate to ask it for yourself as you go deeper into a passage you probably know well, but also on behalf of those to whom you are preaching. Can you imagine what will seem odd to those who don't know the passage well?

I got back in touch with this idea recently as we looked at the passage in Luke where Jesus, in his home synagogue, read from Isaiah. This seemed odd. Luke says Jesus found the passage where it says this:

‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’

The footnote says this is from Isaiah 61:1-2.

Turn to Isaiah 61:1-2 though and you read:

'The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,'

So, there's a difference. Isaiah's prisoners have become Luke's blind. We'll deal with that in a minute. But the first thing that people would have noticed is that Isaiah's vengeance has disappeared. The people, expecting their favourite prophet's familiar words, find them edited, stopping short of the good bit. Who decided to do that? Editors? Jesus? Luke?

And why change the blind reference? Couple of possibilities. Firstly, a commentator, Motyer, tells us that the word translated 'release from darkness' in Isaiah is a word usually used to describe letting light in (opening a window, or opening your eyes in the morning). Of course prisoners, kept in darkness in dungeons, might find their captivity blinding. Their release also, perhaps? Secondly the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the third to first centuries BCE, chose to change the word prisoners to blind.

What did Jesus read? A scroll? Yes. A scroll without verse and chapter numbers? Yes again. A scroll of the Septuagint which conflated several verses of Isaiah and missed some out? Seems so.

Did Jesus actually read it? Good question. Could it be that this passage has little historicity and Luke is using it to make a point about Jesus' mission? That sounds more reasonable. Mark and Matthew's versions don't have the Isaiah reference.

Could Jesus read? Most scholars think he could and the Bible shows signs of his being educated, but it is not a universally held opinion. He certainly left no books from his own hand.

The more I read my Bible the odder it gets to me. I hear the sound of axes being ground. I find the word of the Lord (that which God initially said) inaccessible and the Bible, for all its truth and beauty, a work of theology which is the best we can do for the word of the Lord round here today. It already includes interpretation.

It will be more helpful for us if we accept it is polemical, interpretive and, whilst it is a historical document and source, certainly not history as we know it.

The final nail in the coffin of my theological conservatism was banged in by Iranian writer, historian and theologian Reza Aslan 'Zealot - The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazarath' (Westbourne Press 2013). He led me to write this. I am grateful.

Get the Reference

I am reading The Cut by Chris Brookmyre. He used to write very dark crime dramas bordering on science fiction, full of contemporary social commentary and black, black humour, as Christopher. Now, as Chris, it is all a little more tempered and very plot-driven. Often who-dunnits or what-have-they-duns.

A few books back he dedicated one to Billy Franks. I discovered we shared a love of Billy's (RIP) 1980s' band The Faith Brothers. At the beginning of The Cut there is an unacknowledged quote from a Faith Brothers song. I got it. I got the reference. Throughout the novel the two protagonists joust with movie references. Not being such a movie buff I missed a lot. But I felt I had been invited deeper into the book's world than others, for which I was grateful.

In my final appointment in ordained ministry one of my tasks was to be Vicar of Trendlewood Church in Nailsea. Its birthday was Palm Sunday 1989 and so yesterday it was 32. Many churches have saintly dedications, some stranger than others. I enjoyed St Leodegarius (Basford, Nottingham) the most, until I met St Quiricus and St Julietta in Tickenham. Who they? I know now. You can google them too.

More common church dedications are to All Saints, Holy Trinity or Christ Church. There's one of each of those within a mile of my house. Really. I guess Trendlewood would have to call itself the Church of the Triumphal Entry. Unlikely.

Yesterday there was a procession between the two churches of the soon-to-be Harbourside Benefice of Bristol we have been attending since I retired. We walked from HTH (Holy Trinity, Hotwells) to St Stephen's, Bristol, pausing to pray at the boundary between the two parishes which made us late. I enjoyed not being responsible for the lateness whilst failing to avoid noting the things which had caused it. Old habits.

The thing that made me ponder was that we were invited to give palm crosses to any who asked us what was going on. I reckoned that a palm cross was a visual aid, of course, but the answer was considerably longer and wrapped in Christian heritage and tradition, missing donkeys, Pastoral Measures and Scripture. And that's the thing. You needed to get the many references.

The telling of the Palm Sunday triumphal entry into Jerusalem by Jesus in the Gospels (it's in all four of them) is littered with references. If you saw a man entering on a donkey you may not have known this was referencing Zechariah 9:9. You may not have recognised the shouts of praise were from Psalm 118. You might have known that crowds were encouraged to line the street when Roman dignitaries came to town but that, thus-forced, they often remained completely silent or even turned their backs. The comment that, if silenced, the stones would cry out references this. The extended metaphor of Jesus on his ass was not for all.

I have always subscribed to the school of Christianity that is a little timid about worshipping on the street corners and would rather Christians referenced acting justly and loving mercy as interest-gathering activities. Look how the Maundy Money thing has become about the Queen not about the poor.

