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.

Martin Luther (not so good after all)

As a recovering Evangelical I often revisit my heroes of the faith. Martin Luther has avoided my gaze over many years; his stand against the despicable practice of selling indulgences (cash for forgiveness) was well judged. Whether the nails and church door are myth or not the message was appropriate. His extended Bible study that led him to understand pardon by grace alone was one of the best Quiet Times anyone ever had.

So it was with some disappointment that I read Tanit Koch's excellent 'Germansplaining' column in The New European last week. She pointed out that Luther, in 1524, wrote a piece called 'Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants' although those peasants were revolting against heavy taxes on farmers. His pamphlet was all the ammo the ruling aristocrats needed to kill 70,000 (yes, you read that right) peasants.

So, maybe it's easier to rely on God's grace when you're loaded.

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.

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

As delivered to James Hanson at BBC Radio Bristol just now:

What, can you think, is the first thing in the Bible described as 'not good'?

In the Book of Genesis six days of creation are described. At the end of each of the first five there is a little mantra 'and God saw that it was good'. After day six this creation is described as very good. Then comes the answer to my question. The first thing described as 'not good' is loneliness. It is not good for people to be alone.

Forget for the moment those like me who love curling up in the corner with a good book (beat) because lots of other people make that possible. We are social creatures.

Last Remembrance Sunday the residents of our local streets chose to stand outside to mark the silence. They asked me to lead it, which was a privilege. Then we had a brief outdoor social gathering. I met Gordon aged 85 and Lewis, 7 days.

Gordon told me that on his birthday the neighbours had stood in his front garden and sung to him.

My little corner of Nailsea is lovely, but I invite us all to consider how we can fix the thing God is said to describe as 'not good'.

What little happening can you arrange to put something other than loneliness in the memory banks? Here in my corner of Trendlewood we're planning a switching on of our home Christmas lights event with carols and a nativity story.

I get to join in. We're curing loneliness and inventing Christmas liturgy. Which, amongst other reasons, is why I love being a vicar.

I now realise I used the same introductory question for a Thought back in June, although I did draw a different idea from it. I blame the editors. After 160 of these there may be a little repetition.

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.'

Thought for the Day

As delivered to the James Hanson (sitting in for Emma Britton) show on BBC Radio Bristol just now:

When Mark wrote his account of Jesus feeding 5,000 people he said they sat down on the green grass in groups of fifty and a hundred. Why did he mention the colour of the grass and the size of the groups? Doesn't do that elsewhere. One explanation might be - because he was there and remembered.

I woke up this morning and leaned over to my wife and said those three words she loves to hear first thing - 'It's Tuesday, right?'

And even though this radio format doesn't allow me your instant feedback I can hear many of you shouting 'That's. Four. Words.'

See I've noticed that when we only have very small details to pay attention to we, guess what, start spotting very small details. Grammar pedants. Or 'Wise BBC news editors' as I've learned to call them.

I've spotted people on social media telling me about the wildlife in their gardens as nature becomes more urban, the new recipe they've discovered, or the small things they can do many times over to raise sponsorship. Yes, people have climbed Everest in fir-tree units and run marathons in backyard-sized laps without leaving their own homes. DIY projects have been completed in lock-down. I've even sorted out the deanery filing-cabinet. It was dull.

If and when you come to write down your journal or diary entry for 2020 it may include stuff such as:

• Did my own dentistry.
• Grew my own veg for the first time 

Mark's Gospel is littered with little details that only an eye-witness, or someone who transcribed the story of that witness, could possibly remember. As the weather gets warmer, and green grass becomes rarer, we do well to recall that little details add credibility to a witness' story.

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?

Joy

I have been most influenced in my spiritual walk recently by the writings of rabbis. Jonathan Sacks 'Not in God's Name' was a profound exploration of the sibling rivalry of the Hebrew Scriptures still playing out amongst nations and faiths today. Danya Ruttenberg's extraordinary use of Twitter as a teaching tool has opened to me the insights of a female reading of patriarchical texts.

