Category Archives: Sermons

Sermon – Trinity 18

Sunday 3 October 2021 – Trinity 18

Job 1:1 & 2:1-10        Mark 10:2-16

May I speak this morning in the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

We need to be very clear about something this morning.

Job was a good man.

The author of the book of Job is so keen for us to understand that basic point that it goes into chapter one verse one:

That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.”

The reason it is important to remember Job’s essential goodness, and the reason it is placed front and centre, is because for much of the rest of the story which follows both we, and Job, are tempted to doubt that simple fact.  

Job’s so-called comforters sit with him and spend chapter after chapter telling Job that he must have been bad, even if he didn’t realise it, because they believe that bad things cannot happen to good people.

They took the very mechanistic, perhaps even karmic, view that if you are good then good things will happen to you and if you are bad then bad things will happen to you.  That never the twain shall meet and that if bad things do happen to good people then really, deep down, they must have been bad.

But, Job was a good man.  And it doesn’t just say this in verse 1, God himself says the same in verse 8, which we didn’t hear this morning:

Have you considered my servant Job?  There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

He was blameless and upright, he feared God (the fear of God is not something we think about much today, is it?) and he shunned evil.  God himself confirms that there was no one on earth like him.

If you think about the Angel Gabriel speaking to Mary at the annunciation he said: “Mary, you have found favour with God.”

Although one has to tread carefully here, it certainly looks as though Job was ‘highly favoured’ too.

So, I hope we are now agreed that Job was good.

And yet, despite his goodness we know that personal calamity, followed by much tragedy, does fall on Job.  

Perhaps even more challengingly we heard this morning that the trials and temptations which befell Job were inflicted by Satan, but who was given permission to do so by God.

The temptation as a preacher is to try and understand and unpack the reasons that God may have done this but to do that is probably to fall into the same trap as both Job and his comforters.  At the end of the book Job challenges God to explain himself and God’s answer is not a trite explanation or comfortable platitudes, rather God continues to challenge us by saying to Job, effectively, where were you when I created the universe and who are you to understand my ways?

This probably offends us on many levels.  It may offend our image of God but it may also offend our modern right to know and understand everything, immediately!

But if we can quell our offence for a moment and enter into the story I suspect that it speaks to our lived experience much more than we may care to admit.  

We know that bad things can happen to good people.

Although few of us may be as upright as Job or as highly favoured as Mary we know that calamity and tragedy and sickness and, yes, death can befall those who don’t ‘deserve’ it in the karmic sense at any time.

It may be us, it may be our loved ones, it may be whole countries or the whole world.  It certainly feels as though we have been through a collective trauma recently, and one that continues to play out.

Like Job’s comforters we may blame those who are suffering or like Job himself towards the end of the book we may accuse God of injustice, and shake our fist and seek understanding, and it is perfectly fine to do that as illustrated not only by Job but in many of the Psalms, but sometimes we also have to accept that, although we are made in the image of God, that we are not God and that we will never understand the ‘big picture’ as he does, any more than a toddler can understand why it needs to eat its greens and go to bed when it is overtired.  I’ll come back to that in a moment. 

But first I’m going to mention Mary one more time, and then I’ll get onto Jesus, I promise.

I have already mentioned that the Angel Gabriel told Mary that she was highly favoured by God when he told her that she had been chosen to be the mother of Jesus.  And yet, when Jesus was taken to the Temple Simeon told her that a sword would pierce her soul and we know that it must have done exactly that when she saw that same Jesus on the cross having his side pierced.

Saying yes to God and being a good person does not mean that bad things cannot happen – faith and goodness are not a karmic exchange, as tempting and as easy as that is.

Which does bring us to Jesus, which is a good place for the preacher to end.

There can be little doubt, I hope, that like Job and like Mary, Jesus ‘found favour’ with God – as God the Son he could hardly be more blameless or upright.

But, on a human level at least, even being God the Son did not mean that nothing bad ever happened.

Like Job, Jesus was subject to trials and temptations and deprivations by the devil.  However, unlike Job, he gives us a different response and trusts himself entirely to a loving relationship with God the Father, as he did again in the Garden of Gethsemane – not my will Father, but yours be done.  

A trusting, loving and almost child-like response which comes from a place of deep belief that although we may not know or understand the reasons or the answers that there is a Father who does see the big picture beyond our comprehension and that sometimes the best response to our trials and tribulations is just to go into his arms like little children.

Which, of course, is exactly what Jesus is saying to us in the second part of our Gospel reading today.

Jesus was giving some grown-up teaching about marriage and adultery and whilst this serious stuff was going on people kept bringing their children to Jesus so that he could bless them through his touch.

This must have been quite the distraction as we are told that the disciples ‘spoke sternly’ to the parents.  I would love to know what they said:

Will you please stop bringing your children to Jesus!”

But Jesus didn’t just stop his disciples from talking sternly to the parents, we are told that he was ‘indignant’ with them. 

There was no soft-focus pastiche going on here – we have pushy parents, stern disciples and even an indignant Jesus.  And, in the middle of it all, the children who have little understanding of what is happening.

What does Jesus do?

He said: “…whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” And he blessed the children.

We are not called to understand the inner workings of God’s mind – we were not present when the stars were flung into space any more than Job was.

We are not called to blame ourselves when bad things happen and to believe that we have somehow fallen out of favour with God – we may be upright and blameless but still experience a sword in our soul.

We are called to something which may be both harder but also more liberating and joyful.  To become like little children in our simple love and trust of God.  To allow Jesus to bless us despite everything and to enter the kingdom of God with wonder and thanksgiving for all that there is, and for all that is to come.