There isn't long enough to explain how we got to processions, parish boundaries and palm crosses in the time it takes for one person to walk past another. You have to hope that interest is piqued and eyes are opened. But what a joy it is to discover you are deeper inside a fabulously mysterious story than others because the author has posted a riddle of an invite and you got it.

Welcome to Holy Week my friends.

Take your shoes and socks off; it's right around the corner.

The Godless Gospel

 

If you are unfamiliar with the work of populist philosopher Julian Baggini then this may not be quite the place to start. My introduction to him was the best-seller The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten: And 99 Other Thought Experiments. Which made me think.

In The Godless Gospel (Was Jesus a Great Moral Teacher?) (Granta 2020) Baggini attempts to remove Jesus' moral teaching from its theological framework to see if there is anything to help those who don't want to swallow the whole God thing.

It is an interesting exercise, applauded  on the jacket by no less than Richard Holloway, he who wrote Godless Morality whilst still an Archbishop although he has since moved nearer to godless than god-fearing.

Does it work? There is good stuff in the opening sections, especially about individual attitude, humility and the process of doing thinking. He acknowledges that reading the gospel is not like reading a modern treatise on moral philosophy. It is not an argument to be followed but a biography to be pondered. Whether you can think about it clearly whilst dismissing the thing that holds it all together is the big question. The attempt to distance Jesus' teaching from his understanding of God, the Father, in whom he trusted and who he believed he served, seems, to me, to pull on a thread that unravels everything.

The last third of the book is a new version of the Gospel, replacing mentions  of God with 'good' in many cases and yet leaving references to prayer unaltered. If there was no God and he was mistaken about praying then surely the whole of Jesus' manifesto implodes? The parable of the kingdom and the return of the king are included. To be fair, Baggini discuses this at length but we draw different conclusions.

Annoyingly Baggini chooses to word his Gospel harmonisation in the language of the Authorised Version because he prefers the poetry. Which makes it harder, not easier, to follow. Living words need lively translation, not archiving or confining to the theatre. 

Interesting effort and nicely written but I wasn't convinced. The Gospel writers all, for sure, had axes to grind and used what Karen Armstrong calls mythos to make their points. But they wrote that we might have life in all its fulness in Jesus' name (John says this directly), not that we might pick and choose which bits we like.

Thought for the Day

Did BBC Radio Bristol's Thought for the Day today. What with pre-recording it the night before I forgot to flag it up. Anyway, here's the script. Next one, December 20th, will be my last.

'Follow me', said Jesus to some fishermen types '...and I will make you fishers of men.'

The Bible tells us that the gang - Simon, James and John - left their nets and followed him. At once.

My son asked me the other day what I planned to do when I finally retire. The words that came out of my own mouth surprised me. I found myself saying 'I don't know. Maybe something I've never done before.' But whilst that will not be golf or parachuting I do like the idea of doing something completely different to vicaring.

Today's stories. Many of our Bake-0ff contestants took it up later in life. Learning to drive is, by its nature, something we do after childhood. Community parks and gardens are often maintained by enthusiastic volunteers - many recently retired.

Being a follower of Jesus for many years is a journey. If you follow someone you must expect to move. So go on. Embrace the next part of your life's path with gusto. Be prepared to change.

But not, as one six year old once misunderstood, 'Follow me and I will make you vicious old men.' Now that would be a new career.

Sticking to your Principles

Today's sermon was on Mark 5:21-43. It is an interesting passage. Mark uses the story of one miracle, in two parts, as bookends for another miracle. My sermon is going to be on our church YouTube channel shortly.

In passing I noticed this:

Jairus, a synagogue leader, who reported that his daughter was close to death, did not seem to care if Jesus, a holy man, risked ritual uncleanness by visiting his dying daughter, and maybe being with her once dead. He should have; but he didn't. His principles did not survive desperation.

The woman with the show of blood tried to touch the hem of Jesus' garment so that she didn't cause him to become unclean. She needn't have worried; but she did. Her principles survived desperation.

Libertarians, who do not believe any citizens should ever have to carry papers saying who they are, are wondering if that holds true post-pandemic. Should we have vaccine passports?

Authoritarians, who do not believe that crowds should ever be allowed to gather in a pandemic, are wondering if that holds true when the Queen's husband dies. Should that be an exception?

Desperation tests your principles. It sometimes tells you that they weren't principles after all.

The Last Hour

People have booked. Everyone who has booked is here five minutes in advance so we could start. Seems wrong though. An hour at the cross should be 2-3. We have a track and trace list. Socially distanced seating. A Zoom link for those who cannot be here. We have covered the pictures of the children on the school hall wall. This is peak 2021. This is weird.

I have no part to play. It has been conceived and is being delivered by a placement student from the local Theological College. He has not been to an hour at the cross before and I have deliberately not told him too much about what happens. I am enjoying being led by someone I have helped train and now utterly trust. I can let the hour carry me along, journaling, as is my preference when listening to a well-known tune remixed. This is not weird.