Last night I heard a new speaker, albeit one I had read and heard before but not live; one in the great rabbinic tradition. He spoke of joy.

He did it joyously, owing much to the tradition of modern stand-up with a soul. And also to the fine yiddish (can I say that? Correct me if I can't) comedians such as Jackie Mason I recall from days of yore. His jokes were funny, his visuals added much and his observations were er, observant.

Much was made of a few people who added value to what would be expected of them in their day job. Those who offered the unemployed a free dry clean of interview clothes. Those who made an imaginative sign when the door of the shop had failed. Those who played with a kid when they should have been serving the queue. Those who designed sneakers with a unicorn's horn on the top for girls of a certain age. These people, it was suggested 'get it'.

And joy was also to be found in the apparent failures of those who had given a cat-lovers magazine a strange name, or named a road using only consonants. 'They had a meeting and decided that...?'

And joy was to be found in the maths of a romanesco cauliflower (we'll forgive it being described as broccoli).

Yes, joy is knocking around for those who seek it.

The centre piece was an exploration of Ecclesiastes a book which contains the central point that living for the moment is as good as any method because we're all going to die. He exposited the Hebrew word behind 'meaningless' as 'mist or vapour' using a water mist spray as prop. If, he said, someone was being cynical you should take them down with the accusation that they haven't gone far enough because 'We're all going to die'.

So if we should spend more time living in the moment - someone in the audience was called out for taking notes 'There's always someone in the front row taking notes; thanks for doing our accounts' - what is the Christian hope? I had abandoned my iPad this evening for a notebook and pen but I chose to ignore it then and just listen. So my review is based on memory.

Well the Christian hope isn't eternal life. Not for this speaker. The hearers of Jesus would never have understood eternal life as life going on for ever. That would have been more of the same, looking on for the most as the few enjoyed the trappings of success but never enjoying them themselves. No, eternal life's secret is revealed in the 'This is what it's all about' statement as someone enjoys a great family moment, embracing all in the postprandial bloatedness of Christmas lunch.

But, I wanted to shout, there are some looking on who don't get to do that. It's terribly, well, middle class.

In my youth there was this chorus:

If you want joy, real joy, wonderful joy
Let Jesus come into your heart
If you want joy, real joy, wonderful joy
Let Jesus come into your heart
Your sins he'll take away
Your night he'll turn to day
Your heart he'll make over anew
And then come in to stay
If you want joy, real joy, wonderful joy
Let Jesus come into your heart

I hadn't sung it for nearly 40 years and I'm glad but I just wrote out the words from memory,

Christians from all over Bristol, younger than most congregations I serve, flocked to hear this stand-up rabbi. His name? Rob Bell from Los Angeles, California. Christian writer and Communicator, founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church and a man with disciples.

What was distinctively Christian about it? I'm not sure. I may have missed something. Help me.

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.

Green Unpleasant Land

To fulfil the desire to be part of a bigger community discussion about issues facing society, the team at Andy's (a Trendlewood-style Christian community meeting in Backwell, monthly) organised an open meeting on sustainability, climate-change and the like. It took place last Thursday. I was invited to open the proceedings on behalf of the faith community. This is what I said:

It is a privilege to be here as part of the input to this discussion and also to go first.

When Archbishop of Scotland Richard Holloway wrote a book called 'Godless Morality' it caused a stir. His point was this. If I start from my faith position and say 'God says...' then all you have to say to disagree with me is 'I don't believe in God'. Our conversation ends. Christians, he argued, can be informed by their faith position, and need to be open that this is what they are doing. As a Christian my faith informs my opinions. But I need to go into the market place of ideas arguing each position on its merits.

So, some brief insights from my faith perspective with which I hope most of us will not take issue, whether we have faith or not. Three things to say to open our evening:

1. The stewardship of the world is our responsibility.

In the book of Genesis, one of the two stories of creation suggests that looking after the planet is God's first charge on humans. If we don't do the stewardship, no other creature will. The second story of creation, a little more culture-bound, suggests that work being drudgery and relationships unequal is a consequence of selfishness.