Sermon – Trinity 17

Co-operation – 26th September 2021 (Trinity 17)

Readings:  James 5 vv 13 – End   Prayer of faith Mark 9 vv 38 – End  Those not against us are for us.  Causing to sin

  1. Introduction.         “I tell you mate if you are not going to join our gang, you’ll be one of the enemy.  You’ll need to watch out.”    This is the sort of conversation you might expect amongst the young men involved in some of our urban gangs.  But it is not far removed from the disciples’ response to an exorcist casting out demons in Jesus’ name, as the Apostle John reported it in today’s gospel reading, when he says, “Teacher, we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”   This leads on to Jesus’ teaching about co-operation with other disciples.  In our Epistle, James teaches us about co-operation with God.  Our co-operation with God and our co-operation with people and for that matter the whole of creation are linked.
  2. Co-operation with God.   Firstly, co-operation with God.   James has several things to say about prayer.   The foundation of prayer is our relationship with God.  As Paul said two or three weeks ago, intercessory prayer is not trying to twist the arm of a loving God, but rather aligning ourselves with God’s will.  As Jesus taught us in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done”.    I suggest that this is one of the reasons why James says that the sick person should call for the elders to pray for him.  Two people can be better than one, in some circumstances, in discerning the will of God.   James also speaks of singing songs of praise.  The whole of our service this morning is in principle aligning ourselves with God.  Our Sunday worship together, should help us to pray and live more effectively during the week. 
  3. Co-operation with Creation.      Secondly, co-operation with creation.  James gives us the example of a man of faith who knew how to pray in line with God’s will.  He gives us quite an extreme example of Elijah praying for a drought, which lasted for 3½ years and then praying for rain for the crops to grow again.  His prayers were answered.  Can we pray for appropriate weather?   I recall an occasion when I was at theological college in Oxford and attached to three country parishes in my first year of training.   One Sunday afternoon before I conducted evensong in one of the parishes, the Vicar rang and asked me to include a prayer for the farms, as we had experienced a very wet April, with rain nearly every day and the farmers were anxious about their spring crops becoming waterlogged.  As a farmer’s son I sympathised with their predicament.  I duly included a prayer for a period of dry weather.  I recall coming out of Church and it was gently drizzling and I thought, “Oh dear, is our prayer going to result in fine weather or not!”  From the next day, there was no rain for 6 weeks and the waterlogged ground was able to recover.   More recently Julia and I were due to attend a service of thanksgiving at Trottiscliffe, one of my previous parishes, for a thanksgiving service of a well-known member of the Church and farming community.  Trottiscliffe Church has pews to seat 65 people, so it was planned to relay the service to the churchyard.  The forecast was for an overcast day with showers.  I thought it right when Julia and I had our breakfast prayer to pray for a dry period for the service. We were sitting outside in the churchyard ready for the service to start at 1.30 p. m. and it was very gently raining until exactly 1.30 p. m. when the rain completely stopped, until about 6 p.m.  We thanked God for the dry periods.  Addition – we prayed for a fine period for the post service coffee at Follyfoot on 3rd October.   There is a danger though that we regard rain as ‘bad weather’ and sunny, dry, weather as ‘good weather’.  We need a combination of rain and dry weather, sunshine and clouds, calm and wind.  All are good, all are part of God’s creation, in which he continues with an active role, not as a clockmaker, who has built the clock of the universe and set it running in a rigid regular way.  I am sure we all have examples both of prayer answered in the way we had hoped and prayer answered in other ways.  We don’t always by any means discern God’s will accurately.  Let us though continue to try to align ourselves with the will of God, saying, ‘Your will be done’.
  4. Co-operation with people.      We have thought about co-operation with God and co-operation with creation.  Now let’s think about co-operation with people.  This is where Jesus’ views and that of the 12 differed radically.   John reported to Jesus that they had seen a man driving out demons in Jesus’ name and they had told the man to stop because the man was not one of them. Jesus’ response was “Do not stop him”.  Despite this, if one looks at the history of the Church we see huge conflict between different sections of the Church, sometimes because the Church was too politically involved and identified with one political strand.  One thinks of Bishops Ridley and Latimer, protestant bishops of the Anglican Church, being burnt at the stake in the reign of the Catholic monarch, Queen Mary.  John Bunyan, the free church preacher and writer was imprisoned for many years in Bedford town jail.  Much of the emigration to America in the 17th and 18th Century arose from the Anglican Church in this country seeking to enforce its rigid worship on everyone and similar action on the European continent.   Thank God for the 1910 Edinburgh missionary conference which began to end conflict between denominations and ‘sheep stealing’ in the mission fields.  The modern ecumenical movement has done much to reduce conflict between Christian denominations and to encourage a real desire to recognise Christians in other denominations as our brothers and sisters in Christ.  I believe that it matters not too much that there is a variety of denominations.  To believe in the ‘catholic’ church, catholic meaning ‘universal’, is to recognise the essential unity we have in Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.

How far though can we go in co-operating with other religions?   Whist holding firm to the essentials of the Christian faith as expressed in the creeds, we can recognise the good aspects of other religions and on a personal level work with people of a variety of faiths and beliefs.   I read in the Church Times that the family of a dying, already unconscious, woman in St Thomas’ Hospital, was unable to get an Imam to come and pray with her and said, “Please would anyone pray with her.” The Archbishop of Canterbury, who was on duty there as a Chaplain, knelt by the bed and prayed for her.  He said, “There was such a beautiful sense of the presence of God, of the love of God, it was such a profound moment.”   In my role as a Regional Chaplain of the London and South East Region of the Air Training Corps, I agreed to take on a new commitment as the Corps’ multifaith coordinator. As such I was responsible for the appointment of a Hindu Chaplain as an adviser in our Region and as a Chaplain to Middlesex Wing, particularly to minister to the many Hindu cadets within the squadrons of that Wing.  At a Wing parade I would say a couple of prayers and invite him to say a Hindu prayer.  However, when it came to our annual service for London and South East region, held in the RAF Church, St. Clement Danes Church in London, that service was entirely Christian in a Christian Church.

As a lightning protection consultant, I work with people all over the world and generally do not know what their religion or lack of it is.  I am very happy to work with people who have a concern for practical application of the truth, as expressed in scientific principles. However, when one of our members died, I was happy to accept the invitation of our Italian Chairman, a Roman Catholic, to say a Christian prayer of remembrance of the member who had died.

What limits should we place in the ordinary things of everyday life?  Paul in his second letter to the Church at Corinth says that Christians should not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.  This has been interpreted in the context of marriage and even, within a strand of the Brethren, of business partnership.  The context of Paul’s injunction is however primarily about the general social relationships in a city of much idolatry and sexual immorality.  The principle seems to me that one should avoid relationships which may undermine one’s faith and the purpose of one’s activities.  Generally, there is not the same stark contrast in modern society, albeit there may be in some places.   In marriage it is important to have a common philosophy with a good understanding between husband and wife about acquisition and use of money, of the desire or not to have children, a good understanding about roles. Sometimes cultural differences can create tensions.  For both parties to have a strong Christian faith can be a great basis for marriage.  I have though known good marriages where this is not so.  In W London, a parish clergyman, who was one of our ATC chaplains, was married to a Hindu wife. It probably helped him in his ministry in a strongly Hindu parish.    Thinking of other areas of life, one can be keen on action to minimise climate change, but not wish to associate with some forms of demonstration to bring about needful change.