But it is Good Friday. A day we need to remember is meant to be weird. The Romans invented a cruel-spectacle execution for those it wished to use as an example. The gallows is too quick. Insurgents would not be put off by a quick death. Crucifixion is slow. It is said Jesus died in six hours - relatively quickly. The business of breaking the legs of the crucified was to prevent them from pushing themselves up to grab a breath. It hastened the slow death of suffocation. Those executed were not always taken down once dead, as Jesus was. Some were left at cross-roads and other public places to be picked at by carrion. A visual aid. This is what we will do to you if...

We have been following the story of Jesus from Mark's Gospel this year. 'The Tabloid Gospel' we have called our series although that is a bit harsh on a mainly eye-witness account containing much on which to reflect. 'Who is this man?' it keeps asking, telling stories of astounded and astonished crowds hanging on the every word of this unpredictable preacher.

And at some point in his life the destination of his journey became clear to him. One whose family knew nails and wood intimately. And at some point after his death followers tumbled to what his life meant, piecing together prophecy, preaching and pain. 'It is finished.' What is, Jesus? What?

The finish is of the quest for further clues. You can either conclude that life is meaningless or see the answer on a cross. A man, so clearly divine that his chroniclers called him 'Son of God', abandons the otherness of the spiritual world he inhabits to become one like us. There is no glib Christian answer to suffering, just a bow to its inevitability. Demand your money back if anyone sells you one.

'If you must bang your head against a wall...' said my doctrine tutor and hero Tom Smail '...bang it against the mystery of Jesus. Relevant martyrdom.'

Look no further.

Accept no substitutes.

Like no other.

No art, theology or music can do justice to this event. It is the thing that gives all other things the right to happen. They change meaning when juxtaposed. This lovely, messy, unfair world is a place we are free to inhabit because somehow God inhabited it once. We loved him yet also treated him unfairly, messily. We even have the freedom to ignore the story or take it no more seriously than an Easter food ad.

I don't send Easter cards. Well OK, one, but that is for other reasons. This is not a time for commerce. I take this hour (this year) and commit to serving this mystery for another year. I've done this for 37 years, one year at a time. This will be my last time. From next year my time is my own and need not be committed to anyone. Nine more months. Here you are.

Nine more months to the one who knows how insincere, two-faced and hypocritical are my hints to others to have faith. I call no-one. I invite them to investigate what I have investigated as thoroughly as I have and to work out how to respond after doing their own deconstruction.

Put to death by the unspiritual for allegedly claiming to be a human king.

Put to death by the spiritual for allegedly claiming to be divine.

As I try to make sense of the competing imagery I hear some Tallis, see a dead sheep or Christ on a cold, cold stone. And I hear mockery even now, that I would dare to find this important. Because it's not science, it's not cool, it's not very now and it's not monetizable. And I wonder if most people understand what the meaning of life, the universe and everything should look like. For what, if anything, do they search?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John took some liberties with history. We do well to get that out onto the table. Not with the truth but with the reality. Mark took fewer. Some of the stuff they made up was designed to illustrate the truths they had glimpsed. They knew no other way.

Every now and again a chord seems exactly right in an 'If I knew what it meant I'd have said it not painted it' sort of way.

The music of Good Friday must be minor. The art abstract. The theology metaphorical (as all language is). Today is not a matter of history. It's far more important than that.

(Silence)

Good Friday
2021

Storm Calming Tips - Mark 4:35-5:20

We have been working our way through Mark's Gospel at Trendlewood Church.  My latest sermon is on our YouTube Channel should you so wish.

We've been looking at the way Mark depicts this urgent good news of the astonishing Jesus spreading as he acts and speaks.

After two weeks exploring parables we returned yesterday to miracles. The passage has two different types of miracle - a nature miracle and an exorcism. Two very different experiences of the world back then.

Both have a great simplicity - a bad thing happens and Jesus stops it.

It is another occasion where the chapter breaks, not part of Mark's original work and don't get me started on the sub-headings, help us spectacularly to miss two things that are connected. The two, apparently separate, passages  are 4:35-41, where Jesus calms a storm and demonstrates himself Lord over nature, and 5:1-20  where Jesus heals a man who is 'occupied' by so many demons he is called 'Legion'.

What the chapter break helps us miss is that another storm, this time an internal one, can be calmed by the power of Jesus.  In fact it led me to my title. Despite their differences, what we see is Jesus calming 'Two Different Storms'.

To follow Jesus, I concluded yesterday, is to follow an uncomfortable, unpredictable lead through the eyes of gospel-writers who had points to make about who he was and is. Don't let our modern, numerical punctuation obscure this.

Thought for the Day

They've changed the system at BBC Radio Bristol. Too many dodgy phone lines has led them to ask us to pre-record our contributions, which have been trimmed to 200 words from 275/85. This left me forgetting to upload to the blog having delivered it, last Thursday. Here it is:

Jesus spoke about not sewing a new patch onto an old garment. Because, he said, when you wash it, the patch will shrink and the hole will be worse.