Rowan Williams said: 'In the Bible God calls the world good before human beings are on it.'

2. Later on in that creation story God asks what happened. The man then blamed the woman and the woman blamed the snake. Selfishness. The Bible knows that our natural tendency is to blame someone else. Them. But I am one of them.

Whilst big change will come from big movements changing countries and organisations the change of heart happens in us as individuals. Romans 3 says 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'

A newspaper once ran a letter competition to ask what was wrong with the world. It awarded its prize to the shortest letter:

Dear Sir,

I am,

Yours faithfully

And the good news?

3. Redemption is possible. Romans 12 says we should let God transform us by the renewing of our minds. It is a passive sentence. Seeing the possibility of turning things around is something we can allow to happen to us; not something that has to be forced upon us.

We are very slowly discovering that hearts and minds can be changed. It is now anti-social to smoke in someone's house. It didn't used to be. It is now anti-social to leave dog excrement around. It didn't used to be.

What will our grandchildren find remarkable about what we do? Maybe that we value the oil companies based on the assumption that 90% of the world's oil will be available to them. Economist Paul Mason reminds us that the survival of the world depends on 90% of the world's oil staying in the ground.

Why did we ever use plastic straws, they will ask. Just as we ask 'Why did people have slaves?'

Why, they might say, did you all have your own lawn-mower? Good question.

The American satirist P.J. O'Rourke said:

'If Martin Luther were a modern day ecologist he would have to nail 95 T-shirts to the church door in Wittenberg.'

He has a point. We can be too T-shirt slogan minded and not heart-changing enough.

There is a danger that in embarking on a new wave of political populism we are also seeing selfishism. A populist government in Brazil sees local economics as more important than rain forest. A populist president in the USA sees 'nice businesses' as more important than climate change.

So, to summarise, I need to campaign and put my recycling bins out properly. Shout and listen to the voices that don't understand what I am shouting about. Demand change and try to be the change I am demanding.

And members of Christian churches should be the first to sign up, because sin, selfishness and stewardship are huge themes of our holy book.

Steve Tilley July 2019

Sources:

Post-Capitalism (a guide to our future) - Paul Mason 2015

All the Trouble in the World (the lighter side of famine, pesilence, destruction and death) - P.J. O'Rourke 1994

The New International Version of the Bible 1978 (now updated to a more inclusive language translation 1996)

Song of Songs Goes to a Bar

In honour of the Morning Prayer readings from Song of Songs here is a sketch I wrote for Scripture Union's Word Live a few years back.

Bad Chat Up Lines

The scene is a bar. The mood can be set by quiet 'lounge' music and the occasional clinking of glasses or noise of cutlery and crockery.

Barkeeper Yes what can I get you?

Female customer Can I have a Diet Coke please?

Barkeeper Sure. Are you alone? Waiting for someone?

Female customer No. Yes I am. My friend will be along in a minute. Is there a (pause) problem with that?

Barkeeper Oh no, no. But Derek's in the bar over there and he comes over and chats up any new attractive female customers. I just try and keep him away, that's all. His lines are all terrible clichés.

Female customer You mean 'Your father was a thief...'

Barkeeper '...he stole the stars and put them in your eyes.' Yeah that's about the measure of Derek.

Female customer Do you believe in love at first sight?

Barkeeper Or should I walk past again? Is there an airport round here?

Female customer My heart is taking off. I think I've heard them, all.

Barkeeper Watch out for 'You see that Porsche in the car park...'

Female customer Ooh sorry, not familiar.

Barkeeper When you say 'Yes' he says, 'Well mine's the Transit van parked behind it.'

Female customer Oh dear (pause), but listen. Can I have a go? I think I'm quite good at repelling boarders.

Barkeeper Of course. Be my guest. I don't want to interfere. I'll be over here if you need me. Ey up. Here he comes.

Derek Well (cheeky laugh), what's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?

Female customer Girl? Girl? If I were a girl I would be under age and should be thrown out.

Derek I'm sorry. I was confused by your beauty.

Female customer Easily confused are you?