  • Conclusion. In conclusion, may our lives be so rooted in Christ that we can be guided in prayer and discern how we can best reach out to and co-operate with other people of other denominations, other faiths and other races and cultures, according to God’s will.

Christopher Miles

Sermon – Trinity 15

Sunday 12 September 2021

Readings: James 3:1-12, Mark 8:27-end

Heavenly Father, may these my spoken words open to us something of your written word and so lead us to your living Word, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

My maternal grandfather was a gunner in the Royal Navy during the second world war and, although he hardly ever spoke about it, he did tell me that he was on a number of ships that were sunk, mostly in the North Atlantic convoys.

Does anyone remember the wartime phrase ‘Loose lips sink ships’?

It is worth unpicking that succinct phrase for a moment.  A couple of words, said without thinking in earshot of the wrong person – perhaps something simple like “My Tommy is sailing out of Chatham on Sunday” could lead to a U-boat waiting in the channel, firing a torpedo and unleashing horror and death.

A word, a simple breath of air passing over the tongue and the lips, but spoken out of place, could sink a warship.

In today’s first reading St James reflects on the power of our words, both for good and for ill.  He too talks about ships and says that no matter how big the ship and no matter how it harnesses the great power of the wind to drive it along, it’s direction is controlled by a comparatively tiny rudder.

If a rudder wags around in any old direction, without a helmsman keeping control, then the ship will not go the right way.

James compares the rudder of this ship to the human tongue which, although comparatively small, can set the direction of a person.  

I am sure we have all met people whose speech is full of love, encouragement and grace.  They build us up and are a pleasure to be around.

And I am sure we have all met people who are, shall we say, less so. 

But, perhaps worse, are those whose words give a bad witness to their faith.  Those whose lips and tongues praise God in church on Sunday morning but who then say awful things about others – St James talks about them too:

From the same mouth come blessing and cursing.  My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so.  Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water?  Can a fig tree…yield olives, or a grapevine figs?  No more can salt water yield fresh.”

I am reminded of 1 John 4:20

Whoever claims to love God but hates brother or sister is a liar.

  And, of course, Matthew 7:16

         By their fruit you will recognise them.

If we say to the world that we are Christians, who love God and who love neighbour, then we should be aware that those around us will be watching to see how we act – does what we say we believe on a Sunday line up with our actions during the week and do the words of our lips when talking about someone demonstrate a life transformed by love, or something else?

If you met someone who was a Muslim but who drank alcohol or someone who was a Hindu and ate beef you might think them a terrible hypocrite whose actions lowered the standing of their faith in your eyes.

We bear the same responsibility to live our lives in the world as people who are transformed by the experience of meeting God, through Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit.  

And, just to be clear, I am not seeking to pontificate from a place of perfection.  St James makes the point loud and clear that those who lead and teach in the church will be judged strictly and I know, sisters and brothers, that I often fail to live up to God’s call on my life.  So, as I pray for you to become the people you were called and made to be, then I ask for you to pray for me in the same way, and as I pronounce God’s absolution for sins following the confession then please know that this is as much for me as for all those in church.  

Jordan Peterson, the rather controversial academic and speaker, has an interesting relationship with Christianity and he recently gave an interview to the Church Times.  His main criticism of contemporary Christianity is that the faith we profess does not sufficiently change our lives, words and actions.  He said:

There’s no limit to what would happen if you acted like God existed…..the way you live isn’t sufficient testament to the truth.”

Is the way we live and conduct ourselves in the world a sufficient testament to the truth?  When others look at us, and hear how we talk to and about others, do they see lives transformed by the reality of God?

In church we often think about the great saints.  The only difference between the saints from church history and ourselves is not the possession of super-human powers.  People are not born saints in the way that Clarke Kent was born Superman.  The saints that we celebrate and remember are fellow-Christians, living in the same fallen and difficult world that we do, but who have lived their lives fully in the light of God’s presence.  Aligning their thoughts, words and actions so closely with God that it would become unthinkable for them to praise him and proclaim Jesus as Lord one moment and to curse and lie the next.  

To answer Jordan Petersen’s charge, the lives lived by the saints are always sufficient testimony to the truth.  And we are all called to be saints.

But even some of the greatest of saints had to start somewhere, and some of their mis-steps are recorded in the bible.  This should give us confidence both in the transparency of the biblical account and the humanity of the saints.  

In today’s Gospel reading Simon Peter, who would later become the rock on which Jesus built his church, allowed the words of his mouth to be both fresh water, and then brackish water.

Jesus had asked his disciples who people thought he was, and we heard a variety of answers, and then he asked his disciples the same question:  

 “But what about you? Who do you say I am?”

Peter answered, “You are the Christ”.

Peter spoke the truth, although he may not have fully understood what it meant for Jesus to be the Christ.  Then Jesus taught them a little more:

 “He [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.”

This is where it goes wrong for Peter and he took Jesus aside to rebuke him. 

This is a very strong word and is often used in the bible in the context of exorcisms in which unclean spirits are rebuked. In turn Jesus rebuked Peter saying: “Get behind me, Satan!” which reinforces the exorcism tone.

Imagine proclaiming Jesus as the Christ in one breath and then rebuking him almost with the next?

But isn’t that what we do every time we leave church and then fail to speak lovingly both to one another and of one another?

If our words and actions and lives joined up sufficiently so that we were testaments to the truth, which is Jesus the Christ, then not only would we be the saints here on earth but a world in need of authenticity would be beating down our doors to have what we have.  

This is not meant to condemn us, but to encourage us.  St Peter got it badly wrong in today’s gospel, as he did on many other occasions, but we know that Jesus kept forgiving him as he keeps forgiving us. 

Loose lips may sink ships but the tongue with which we sing our praises to God should also testify to a life transformed by him, the tongue which receives Jesus in the sacrament should be Christ-like when talking to others and the tongue which prays for God’s forgiveness and blessing should be full of forgiveness and blessing to friends, family and neighbours.   