I'm going to take a punt that some BBC Radio Bristol listeners will remember when jeans were sold as shrink-to-fit. You had to wear them in the bath, until they fitted. Then try to take them off.

We can fool ourselves into thinking that the world has got worse but there are many ways it has improved, not least pre-shrunk clothing.

I am fascinated to learn that archives from the seventeenth century and the reign of James I tell us that people were chronicling the greatest snow ever and the highest water of all time.

Previous generations had storm and tempest too. And plague without vaccine.

This is not going to be a count-your-blessings thought. That is not sensitive to those who are genuinely struggling.

This is straight from Mark chapter 2, on which I am preaching on Sunday. Jesus said that you can't simply add the things he has said onto your own pre-suppositions and carry on. He's not a patch for a life lived wrong. He's a new way to approach your life entirely.

Thought for the Day

Privilege to do TFTD on BBC Radio Bristol for Christmas Eve today. Here's my script:

I'm married to a visual merchandiser. My home always looks lovely at Christmas. Mostly this is to be welcoming to guests. Not this year.

Stories on today's show are about plans being changed. Food delivery not party. Adjusting down your feast. Lack of demand for buses.

Are you good with change? I've always been comfortable with routine yet try to vary it. It drives the aforementioned partner bonkers that I will do three jobs at the same time – for no reason! Emphasis, all hers.

My Mum had Christmas planned to the finest detail but afterwards always fixated on the bit that hadn't gone well. Perfectionism is certainly not genetic.

What thought am I digging out of all this? Well, this time last year we had no idea that 2020 would be spoken of in the same list as the Black Death, the Great Plague and Spanish Flu.

The day before the birth of Jesus nobody expected a story was about to be born that would change the shape of human history for the next two millennia.

Theologians disagree about whether Jesus was born in a stable, a guest room or an ordinary house. Whatever, the child grew to be so extraordinary that no-one could imagine his birth had been anything but special. Yet he required feeding, as hungry babies do. Required shelter as homeless people need. Required love. Don't we all?

So, even if you don't feel that the Christian story has anything but myth in it I urge you to allow the mystery and mess to make you more concerned about others than any awkwardness in changing your plans. Merry Christmas.

Thought for the Day

As delivered to the BBC Radio Bristol Breakfast Show just now:

If you found your hotel was on fire and you hastily read the exit instructions on the door you would not like to find this:

'Here beginneth section one of the instructions appertaining to the exiting of this accommodation in the event of a situation of combustion, fire, tempest, storm, wrath, damnation and other such incidences. Thou shalt proceed with all due haste to the end of this corridor, and be ye sure that ye tarry for no man neither greeteth any man on the way, lest thou be consumed and all thy maidservants also.'

No. In case of fire I want to know how to get out. Clearly and quickly. And not in the language of the King James' Bible.

Someone once went up to Jesus and asked him what the greatest commandment was. He said thou shouldst vouchsafe to prioritise God with thy aortic rhythms, ego and id, cerebrally and muscularly. Only kidding. He said that the guy should love the Lord his God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength and love his neighbour as himself.

Which, because Jesus was good at that sort of thing, successfully summarises the first four commandments at a stroke and the last six even quicker.

Is the Bible's big message clear.

How about:

God created

We rebelled
God loved
Jesus died
We live

Ten words. One Gospel. We can talk about the small print later. Track and trace me if you'd like a chat.

So. For what is this a metaphor? Well. If you want to say something important. Say it clearly. Please. And now back to the voice of clarity herself.

Thought for the Day

As delivered at BBC Radio Bristol this morning on Breakfast with Emma. False start due to bad line meant I got to do it almost twice.

There's a Bible story about an unnamed rich man and Lazarus, a beggar who sits at the rich man's gate. Dogs lick his sores. I used to think this was the ultimate low. The dogs were taunting him. Even the dogs...

Then the penny dropped. Not taunting but serving. Even the dogs gave Lazarus what they could. Dogs' tongues have some medicinal qualities. They won't harm.

The rich man dies and sees Lazarus, also dead, at Abraham's side. Even in torment he gives orders. 'Send Larazus to bring me water. Send Lazarus to warn my brothers.' The rich man is a racist. Lazarus is not 'one of us'.

Can we get beyond the idea of only helping people who are 'one of us'? Thom from Fishponds is demonstrating so with his ten acts of kindness. If you do a random act of kindness for a stranger then you are doing it for whoever happens to be there.

Pay it Forward is a movie. Twenty years old now. In one of the opening scenes a guy gives a stranger his car on a wet night. When asked why the reply is simply 'pay it forward'. The film then explains how that state of affairs arose, as movies often do.

Elsewhere Jesus said that what you do for the least of these you did for me.

We should all learn that we don't have to find out what someone is like before being nice to them.

Two guys are walking past a beggar. The beggar asks for change. The first guy hands over £10. 'He's only going to spend it on drink' says his friend. 'What a coincidence' said the generous man 'that is exactly what I was going to do with it.'