Derek Only in the presence of such grace and elegance. Can I buy you a drink?

Female customer Can you do the sweet smell of mandrake and the fresh fruit of the vineyard?

Derek You what? I was thinking of another Coke.

Female customer Moving on. My round thighs? Perhaps you consider they are like jewels, the work of an artist's hands?

Derek Eh?

Female customer Surely my neck is an ivory tower and my nose a mountain?

Barkeeper There's nothing wrong with your nose; it's lovely.

Female customer Do you not find my eyes like pools of infinite depth?

Derek (A little embarrassed) Well they are, er very nice but er, that is...

Female customer Isn't my hair like finest purple cloth?

Derek It looks blond in this light.

Female customer Does not my breath smell of sweetest apples; my mouth of finest wine?

Derek I know they don't clean the pipes that often but that Coke must be off.

Barkeeper I heard that.

Derek Sorry Trev.

Female customer I haven't yet heard you praise my navel like a drinking cup, my stomach a pile of wheat surrounded by lilies. My breasts are like fawns. I am a tall palm tree and my breasts like its bunches of ...

Derek (Running away) Hey lads. Leave this one. She's a nutter.

Barkeeper Wow. Have one on the house. Where did all that stuff come from? That was an epic performance.

Female customer Oh, it was more than epic. It was (pause) biblical. Here's my date now. Isn't he just a gazelle? Pomegranate wine darling (air kissing) - mhwa mhwa.

Barkeeper (Aside) Oy Derek. I think you could be right for once. Weird this one. What sort of Bible can she have been reading?

Purgatory - Article 22/39

XXII. OF PURGATORY

THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

The Articles have not been slow to condemn Rome. The great Protestant Reformation was a desire to move away from all doctrines that had developed that were not only invisible in Scripture (not necessarily a problem) but also repugnant to it.

O'Donovan differentiates between theological speculation and elucidation. The former involves invention; the latter an attempt to understand.

All preaching is an exercise of imagination but the Article is condemnatory when that raises imagination to the level of ritual. It was abhorrent to the reformers to worship relics or to process consecrated bread and wine and adore it.

I will not pretend that my church tradition respects the Articles and Anglo-Catholic traditions don't. In fact we both pay a bit fast and loose with them. What I will say is that those rituals which draw people back to a full exploration of Scripture are good; those that are seen as an end in themselves are less helpful.

A useful check as we embark on Holy week. Duty or joy? Mindless ritual or re-exploration?

The focus on purgatory in the title would have been the main bugbear of the reformers. Those who had rediscovered forgiveness as the grace and gift of God were appalled at the suggestion that any more than Jesus' sacrificial death for sin was necessary. The pre-reformation doctrine was of a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going to heaven. Not necessary says Article 22.

General Church Councils - Article 21/39

XXI. OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS

GENERAL Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Here's the real break with Rome. In the battle between God's living Pope and God's living word it is the word that wins. Every time. So even a General Council of the church, however unlikely that sounds today, can err if it does not place itself at the feet of the Scriptures.

I don't know what standard people running Confirmation preparation in the Church of England require these days, but O'Donovan points out that the Reformers were of the mind to require confirmands to know the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments (which are in Scripture) and the Apostles' Creed and the Catechism, which are not. However they would argue, I'm sure, that the latter two could be deduced from Scripture and are certainly not contrary to it.

By the time I was confirmed in 1974 no such commitment to memory was needed, although Don Humphreys made me learn quite a few verses.

We may well ponder awhile on the possibility of there ever being another General Council of the Church. Who would need to be invited? And who does the inviting? The article says 'Princes', which means those in authority in the land, deemed to be the monarchy in authority over those in authority in the church. You have two hours. Ask for more paper if you need it.

I end this post with a remark made by a co-writer, Alan Hewerdine, back in the 1990s. I have never bettered it. He said, 'When two Christian denominations merge, a third is formed. Be very scared of General Church councils and try to avoid them.