Paul White

Sermon – Trinity 13

Hand Washing – 29th August 2021

James 1: 17 – End   Listening and doing; Mark 7: 1 – 8, 14, 15, 21 – 23  True cleanliness

  1. Introduction.          How many times a day do you wash your hands?   For myself, I haven’t tried counting but it must be at least a dozen times and perhaps a lot more not to mention the use of sanitizing gel.  When I was at a boarding school, in the junior house we had to line up on the way to a meal and pass Matron, showing both sides of our hands to show that our hands were clean.   I guess I am one of only a few people here present who has done an NHS hand washing course with its practical test at the end.  As a hospital chaplain I had a personal clip-on sanitiser, so that after visiting patient, if we had shaken hands, I could readily disinfect my hands before going to another patient.  Perhaps we have some sympathy with the Pharisees’ remonstration with Jesus, that his disciples were not washing their hands before eating!   Sometimes I get a little annoyed with a person when I ask a question and the person’s answer is to a different question to the one I asked.  It may seem to you, that Jesus even deliberately ignores the Pharisees’ question, apart from a reference to cleanliness and in response asks them a question.   If either of these points resonates with you then this sermon is for you as we look more deeply at today’s Gospel and at the end briefly tie it in with to today’s Epistle.

2. Pharisees’ question.         As Jesus points out, the Pharisees’ question is not directly based on the Hebrew Scriptures, that is, for us, the Old Testament.  Rather it is based on the interpretation, known as the Talmud, originating from the time of the priest and prophet Ezra of the 6th Century BC and continuing perhaps 200 years or more into the present era, comprising both written interpretation, known as the Mishnah, and the oral tradition, known as the Midrash.  Mark as the gospel writer also expands on the Jewish practice at that time.  The practice of hand washing, washing of food bought in the market and washing of cooking and eating vessels was all good and accords with what is common practice today by many of us, especially in this Covid pandemic.

3. Old Testament.      Without even going into the interpretations in the Talmud, it is worthy of mention that there is much in the Old Testament about washing including especially washing of hands and feet. Many of the references are to the required practice of the priests that they should not enter into the Tabernacle or Temple without washing their hands and feet, in order to appear clean in the presence of God.   The general thrust of this is therefore ceremonial rather than that of hygienic practices by the general population.  Thus, as Mark states, the interpretation in the Talmud was seen in ceremonial terms.

4. Jesus’ response.  Now let’s consider Jesus’ response.  First let us remember that Jesus was an itinerant preacher, saying on another occasion, “The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Matt 8 v 20).  We are very accustomed to our houses and flats, all with running water.  However, in my younger years, I lived in two villages with no running water.  In one, in Rutland, we lived in a cottage, dependent on a hand operated pump outside the house.  There was no bath or hand wash basin, just a sink where we washed up and washed ourselves.  In another village, in East Sussex, we had a piped water system in the bungalow, dependent on the rainwater collected from the roof into an underground tank and then pumped by a hand-operated semi-rotary pump, into the roof tank.  I am sure that as a boy I did not wash my hands 12 times a day!  Jesus and his disciples had even less provision, perhaps eating a meal outside, a mile from a well.   I can well understand that Jesus and his disciples didn’t always wash their hands before eating

Secondly, remember that Jesus said in his ‘Sermon on the Mount’, “I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfil them”.  Jesus had been brought up in a good Jewish family, obedient to the requirements of the law, as seen in the early chapters of Luke’s gospel.  He was often challenged about healing people on the Sabbath.  He went deeper than the written law, to the principles underlying the law.  He knew that in particular, the Pharisees, the strictest law-abiding Jews, were often out to trap him.

On this occasion Jesus holds on to the principle of ceremonial cleanness, that is, what is pleasing to God, and challenges the Pharisees on the grounds of fundamental unholiness, of the breaking of the commandments.  He is not denying that hand washing is a good thing but that it is not the basis of establishing a right relationship with God and in that respect, it is quite trivial in comparison to the major moral aspects of the law, in particular the ten commandments, which we have writ large on the E wall of the chancel.

If you wish understand the full thrust of Jesus’ teaching, then sometime this week read the whole gospel passage from Mark 7 v 1 through to v 23.  As you can see in the Sunday newssheet, today’s reading, is as one commentator has put it, ‘rather like a shrink-wrapped supermarket fish’, with its simplified selection of verses.

5. Application.           How do we apply today Jesus’ teaching in his response to the Pharisees’ challenge?   We should not neglect good hygiene, using sanitisers, washing our hands, having Covid vaccinations.  We should do these things so that as far as possible we remain in good health and therefore are not a burden on other people and also, out of concern for one another that we are not passing on infection to others.   What we are doing is living out the second commandment of Jesus summary of the law, ‘loving our neighbours as ourselves’.  We need to see that all people are made in the image of God, whatever the colour, race or religion of the other person.  Our relationship with God should motivate our relationship with one another, and I believe to a large extent it does.  But as we look out at the worldwide scene, we see in so many countries that this is not so.  There are personal and corporate struggles for power, there is little concern for those who ‘get in the way’, in that struggle.  We are particularly concerned at present about the desperate situation in Afghanistan, where those who sought a new freedom and way of life, now live in fear of their lives.  

Let us not be quick to condemn the legalism of the Pharisees or even the Orthodox code of living of Jews today.  We live in this country, as in most countries, circumscribed by a mass of law, regulation, codes of practice and formal guidance.  We live in a complex technological age with huge populations.  As someone involved in writing of international standards, in my case, relating to lightning protection, I am conscious that I am contributing to that mass of requirements.  I try to do it bearing in mind a concern for the safety and wellbeing of people, both directly from the effect of lightning strikes and indirectly in care of the buildings in which people live and work or are served by, with a particular responsibility for churches.

I said at the beginning of this sermon, that I would refer briefly to today’s epistle, from the epistle of James, whom I said in my sermon in July, was almost certainly not the James the son of Zebedee, but possibly James, son of Alphaeus, another apostle of the 12.  One can sum it up by saying that we should be good listeners and good doers.   In other words, we should not be in a rush to speak but rather be willing to listen.  Sometimes in parish ministry, someone has said to me something like, “Christopher, thank you so much for visiting me two months ago when I was going through a difficult time, you were so helpful to me then.” I think back to the occasion and realise that I hardly said anything. By articulating a problem, the person has seen the solution.   Secondly it is not enough to leave Church today saying, ‘That was an interesting sermon.  We need to ask ourselves, ‘What am I going to do differently as result of that sermon.’