Sermon 9/2/20 - Post-Brexit Reconciliation

All One in Christ Jesus

Leviticus 19:1-2;30-37

Galatians 3:28

One-off sermons. Wasn't sure what to preach and then on Monday morning this Leviticus passage came up in Morning Prayer and I knew.

I will tell you a little of my own story at the end. Most of what I want to say will, to the best of my ability, consist of analysis and theology. I will try not to get too personal until the end.

There may be some things some feel unreasonable. Please hear me say that this is clumsiness not deliberate. Do respond in any way you like.

Three things by way of introduction:

The first thing I need to say is hard but you need to hear me say it. If there is anyone here who holds the view that Leviticus 19:33-34 is not eternal, that the time for treating strangers as citizens is over, that our country should not be open to the alien in difficulty, that compassion should be somehow limited, then this church is not for you. And if, it turns out, that a majority hold those views, then, despite being the current leader, this church is not for me.

Secondly a question. What sort of Brexit did people vote for?

Vicar Giles Fraser was a prominent Christian Brexiteer. He took the view that our compassion to the rest of the world was more required than our compassion to EU member states and that our membership of the EU limited our ability to offer it. I don't think that was a majority view in the leave-voting community but it was consistent with Christian compassion.

The late Tony Benn was, all his life, a prominent Brexiteer. he took the view that the socialist government he wanted could not operate within the confines of the EU which he fundamentally considered undemocratic. I don't think that was a majority view in the leave community and, when it was set before the electorate at the last election it was rejected, but it was consistent with Christian Democracy.

In fact, despite many politicians starting a sentence with' 'What the public voted for when they voted for Brexit...' this could not be finished based on the 2016 referendum. The referendum demanded that different people with different views voted the same.

Thirdly, the one thing that gives the Brexit position its power, direction and unity is that little slogan 'Brexit means Brexit'. The government of the day, in 2016, did not have the power to act upon its promise that it would honour the public vote. That was the job of Parliament and Parliament has now done it. But if it did not, that would, for many, be the last straw for democracy. The next slogan 'Get Brexit Done' won the day.

So, for the main body of this, how do we move on to peace and reconciliation?

A few days ago I posted on Facebook this question:

'Now we have left the EU I am interested in what things people here think we have learned from the last few years.'

There were 57 comments. Many of them were of the 'I learned how horrid the other side were' variety. Apart from one nobody offered a comment about personal learning and how it had changed them. So I reposed the question:

'What have you, as an individual, learned and how will you change?' I gave two examples for myself.

This time there were only eight comments. I guess you could generously say that 3 were about personal learning.

It is a thin survey bit I would hazard a guess that we are not yet ready for personal learning.

Galatians 3:28 espouses an overall principle. Neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. Paul makes clear what the whole thing is by naming some of the parts. So there is also neither young nor old, fat nor thin, black nor white, Remainer or Brexiter - for we are all one in Christ Jesus.

The ultimate reconciliation is theological. The putting right of the problem of sin for a God of justice, is done in Jesus on the cross. The putting right of the dissonance between mortality and eternity is done in Jesus through the resurrection. The putting together of the flesh world and the spirit world is done in Jesus. You can be fully human and channel God's power says every healing, exorcism and resuscitation he did. The ultimate authority of good over evil, described as God versus the devil, is done by Jesus alone in the wilderness. Everything else is a little local difficulty.

This is a reconciliation grid.

                                                                 Attitude towards other's goals 

Attitude towards own goals   	Co-operative	Not co-operative	Resistant
Passive	Collaborate	Avoid	Defend
Assertive	Reconcile	Compromise	Negotiate
Aggressive	Confront	Compete	Attack

It talks of how to reconcile opposing views, It was designed by a man who worked for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) in the 1970s and to sort out industrial disputes. Depending on how you feel about your own goals and the goals of others you will end up in a different box. Compromise looks like the best but that is lose/lose. Reconciliation is the best - a third way for disputants.

When I did the questionnaire that goes with it, some years ago, I ended up in the bottom left box. I have tried to learn to be assertive about what I want without becoming aggressive. You might like to judge if I have succeeded. Please be gentle.

But we need a good chunk of time before reconciliation can begin. The atmosphere is still toxic. This is because the grid is normally used in sorting things out before they come to a crisis. We have started with the crisis and now need to reconcile the aftermath. The decision is made. How do Remainers reconcile themselves to living with it? How do Brexiters own it and take responsibility for it?

In Ireland Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley governed the country together after the Good Friday agreement of 1998. The willingness of enemies to become friends was powerful. One wanted a united Ireland and one didn't but they could still fix the roads, improve schools and set taxes.

In South Africa after apartheid they formed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It may have had limited overall success. Or perhaps better would be to say that the success of it is a matter of debate, it allowed oppressor and oppressed to to tell their stories and speak honestly without fear of oppression.