Contradictions - Article 20/39

XX. OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

THE Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Who, or what, is 'the church' in this article? Same answer as in the last part of the previous post. The one true church is the catholic (meaning worldwide, because of the lower case c) church. All of us erring institutions are part of that yet we are not, in any one place, a complete representation of it.

Percy helpfully draws our attention to the analogy Jesus used – he is the vine and we are the branches. This suggests interdependence rather than independence (chopped off branches don't do well) and a need to acknowledge the existence of the trunk, or the whole vine, to stick with the metaphor.

Individual churches should not over-stress their particularity (these days that is often on sexual matters, which have taken over from initiation rites as the cue for division). 'The consequence' says Percy 'is that the branches attempt to define the vine.'

There are some hidden gems in this Article. It keeps Scripture as the reference point (we have got used to that by now) but it doesn't allow what we call 'proof-texting'. You can't call a verse in your defence if the opposite is also in Scripture. This behaviour is described a 'repugnant'. In early debates with non-Christian friends the argument was often raised that Scripture is contradictory. The solution is that the same advice does not work in all circumstances.

My College Old Testament tutor John Goldingay showed us, in a lecture on Proverbs, that 26:4 and 26:5 were contradictory. He said, I try to recall, 'The Bible understands that some things in life are paradoxical; so it puts them next to each other.' There will be times to worship in faith and times to respond with works. Lifting a verse from the Bible that recommends one or the other is not clever.

Can we track the 'lawful' of the first part of the sentence into the second? Not sure. Maybe. But we are not so down on illegality these days as the reformers were.

Being a witness to Holy Writ is a great responsibility. We should not deny any of it nor add to it. The job of the church member is to either be a Bible student or to listen to those who are. One job of the church leader is to increase the number of Bible students in the congregation. This will enable the load of ministry to be shard and the orthodoxy of the particular church to be constantly re-evaluated.

Thoroughly Biblical? - Article 6/39

6. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION

HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras

The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

There are dangers with a blind approach to Scripture as 'inerrant'. That is a higher standard than Scripture has for itself. Vast chunks of the Book of Job are dismissed at its end as bad advice. As my regular readers will know the great danger for the uneducated scripture reader is mistaking passages for history which are not. It doesn't make the Book of Job lack truth to say it wasn't history. That book of black comedy is full of insight, truth and beauty. But it didn't happen. To begin with, if God and Satan had a wager, how would we know?

The purpose of this Article is to establish that nothing 'necessary for salvation' will be found outside the Scriptures, duly listed.

But there is space for discussion of the text and a divergence of spiritual exercises in response. So? The possibility of aborting a foetus? The acceptability of taking a life-partner of the same gender? The advisability of owning a nuclear deterrent? The rightness or wrongness of various stimulants and suppressants? Feel free to ponder. Your answer is not anti-Article 6 nor a threat to your salvation. That has been made certain for you already. But you may reference Scripture in your answer.

Furthermore, the church can play around all it likes with times and seasons, people and places, ways and means of public worship. But Article 20 will tell us the church can do no thing contrary to Scripture. O'Donovan tells us, '...the books of Scripture are not authoritative because the Church views them in a certain way; the Church views them in a certain way because they are authoritative.'

Allow Martin Percy a word. 'The Bible is not one message spoken by one voice. It is, rather, symphonic in character – a restless and inspiring chorus of testaments, whose authority rests in its very plurality.'

Oh, and in case you wondered. Hierome is St Jerome.

Thought for the Day

As delivered at BBC Radio Bristol just now:

What's the connection between 20 mph zones, Christmas lights, lock gates and milk deliveries?

Good question.

A favourite Bible story is the illustration from St Paul's letter where he compares the church to a body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?

The body works because the parts are different. An organisation works because it has different people. If a retail outlet consisted entirely of accountants it would have great spreadsheets but no money. If it consisted only of sales staff it would have many customers but organisational chaos.

I sometimes use Bishop Gene Robinson's answer to the question, 'Why can't you do something about the weather?' He used to say, 'I'm sorry, I'm in sales not management.'

I'm a church leader and a communicator by gifting. Please don't ask me to do the accounts.