Jesus was a man of prayer, thought and action, listening to God the Father, guided and empowered by God the Holy Spirit.  Let us like him see the underlying principles of our religion and act on them.

Christopher Miles

Sermon – Trinity 10

Sermon: 10th Sunday after Trinity8th August 2021

By Kelly Parsons

Readings: 1 Kings 19: 4-8;    John 6: 35, 41-51

At the beginning of my discernment process, I completed a course called hearing God’s Word, Speaking God’s word.

For the final assessment of this I was required to plan and preach a sermon in church.    This was the first time I would preach in church as part of Sunday worship. 

Paul was very kind and said I could look at the readings and pick the Sunday I would like to preach. 

I have found it is in my nature not to pick the easy route and true to form I said to Paul, ‘Let’s just agree a date and I will preach on whatever the reading is.’ 

The reading was Ezekiel and the Valley of Dry Bones.  Not an easy reading for a nervous first-time preacher. 

Later when I met with Pamela, the Diocesan Director of Ordinands and she asked about my preaching experience.  I told her about the course.  She commented on the course and how it was an easy way to introduce people to sermon writing especially as you can choose the readings.  When I told her what my first sermon was on, she laughed and said, ‘you have passed.’

This week I found myself in a similar situation.  After agreeing that I would lead and preach today in Paul’s absence, I looked at the reading.  The readings from John 6 are spread over four consecutive Sundays and this period in the church is dreaded by clergy.

John is not a story-teller and his gospel lacks the imagery of the other three.  Many find the language repetitive and even boring.  John asks more questions than he answers.

So then, what is the purpose of John’s gospel ?

If is dreaded by clergy and congregations alike, then why do we have it in the lectionary?

This simple answer lies within the book itself.

All of the Gospels have a purpose and John’s is no exception to this rule.  Once the purpose of the gospel is understood, it unlocks the other passages.

John 20 verses 30-31: Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book.  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The purpose of John’s gospel is to persuade the reader to believe and tell others that Jesus is God’s Son, is sent by God out of love for us and to give everlasting life to those who believe in him.  

With this in mind let us return to the passage read today:

I am the bread of life that came down from heaven, says Jesus. 

A familiar enough phrase for us in today’s church.  It is part of the Eucharistic prayers that we say most weeks.

The people respond to Jesus with a challenge.  This is a common pattern in John and we see this throughout John 6.

The people argue that Jesus cannot be the bread from heaven as he has two human parents – Mary and Joseph.  At the time the people are showing that they are confused and this confusion can quickly lead to anger and violence. 

These people were not followers of Jesus and were not naturally attracted to him in the same way that others were.

 I will touch on this again later.

They feel that Jesus is contradicting himself.  They know of his human origins yet now he is saying that he came down from heaven.  They cannot unite the two ideas that Jesus can be both fully human and fully divine.

This is a deep theological concept that is covered in Christian Doctrine.

What they missed was that what Jesus was saying was not about identity.  But what he is giving.

Jesus did not say, ‘I came down from heaven.’  He said ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’

Jesus does not respond directly to the questions raised. Jesus directs his answer not to the question they ask as, at this point he does not want to get into a debate over identity and authority.  Religious authorities of the time were obsessed with these themes.

Rather, Jesus wants them to understand what he is saying.  By eating the bread of life you are entering into a loving relationship with God and will be sustained and transformed through death. The bread is the dying flesh of Jesus that he gives for a world where death reigns. 

This relates back to the purpose of John’s gospel: to persuade people to believe in Jesus and have life in his name. 

Returning to the point I mentioned earlier.  Some people were just naturally attracted to Jesus.  They left everything to hear Him speak. 

1 John 4 verse 9 tells us that God first loved us.  Through creation God put love in our hearts.  Creation happens all the time and God’s love is present in the world. 

In the creation story it talks about creation through the Word of God.  Then the word becomes flesh and is tangible, visible in Jesus.

Those who followed Jesus recognised the Word within Him.   The inner love that he carried because they carried it too.

Verse 44 says, ‘No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.

This statement tells us that Jesus is working together with the Father

In ancient spirituality the love of God was thought to be a fire that rose in a person’s chest and came out through their eyes.  This would allow the person to recognise whatever was of God on the outside because of that inner love of God was part of their own being.  Those who did not have the fire in their eyes had been thought to have lost the love of God and their hearts hardened.  The are not able to see the light of Christ.  The were not drawn to Jesus.  

In John’s gospel the religious authorities are described as having hardened hearts.  Instead of being drawn to Jesus they question and challenge what he says. 

I think that we are drawn to each other as a church family because we recognise the Holy spirit in each other.  We feel comfortable learning together.  Exploring and developing that deeper relationship with God.  John’s gospel equips us with responses that can be given when we carry the love of God out into the world. 

When we talk with those who do not recognise the love of God.  This whose hearts may have hardened.  God can work through us to rekindle the fire in their hearts.

Jesus continues this debate with the people even though he can feel hostility rising. Even though he knows that love is not in their hearts.

When we read this story, we have the best seats.  We already know that Jesus dies for us and the giving of his flesh brings eternal life. The meaning  for us is already clear.

John picks the interactions that he included in his gospel carefully to reinforce the message that he is sending.  Which means that it lacks some of the imagery of the other gospels, however, its importance is clear:  John’s gospel gives us the tool to see the whole bible as a book of life that gives life. It gives us a sold grounding to our faith.

The gospel of John is read in the church on consecutive weeks because it was meant to be read as a book – from cover to cover to fully understand the message,  not in passages.  Each part builds on the strength the evidence of a life-giving faith.

What Jesus was saying to these people and his followers was challenging. 

These people were experiencing the story as it happened. Some walked away.

Others stayed.  They stayed because they believed that Jesus had the words of eternal life and they wanted to know more.

John may be challenging and there may be stuff in there that makes us want to walk away.  To select a gospel that is easier to read and relate to.  But to have a relationship with God, to have a deep friendship with Him, you have to stick with it. 

All good things require some application.  Learning to play an instrument, singing, flower arranging or running 10k. It doesn’t just happen overnight.  So let’s make that promise, that application to have a relationship with God that is deep and meaningful. 

Let’s read the Gospel of John and listen to what he says. 


Sermon – Trinity 9

9th Sunday after Trinity

1 August 2021

Ephesians 4: 1-16, John 6: 24-35

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Our two readings this morning pose us with some interesting questions – why do we follow Jesus and what does it mean to be part of the church?