We have discovered that we live in echo chambers. We need to hear the stories of why the people who voted differently to us did so.

If we had a commission to do this post-Brexit who could be trusted to lead this? A commission of the good and the great, cross-party. I can already hear the criticism that these are 'elites'. Running for leader of the Tories Rory Stewart had the interesting idea to resolve Brexit with a people's commission that one served on, not unlike jury service. To listen to evidence and draw a conclusion. It never took off. He was not chosen as leader.

We have discovered a problem with elites. People don't like them. I hope all of us felt a rumble of dis-ease when popular newspapers described Supreme Court judges as the enemies of the people. These are the people those same newspapers wanted to have control of our laws. We need to watch out for a definition of elites as 'influential people we don't agree with'. Elite doesn't mean unfairly powerful. In the sporting arena it simply means very good.

Isabel Hardman wrote 'Why we get the Wrong Politicians'. Fundamentally, she said, you need to be able to afford to be a politician. To risk a career to campaign and maybe not be elected. To give five years of your life in public service and then have your self and your staff rejected at the ballot box. You need private means to do this. Those from other elites tend to apply.

There are at least three requirements before reconciliation can begin:

1. Truth. Jesus is the truth, we believe. Issues of justice need to be taken into account. We really need to hear if the government has evidence of the referendum being tampered with. The Electoral Commission, which enquires into the validity of public polls, said it could not give an opinion on the referendum because it was only advisory. We believe the government is sitting on the evidence. Why?

2. Listening. All parties need to feel that their views are being heard and valued. We have all discovered that we live in echo chambers. We are simply not subjected to different views enough. One piece of learning from a Remainer on my Facebook question was that he should 'get out more'. In a healthy democracy we need to allow opposition to continue to be heard after the election. After a war we talk about the terms of future relationships. What did God's voice from heaven say when his Son was transfigured. 'Listen to him.'

3. All parties need to be prepared to move from their stated positions. This will take time and many conversations. We need to keep talking about it. We all need to own it. Remainers have every right to ask Brexiters if this is what they voted for and if it faithfully represents Leviticus 19 and Galatians 3. Brexiters should not be blamed for all the world's woes. We all need to denounce the racists, the people who troll politicians and the anti-foreigners. It is not, as far as I can see, racist to say that if your Lincolnshire village now has a population that is 70% Polish then you will feel something has changed; you have lost 'home', something of home.

This will take time.

Two conclusions:

Conclusion 1 (Theological)

Leviticus 19 was written at a time of land-grabbing, as borders of new nations were being established through conquest. It set out the requirement to treat what we might call 'innocent losers' decently. Galatians 3 was written at a time when unity within the church needed to be re-stated. When you come to church with your wife or your slave (men were told) they are the same. You are not more saved than them.

Conclusion 2 (Personal)

What I want to say next is more personal. Without claiming parity with St Paul it is a bit like when he drew a distinction between what was 'of the Lord' and what was his personal view. What follows is my personal view.

Others are free to have a platform to tell me how they feel. In fact the job of a listening pastor has involved me biting my tongue in many conversations this last two years.

I woke up on June 24th 2016 to hear the result. I was a Remainer. I felt profoundly disappointed, sad and yes, surprised. Unlike the election results that occasionally do not go the way I voted, this did not take a few sleeps to come to terms with. How should I behave?

Silently?

I have felt profoundly disappointed and sad every day since. I personally believe this is a monumental piece of stupidity. What should I do with that view? Can you help me?

You see I still believe it was wrong but that reversing it would not be good either.

If I might propose one thing it is about language. Oppositional politics lends itself to the language of winners and losers. But people who narrowly fail to gain a majority for their point of view, not just Brexit, are not 'losers'. They are unelected or marginally unconvincing.

If I am to be reconciled to my Brexit-voting fellow church members I do not need to feel that I am a loser.

I cannot help in this project. I cannot offer any advice as to how it might be better carried out. I simply don't know. I hope you share my alarm that members of the press were forced to walk off a briefing this week because some were asked to leave. I hope you share my alarm that cabinet members now avoid serious interviews and choose to broadcast for themselves on social media. You may share my alarm that the NHS and the BBC might not survive this.

Brexit is a process not an event. Get Brexit Done was a lovely slogan. We are now out but nothing is done. If a magnificent trade deal is assembled before 31st December to everyone's satisfaction and the analysis of our economy shrinking by 7% is incorrect I will eat these words and say I was wrong.

President of the Methodist Conference, Barbara Glasson wrote this prayer:

'However we feel about today, we mark this Brexit Day as people who grieve or celebrate together. . . let us hold this day gently, giving ourselves permission to leave without elation or despair, determined to love our neighbour, support the weak, and welcome the stranger.'

That is where my musings take me. However you voted in 2016 will you join me in having more strangers in your home, more projects that help the poorest in society and more mentions of Jesus in your conversations? Please can we agree on that?