So what is the connection between 20 mph zones, Christmas lights, lock gates and milk deliveries, apart from the obvious that they have all been stories on today's show.

What they share is that they are all important to someone right now. We're all individual; unique and special. We get passionate about different things. We make our livings in different ways. We contribute our skills. The world would be in trouble if nobody knew how to repair lock gates. But it would be in worse trouble if that is all we knew how to do.

Today, try and notice someone doing something you can't, or don't want, to do. And if you can't thank them personally then try and find a space in your heart, a prayer if you like, to be grateful.

Bible Book Club - Further Reflections

Bible Book Club met for the third time last night. A group of six of us met in a pub and discussed the Book of Jonah. It has been harder to put out of our heads our apparent familiarity with the story this time and the group did well in spotting that a better title than Jonah and the Whale might be Jonah and the Assyrians.

This brief reflection is on one question which our group has found more fascinating than we expected. A classic Book Club questions is, 'If this were a film, who would play the parts?' It leads to much discussion about how people see the characters in their mind's eye. I for one, have Robert Powell's Jesus stuck in my head from the 1970s movie Jesus of Nazareth. When I read the gospels that is what pops into my head. So an answer to the question does impact your future reading.

Who plays Jonah? A young man? A fit man? No. A man who is grumpy. A man who jokes without laughing. A man who finds humour in the relentless inevitability of the nature of God. 'I knew you'd forgive them. Kill me now.'

Our Jonah, is Jack Dee.

We are moving on from the great Hebrew stories. Our next book is the Gospel of Mark. We meet again on December 12th. Contact me if you are interested. Steal the idea if you are not local.

Thought for the Day

As delivered at BBC Radio Bristol Breakfast with Emma an hour ago. If you click on the link you can go to 'Listen Again' if you really want to and hear the intro and outro badinage and repartee:

The Bible has a lot to say about food - fish, bread, red wine, wedding feasts, great banquets - but I had to think for a long time to recall references to exercise.

It's that time of year when our TV schedules are about to challenge us as to what sort of couch potatoes we are? Watching people making bread and cakes or getting strictly exercised on the dance floor?

Sit and sponsor Emma as she gets running? Or be encouraged to run too?

Take our places at the roadside as the lycra-fit guys on bikes come through? Or take up our cycles and stretch our legs?

Regular listeners to this spot may have heard me a lot but never seen me. I am of slender build although pretty fit for a man of my age. I had the blessing of not putting on weight in my early and middle years. One friend told me I wouldn't get fat if I ate a greased pig. Another that I only wore clothes so people could see me. Well with friends like that...

In his wonderful book Sapiens (A Brief History of Humankind) Yuval Noah Harari says:

'Consumerism has worked very hard ... to convince people that indulgence is good for you, whereas frugality is self-oppression.'

He has a point. Al Murray's pub landlord is fond of saying that people who think they have slow metabolism actually have a fast pie-arm.

In fact the biblical material about exercise is indirect, but blunt. Look after your body. Treat it like a temple says St Paul. That way, say I, you'll, maybe, give your friends and family the gift of living with them longer.

God, Boris and the Truth

It is a while since that New York Mayor, Mario Cuomo, quoted by Leo McGarry in The West Wing, said 'We campaign in poetry; we govern in prose.' 1985 in fact. And I guess we were all fine with that as long as we understood that it meant that big picture vision statements were the stuff of rallies and nitty-gritty detail the stuff of day-to-day running of a city or country. We got that.

But I don't think that's how it's interpreted anymore. We accelerated very rapidly through 'We campaign in hyperbole...' and are delivered to where we are today, campaigning in lies. Whopping great porkies painted on buses, printed on leaflets and photo-shopped on social media.

I was at an interesting panel discussion on fake news recently when the American grass-roots Republican position was summarised as 'Trump's a liar; but he's our liar'.

Hold that idea; here's another one. It's to do with our brains. I am not a neurologist.