Just before the events in today’s gospel reading Jesus had miraculously fed 5000 people with five small loaves and two fish.  With that small beginning, and a prayer of thanks from Jesus, the people ate their fill and there 12 baskets of leftovers.  I have preached on that before and it should encourage us that, no matter how straightened the times and no matter how meagre we think our gifts are, when they are offered to Jesus in faith then impossible things can happen. 

There is no doubt that the crowds were impressed with this miraculous sign and, after they had finished eating, they declared Jesus to be a prophet and wanted to make him King, by force if necessary. (6:14,15).  But that was not what Jesus intended and he withdrew to the mountains by himself.

There then followed an interlude of the people realising that Jesus has gone and some climbed into boats to sail around the Sea of Galilee (or the Lake of Tiberias as it is also known) and go looking for him in the fishing village of Capernaum.  If you ever go to Israel then it is still possible to visit that same village, which is named in all of the gospels, and there is a wonderful modern church with a glass floor through which you can view the remains of what is believed to be St Peter’s house.  Presumably the crowds headed there because they knew that Jesus and his followers were often there and that is, indeed, where they found him.

Although Jesus knew that this crowd had been impressed by the sign of the feeding of the 5000, and wanted to make him king by force, he also knew that the crowd’s motives for following him were mixed:

Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.” 

If you look closely at Jesus’ encounters he often challenges people to look at their motives for doing what they are doing.  In Mark 10, and elsewhere, Jesus asks the question a number of times: ‘what do you want me to do for you?’

By challenging the crowd, and by posing that question to individuals, Jesus encourages them to look deeper – to see if there is anything beyond their surface motives.  Perhaps their obvious need is their real need – as the blind man who wanted to see again – but Jesus still wanted him to name that need.  Or perhaps, like the crowd here there may be a variety of needs but Jesus wants them to stop and think and ask who and what they want in this situation.

Jesus’ challenge to this crowd looks quite rude – he is saying that they are only following him because they enjoyed a free lunch and, if they hang around, they may get some more free food.

I feel quite sorry for them – they are following Jesus through both wilderness and across the sea and he is accusing them of being freeloaders.

But then, of course, he takes them deeper into the true meaning of who he really is – not simply an earthly prophet or king or even a dispenser of free food which, no matter how much you eat, will never fulfil you forever. 

Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.”

The crowd then pose Jesus a question:

         “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

The answer is simple and refreshing:

         “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

To believe in Jesus is the work of God.

But the crowd weren’t happy with that.  Despite the fact that they had already seen the feeding of the 5000 they wanted another sign and, despite what Jesus had already said about physical food they wanted him to feed them again, like the Hebrews had been fed with manna from heaven in the wilderness.  

Perhaps Jesus was right to think that they only wanted more free food.  Perhaps also the crowd here are representing another temptation for Jesus, by getting him to prove that he is equal to Moses or to prove his divinity 

If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread

The crowd are repeating the temptation of the devil.

Which brings Jesus to the denouement of this toing and froing:

I am the bread of life.  Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”

The crowd have been on quite a journey: they ate their fill of physical bread, they have spoken about the miraculous bread from heaven which fed their ancestors in the wilderness and now Jesus says that he is that bread from heaven and, if they do the work of God by believing in him, then they will never truly want for anything again.

As those who seek to follow Jesus in the wilderness now we know that he feeds us week by week in the bread of communion and, for us, that bread is as physical as the loaves on which the 5000 dined, it is also as light as the manna in the wilderness and it is also Jesus himself, broken and shared for our healing and union with him and with one another.  

Which brings us briefly to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.  As always with Paul there are layers of meaning to be mined and these 16 verses could keep us occupied for a month.  For today I simply want to identify the theme of church unity and it’s purpose.

In verses 4 to 6 Paul names the seven ones:

One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God

 I can’t help thinking that if the churches, and denominations and factions spent a little longer dwelling on those seven ones then we may move beyond our man-made differences and see our essential unity which, of course, is in the God who calls us and feeds us with the bread of heaven.

The purpose of that unity in the church is not to impose uniformity, on the contrary each calling and part of the body needs to be different and needs to be fully itself, but that the whole body should grow together as one, that we should move from being spiritual infants who are blown around by every fad and trend, by cunning, deceitfulness and scams and, as Paul says:

“…we will grow in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is Christ.  From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does it’s work.”

Ligaments are rarely the first thing we think about when we think of a healthy body, but if the smallest supporting ligament goes wrong then it can affect the health and happiness and work and mission of the whole body.

Why do we follow Jesus and what does it mean to be part of his church?

I follow Jesus because he feeds my soul eternally with the bread of life and to be a small supporting ligament within the body of Christ is the greatest calling ever.

We are the body of Christ and we called to build up that body by sharing the body amongst ourselves and by being the diverse yet united body of Christ in the world.

Lots to think about.  But, if you remember nothing else today, remember this:

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


Sermon – Trinity 8 James the Apostle

Readings: 2 Corinthians 4: 7-15  The treasure of the Gospel in jars of clay (the apostles)

Matthew 20: 20-28 The sons of Zebedee seek prime position in the kingdom of God

  1. Introduction.         We are no longer in the Easter season but every Sunday is a recollection that on a Sunday Jesus rose from the dead. I therefore invite you join in the response of the Easter greeting on this Sunday as we mark the increasing freedom from Covid restrictions, ever rejoicing in our freedom in and through our risen Lord Jesus.

Alleluia Christ is risen

He is risen indeed Alleluia

A new government was about to take over.   The prime minister had already been declared, having a strong popular following.  He had been campaigning for the past three years and immediately before that his cousin, John, had prepared people for an enlightened rule.  Even before John was born to aged parents, his father had a prophetic insight that his son would have this preparatory role and that his nephew would be raised up as a mighty saviour of a nation, subject to foreign rule of a strong empire. Into this situation comes the pushy parent of two of the new leaders within the immediate band of followers, with a special request that her sons should be number 2 and 3 in the cabinet of the new government. That was the subject of our Gospel reading in which Mrs Zebedee comes to Jesus asking that her sons James and John should have prime positions in the about-to-be- re-established Davidic kingdom, free from Rome, under the rule of God’s Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, a descendant of the great king David.  Jesus makes no direct promise to James and John.   