Thought for the Day

As delivered this morning on the BBC Radio Bristol Breakfast Show:

Time to cast our votes again. I won't be alone in voting with a peg on my nose for a candidate I agree with very little, to avoid a party I agree with even less getting a majority.

Recently I had the chance to speak about what would be the distinctive way a member of the Christian community might cast their vote. I had four conclusions:

Firstly, on the side of the poor. Anybody who manages to read the Bible and not consider there is a call on their compassion towards the poor is, I believe, reading it wrong. My Christianity tells me to try to use my vote based on what to give, not what to get.

Secondly, on the side of the truth. Jesus is described as the way, the truth and the life. I find truth in short-supply lately in political campaigning.

Thirdly, balancing both facts and feelings. A decision to live as a person of faith is just as much about feelings - it feels right to me - as facts - it makes sense for me.

Fourthly, on the side of inclusivity. The Bible says 'In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female - we are all one in Christ Jesus.' But, it's hard to be inclusive if we don't know enough people not like us to include? Maybe we should spend more time with those we disagree with.

It is Advent. A time for waiting in the Christian year. Looking forward to the celebration of Jesus' birth and wanting his earthly influence to grow.

How would Jesus vote? Can't say. I'll do my best to guess.

Thought for the Day

As delivered at BBC Radio Bristol this morning where it was great to meet Dr James Freeman (@jgfreeman) a historian of British politics at Bristol University. In the interview before me he said that his current job was like being a meteorologist watching people die in a record-breaking hurricane. Nice metaphor. Talking of which:

A friend of mine came up with a metaphor for dealing with large and complex problems. He called it 'eating a slug'.

Some issues can seem so horrible and unpalatable that we never get round to tackling them at all. But, he said, the one thing you can be sure about if you absolutely have to eat a slug is that you want that critter thin-sliced. So it is with problems. Break them down into, ahem, bite-sized pieces and tick them off your to do list, slowly.

Jesus had a certain clarity of thinking too. He prioritised preaching over healing. He went determinedly towards Jerusalem as others counselled against it. He focused his teaching on the Kingdom of God and nothing else dealing with distractions one at a time. Clarity. Focus. Bite-sized chunks.

I loved the way the judgement of the Supreme Court on the shutting down of Parliament yesterday reduced a very complex matter to four simple points:

Is this a matter on which we are entitled to rule?

What is the relevant Law?

Has it been broken?

What should be the remedy?

I am a great fan of clear thinking. I am a great fan of Jesus come to that but you probably guessed.

Breaking problems down into parts is a useful device. What small thing can I do today to progress? Room needs decorating? Paint one wall. Too tired to weed the whole garden? Do ten minutes. House untidy? Fix half a room then have a cup of tea.

Today you may not have to save the world and I hope you don't have to eat a slug, but you could do something small that makes the end of a bigger problem a little nearer.

Try it.

Bigger Barns

I did that trick last Sunday, at an early said communion service, of preaching blind. I took no notes and riffed on the readings. I used the material I came out with as the basis of a longer presentation later that morning. For those who feel tempted to say that it is appalling to preach without preparation I refer you to the forty years I have been doing this. That's gotta count for something.

Why am I owning up to this? Well, because in the volatile mix of adrenaline and terror that lack of preparation leads to (I once had seven members of the Liturgical Commission pitch up unexpectedly, doubling a congregation) I saw something new. Luke 12:13-21 goes like this:

Someone in the crowd said to (Jesus), 'Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.'

Jesus replied, 'Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?' Then he said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.'

And he told them this parable: 'The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

'Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, 'You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.''

'But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

'This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.'

The thing I noticed is this. It is in the context of a story told to illustrate the dangers of prioritising possessions. Jesus, having given another clue as to who he is not by refusing to be a judge, a task the great leaders of the Old Testament had to accept alongside leadership, warns about the uselessness of storing ridiculous excess.

The man in the story is a rich man. He has the option therefore of extending his property. He has the wealth. But he chooses to do this following an abundant year. He has wealth and then has abundance on top. He has no need of a good year. He is set up for ordinary years.

I note here that there is nowt wrong with wealth creation. But it carries with it a social responsibility - to invest in people (employ them) or in further business (employ more). And to share the wealth rather than store it. My one-liner was this - socialism is only necessary because capitalism doesn't see the work through.

Jesus wasn't saying that God will kill you if you do this. He was saying that all of us will give up our lives at some point and a barn full of grain will be no good to us then. If capitalists were socialists as well we wouldn't need socialists. I didn't say this in a sermon, but it may have been the great insight of New Labour.

'Eat, drink (and be merry) for tomorrow you die' is Paul's lifted-quote description of life without hope (1 Corinthians 15:32b). Paul pointed to the resurrection of Jesus as the only hope-giving event worth noting. But Jesus points to the responsibility of those who have the means to eat drink and be merry now (before the resurrection hope was a thing) to give practical help to others. The Gospels were more about now, then, than we ever realise. Still are.