When someone puts you in danger or stress the amygdala sends a signal to the hypothalamus that leads to a flight or fight response. We can have a false response when stressed at work because constant low-level irritation of the system overworks it and leads to other health problems. Find the medical stuff explained here.

It has recently been discovered that the same signals are triggered when someone opposes your long-held views. It takes experience and training not to shout at, or even punch, someone if they suggest you have voted wrong all your life or been a racist without realising.

This places us in difficulty. If you can't counter a lie with the truth without starting a fight, and can't disabuse someone of a falsehood  because they assume everyone is dealing in falsehood, where do you turn?

Well let's turn to Boris Johnson for a while since I put him in the title. As I write he has not apologised for his reported observation that a burka-wearing woman reminded him of a bank robber, or a letter box. If you are in doubt about the precise difference between a hijab and a burka then BBC Newsround have a useful guide. But the cat's out of the bag. Any apology will be for political effect. I doubt he will mean it or have seen the error of his ways. It was the sort of joke/comment that I would have heard at my parents' dinner parties in the 1960s and 1970s. I imagine BoJo's parents had more dinner parties than my family so a wider selection of racist friends were available. Those of us who enjoyed a liberal education learnt soon after that such 'jokes' were inappropriate and in the 1980s political correctness, for all its negative press, was a  desire to make sure a minority group had not been overlooked or accidentally oppressed. As the late Miles Kington wisely pointed out once, the over-reaction was when people treated the disadvantaged as if the disadvantage itself conferred dignity. It is perfectly possible to be a wheelchair user and an arseshole. And US wheelchair users can be assholes.

We turn to free speech. This is one of the great values of liberal democracy. People are allowed to say stupid things. People are allowed to be rude. They can make bad jokes. If they write lies then the civil courts offer the chance of an action for libel (although few of us could afford that route). We try to put as few limits as possible on the right of free speech. But in the UK we decided that incitement to racial or religious hatred should be a crime and this was enshrined in law in 2006. And, of course, employers will want to police the language of their employees. If your position at work makes you 'known' then you forfeit some of the rights to private views if they contradict those of your employer.

The question we may never know the answer to, this side of eternity, is whether Boris is a devious and manipulative tester of the rights of free speech - or an arsehole. Does he actually realise that some horrid people will take his words and see them as authoritative on a nastier scale? Does Boris' position require of him a higher standard than that required of others? Does his stepping back from one of the great offices of state have a bearing on this?

His recent Telegraph article, which I have read in full, has had a bit ripped out of context. He was chastising the usually-liberal Danes for banning the niqab and burka. He did include a small observation that he thought such face covering looked daft and, yes, he did say it reminded him of a post box. The bank robber comment was slightly more ambiguous:

'If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct.'

You may recall the expression, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' (S.G.Tallentyre 1906)

Boris disapproves of the burka but supports the right of people to wear it. We ought to support the right of Boris to say what he thinks even though we disapprove, unless, unless, unless...

Unless it is incitement. Unless it is part of a state of the art divide and rule policy. Boris has form when it comes to allying himself with the 51%. And unless it is not the position of the governing party to which he belongs - then he should rightly be disciplined.

I also brought God into the title. This is awkward for readers who now have to disagree with everything I've said so far because I belong to the faith community and they don't. That said, the Bible has very much higher standards for the use of language than incitement legislation or the libel laws.

Ephesians 4:29 'Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.'

James 1:19 'My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.'

The presence of these two correctives to the behaviour of mainly Christian hearers or readers tells us that the early church was far from perfect. People were becoming followers of Jesus before realising that it had some implications for their behaviour.

Which may be why John, writing his Gospel later than many of the New Testament letters, put the words 'I am the truth' on Jesus' lips. It is easier to have a person to follow and trust than a manual to try and understand.

Turning to Christ is more of an answer than turning to legislation. If you do, you will want to try to be people of the truth, seeking forgiveness in genuine humility when you fail.

This has been a long-winded way of saying 'play nicely'. And I'm still not much further forward in understanding how to debate with people who have a trigger-happy amygdala. But I'm going to hang in there, slow to anger, and look for the good, even in Boris.