  1. Which James? This Gospel reading makes it quite clear which James we are celebrating today.  We are celebrating James the son of Zebedee, not James, the brother of Jesus, who having initially scoffed at the claims of his elder brother, seems to have come to be a prominent leader in the early Church as we learn in reading the Acts of the Apostles, albeit references in Acts simply say ‘James’, possibly referring to another of the 12 apostles, James the son of Alphaeus. One quite clear reference to James son of Zebedee, is a single verse, Acts 12 v 2, referring to his martyrdom, where Luke writes, “Herod had James, the brother of John, put to death by the sword.”  This happened about 44 A. D.   We can therefore say with a fair degree of confidence that the epistle of James was written by another James, having been written much later.  
  2. James in Scripture.  What then do we know of James?    Other than his martyrdom, we look to the four gospels for our authorative insight into James.  He and his brother John were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, in the family fishing business managed by their father Zebedee. On a number of occasions Jesus had taken an inner group of disciples, namely Peter, and the two brothers, James and John, to be with him at special times, as for example, the raising of Jairus’ daughter and his Transfiguration.  James was therefore one of a select inner group of three, together with his brother John and with Peter, being prepared for leading roles in the early Church.  They needed to learn to reach beyond the boundaries of their tradition enmity of other races and peoples, to be inclusive not exclusive and judgemental.  This is seen rather well in the incident, recorded solely by Luke, when Jesus and the 12 are travelling to Jerusalem via Samaria.  A Samaritan village refuses them hospitality because they are travelling to Jerusalem.   The two brothers offer to call down a lightning strike on the inhospitable village. But Jesus rebukes them and they travel on to another village. This incident was near the end of Jesus’ public ministry, but I suspect that the brothers were still thinking that he would establish the Kingdom of God as an earthly kingdom with Jesus as Head of State. After the example of the great prophet Elijah, who had appeared to Jesus at his transfiguration, their task was to oppose zealously and physically those who refused to support the coming regime.  This then comes to a climax in the event recorded by James’ brother, John, who later became known as the Apostle of Love, of their mother requesting special authority for her sons in the revived kingdom.  Mark records the event, but as a direct request by the brothers themselves. 
  3. James in the Church.       You may be surprised that the only reference in the Acts of the Apostles to James, son of Zebedee, other than in the list of the 11 apostles in Acts 1, is that one verse stating he was martyred. One has to remember that the book is really the ‘Acts of the two Apostles’, namely Peter and Paul.   I think it is fair to say that Luke, the author of Acts, wrote the book as a defence of the Apostle Paul in preparation for his trial in Rome, showing firstly that the Christian Church was essentially a peaceful institution, supportive of Roman authority, and that the riots and opposition to Paul’s preaching arose from Jewish irrational jealousy and bigotry and secondly to authenticate Paul’s position as an apostle of the Church, showing that anything Peter did in the way of preaching, healing and even raising someone from the dead, Paul also did, and more.  I think though it is highly likely that Herod Archelaus one of the three sons of Herod the Great, ruling Judea and Samaria from Jerusalem, saw James, an active, leading, member of the Christian Church, as a threat to his rule.  There are many countries today where the Church seems to rulers to be a threat and in autocratic states, active, leading Christians are imprisoned or put to death.  It may be that in the 10 years or so between Jesus’ death and James’ death that James had an effective and fruitful ministry in Jerusalem, Judea and even in Samaria, where previously he had wanted to call down a lightning strike on an unfriendly village.
  4. Application.   I doubt if any of us will get a mention in history or other books, read by succeeding generations, but to some extent, as the Apostle Paul says to the Christians at Corinth, the treasure of the gospel is held in us, in fragile earthenware jars. Our lives may be long, like James’ brother John, or comparatively short like James’.  Death has been confronting us every day during the Coronavirus epidemic, either in the news or maybe through the death of a friend or even a member of your family.   What matters is that our lives are lived in the light of the glorious light of the knowledge of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Jesus didn’t promise to give the two brothers their wish, but he did ask them to be committed in following him, whatever the cost of that might be.  As I read the Church Times each week, I glance at the clergy deaths and realise the many of my brothers and sisters in Christ were younger at their death than I am now.  I recall a preacher many years ago saying, “I do not fear death, but I do fear the process of dying”.   Yes, that can sometimes be very unpleasant as in Coronavirus deaths.  Alternatively it may be like that of the great 19th Century missionary, Robert Moffat, whose daughter married David Livingstone, that death may come very easily.  At the end of 4 years retirement in Leigh, after some 50 years in South Africa, he said to his wife, “I am feeling rather tired, I will just go upstairs and lie on my bed for a while.”  And so he died.

I conclude with the words of a previous Bishop of Rochester, “Onward and upward.  Alleluia!” and a prayer from Common Worship Morning Prayer for Thursday, based on the Book of Common Prayer’s Second Collect for Morning Prayer:

O God, the author of peace and lover of concord,

to know you is eternal life, to serve you is perfect freedom.

Defend us your servants from all assaults of our enemies; 

that we, surely trusting in your defence, 

may not fear the power of any adversaries;

through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rev’d Christopher Miles

Sermon – Trinity 7

Trinity 7 – Christ the Good Shepherd

18 July 2021

Readings Jeremiah 23:1-6, Mark 6:30-34, 53-end

May I speak this morning in the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Amen.

A couple of years ago Vivienne and I arrived home at the Vicarage and parked in the drive.  One of the flowerbeds at the front was a bit less full of plants than it is now and we noticed that there was something a bit odd about it.  There was a rather large sheep standing on it.  You can’t pull the wool over our eyes. 

I guessed that the poor thing must belong to the people who keep sheep just behind the pond and, sure enough, they came over with a van and with some good shepherding and some dumb luck we managed to get her in the van and home.

Pope Francis once said that he wanted priests who smelled like their sheep, well I certainly smelt of sheep that day.

Although there are plenty of sheep in this part of Kent, and we see lots at the College too, I served my curacy on the edge of Romney Marsh which is sheep-central, and even has its own breed of sheep named after it.  In places like Ivychurch and Fairfield the churches stand in the middle of the pasture and the flocks graze amongst the headstones and will wander into church if allowed.  