Praying for the Dead - Article 31/39

XXXI. OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST FINISHED UPON THE CROSS

THE Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

One of the reasons I feel personally that the celebration of communion should be inclusive is that it defines the community. The Christian community in this particular place are those who gather around the Lord's table. Some are of long-standing faith but struggling to believe at the moment. Others are coming to faith and want to enjoy belonging before they have completely mastered believing. Some are children and enjoy a child-like membership which one day they will affirm or reject for themselves. And almost all Christian communities include those who, for one reason or another, would not be considered of sufficiently sound mind to enter into a valid contract.

The grace of God to all people is celebrated and demonstrated at Communion. The exact and actual faith of each individual participant is not.

This Article adds one more line to that list. The dead are excluded. We don't pray for the dead; we entrust them to God. They rest in peace and await the resurrection. We do not interfere with their rest. We cannot change their status before God by offering a mass for them. To suggest that we can was, for the Reformers, a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit. Christ has died for them, once for all. You cannot do any more for them.

On Pressing with Your Teeth - Article 29/39

XXIX. OF THE WICKED WHICH EAT NOT THE BODY OF CHRIST IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER

THE Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

'The sacraments, then, mediate to us in our time the decisive redemption of mankind by Christ in his.' (O'Donovan)

Christianity is not a matter of pressing bread with your teeth (nicely put, I think) but of partaking in Christ. You can partake in Christ without bread and wine. You can feed on it but not in your heart by faith with thanksgiving (as the modern words put it). You can't conjure up Christ (O'Donovan's expression) by doing something. Not ever. It would be like standing on a tray and trying to lift yourself.

The sacramental articles have constantly turned our attention back to Jesus. And so they should. I have no particular problem with my Anglo-Catholic brothers and sisters apart from when they cast doubt on the 'validity' of my presidency because of details.

When it was explained to me that the reason for a Gospel procession to the middle of the nave in an Anglo-Catholic Eucharist was because the word of God was central, it was an eye-opening moment. Of course. I fear that in some churches it is more a ceremonial centrality than an actual one but at least it is acted out.

Every lasting reformation of the church is Jesus-centred.

No Other Name? - Article 18/39

XVIII. OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST

THEY also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

O'Donovan reminds us of St Peter's great statement in Acts 4:12 that '...there is no other name under heaven given... by which we must be saved.' He adds, 'The Christian Church has always made this exclusive claim, and that is why the status of other religious professions has always been something of a theological problem.'

Note, a theological problem. We look back with sorrow at the times when the borders of Christianity were extended with the sword. We believe in inter-faith dialogue and we carry 'I am the way, the truth and the life' lightly into those discussions.

So what does that mean for our current relationship with Article 18? It doesn't change the fact that our job is still evangelism. In the context of dialogue we must tell people about Jesus. It is our great commission, whether we be universalist or not.

And the condemnation is for those who suggest that salvation lies in any other name, not for those who are yet to understand the significance of the name of Jesus. And if we ponder a little we can only conclude that this condemnation is because those who venture to suggest there is salvation beyond Christ have put themselves in the place of God. There may be, indeed the Bible suggests there will be, some surprise at who we get to share eternity with, but it is not for us to pre-judge the matter. Speak of Jesus when we speak. Leave the results up to the one who sent him.

Choose Life - Article 17/39

XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION

PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

Martyn Percy suggests that there are two great questions which should accompany a student into seminary (training for ministry). They are the Jesus question, 'Who do you say that I am?' Followed shortly by the identity question, 'And who are you?'

These questions are good companions when non-academic Christian potential leaders are taken through the training process. It can be a bit of a shock.

I would like to suggest that they are questions on which all Christians, trained for service or not, should ponder.

This Article, with its continued background of 'those in Christ' (taken as a whole not individually), is unerringly positive. O'Donovan points out that we wait throughout the Article for the balancing condemnation of the 'Foreordination to death...' but it never comes. It had been there in the antecedent writings but Cranmer leaves it out.

This Article is all about the good things available to those who choose Christ; as it is written it is unable to contemplate anyone making any other choice. Quite so.

The Sinless One - Article 15/39

XV. OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN

CHRIST in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Articles 11-18 will keep hammering this home until we get it.

Some years ago an incumbent (Vicar or Rector), on the first Sunday after arriving in a new church, was required to read the 39 Articles instead of preaching a sermon. It was a test of their orthodoxy.

I recall the late Colin Bevington (Bev the Rev) at St Stephen's, Selly Park breaking it into two parts and taking a fortnight.This would be about 1975.  I have never, in my recollection, been present when somebody actually did it in one and I have never done it myself.

Somewhere between Articles 11 and 18 many will have lost the will to live. But let's stick with it. The additional material this article adds (says O'Donovan) is that it '...rejects any conception of justification as an achieved possession within our individual past histories, an event on which we can count in such a way that we are no longer dependent as we once were dependent. When we speak of justification as finished and accomplished, we certainly should not mean that it is finished and accomplished in our lives...' (italics all his).

In other words, we need to remind ourselves to live Jesus-centred lives all the time.