Dotted across the marsh you will see small, 10ft square, brick-built structures, called Lookers Huts.  There are only 20 left now but, at one time there were up to 350.  They were used as primitive shelters by the Lookers whose job it was to look after numerous herds of sheep over a large area.  They would spend a long time living on the marsh with their flocks and the huts would double as their shelter and their tool sheds.  They were hardy men who dedicated their lives to looking after their flocks, and I suspect that they also smelled, quite strongly, of their sheep.  Although before we get carried away and elevate them to Christ-like status as good shepherds of their flock I was also intrigued to read that the Romney Sheep were bred not to jump over the ditches and drains but if you got a feisty one that was causing trouble then the Lookers were not averse to having lamb chops that night, so the analogy only goes so far.

This week’s readings both use the imagery of the people of God being his flock who need to be cared for by good shepherds.  

Jeremiah says that the people charged with looking after God’s people in his time, both the political and the religious leaders, have gone astray and, therefore, the flock has also gone astray:

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! says the Lord.”

God promises to punish those who have led the flock astray and then he makes three further promises – firstly to gather the scattered flock back together:

“I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the lands where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold” 

secondly to raise up new shepherds:

“I will raise up shepherds over them who will shepherd them, and they shall not fear any longer, or be dismayed, nor shall any be missing, says the Lord.”

And last, but by no means least, God promises to raise up a new ruler from the House of David:

“I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.”

Jeremiah lived and was prophesying at around the year 650 BC and, in referencing King David, he is looking back about 400 years to the time when Israel had been a united, strong and proud nation and straight after David was his son Solomon who was wise and wealthy and Israel was at its height of power and influence.  

But by the time of Jeremiah things had gone badly wrong – Israel and Judah were separate nations, they had suffered a series of ineffectual rulers and the stronger nations around saw them as a weak target.  The Babylonians carried many away from Jerusalem as slaves and Jeremiah himself is believed to have died in exile in Egypt.  The ‘flock’ was not regathered again for over 100 years and was gradually regaining its status when the Roman Empire invaded from the other direction.  We are familiar with hearing about the uneasy peace between the Roman and Jewish leaders from the New Testament but, very shortly after the close of the New Testament period, that uneasy peace broke down into rebellion by the occupied people and suppression by the Romans which resulted in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the razing to the ground of much of Jerusalem.  

Today, the 18th July, is the Festival of Tisha B’Ev in Judaism which is the saddest day in the Jewish calendar when they remember that destruction of the Temple, but they also remember all the other calamities which have fallen the Hebrews, up to and including the Holocaust.  

Following the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, once again the flock of Israel were scattered and this time the diaspora did not last 100 years but almost 2000 years, but from 1948 that flock has once again been re-gathered.  Interestingly some Jews also regard Tisha B’Ev as the time when the Messiah will be born – the righteous branch from the line of David – as an antidote to the calamities of Israel.  

Which, of course, brings us to Jesus.  Although it is clear that Jesus did not drive out the Romans or act as King and Shepherd over his flock in his lifetime, in fact we just saw that things got worse for Israel only a few decades after the crucifixion, as Christians we are working with a longer time-scale – the coming again of Jesus – and with a bigger flock – not just the Jewish people but all those who are joined to that flock because of our call by Jesus.  

In our reading from Mark the apostles had previously been sent out by Jesus to preach and teach and heal, and now they were returning to him and telling him everything they had been doing.  One could see here the apostles both as the new trainee shepherds who had been out and about learning how to care for the flock, but one could also see them as Jesus’ flock coming back to gather around the good shepherd.  

Jesus’ first concern is for the pastoral well-being of the apostles:

He said to them, “Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat.32 And they went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves.”

The apostles may be the trainee shepherds but here they are Jesus’ inner flock, and he can see that they are worn out by their first taste of ministry, they need some rest and recuperation, even just some time to eat.  So they went off on a boat.  Don’t worry, I am not going to talk about boats again.

But the needs of the people for healing, for comfort, for hope, to have a new Shepherd, are so great that they run around the lake and get to the landing spot before Jesus and the apostles.  

Although Jesus loves his inner-flock and wants to be pastoral to the apostles, when he sees the crowd he sees a larger flock who also need him:

“…he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.”

We sometimes talk about the passion of Christ, which means his suffering.  To feel compassion for someone doesn’t just mean to feel a little bit sorry for them, it means to enter into their suffering with them.  Real compassion is the ultimate form of empathy.  God in Jesus is never dispassionate about the suffering of others but is always compassionate, which found its ultimate expression in his passion on the cross.

You may have noticed that there has been a great deal of sheep and shepherd imagery in this sermon.  It wasn’t that subtle.  When I was at theological college I was taught to avoid this if possible as I was told that it is terribly insulting to modern people to compare them with sheep, for all sorts of reasons.

Nonetheless, our bishops have croziers which are shaped like shepherds’ crooks and we do think of Jesus as the Good Shepherd.  I know I have shown you this picture before but this the icon of Jesus the Good Shepherd, which I made at college, and it is made up of 3000 smaller pictures, including some of Annabelle as a baby.  They are all individual people with their own lives and personalities but as we zoom out the bigger picture is that they find a greater identity as part of the flock of the Good Shepherd.

So, let’s never feel insulted at this pastoral and ovine imagery but let’s rejoice that we are part of Christ’s flock here, let us listen out for the voice of our Good Shepherd as he seeks to regather us into a greater fold and let us always know that no matter how far off we are scattered, and no matter how much we suffer, Jesus the Good Shepherd has compassion for us and calls us home.


Sermon – Trinity 6

Trinity 6 – A prophet beheaded

Sunday 11 July 2021

Readings: Amos 7:7-15, Mark 6:14-29

There was once a great and united kingdom.  However, as its glory days passed and its power waned it was divided into ever smaller constituent parts, each with its own government.  The part of the kingdom which controlled the capital city was ruled by a quixotic man who was married to a strong woman who controlled his actions from behind the scenes.  The court of this leader was morally bankrupt but when people of faith dared to ‘interfere in politics’ by questioning the dubious moral choices of those at the top then he could be cruel and merciless.  

I am, of course, talking about Israel at the time of Jesus and John the Baptist and Herod Antipas.  

At the beginning of our gospel passage news has reached Herod’s ears that a man called Jesus is going about performing miracles and healings and everyone is wondering who this Jesus is:

“Some were saying, John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead…But others said ‘it is Elijah’ and others said ‘It is a prophet like one of the prophets of old.’  But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”

These are the words of a guilty conscience.  Herod knows that he killed an innocent, holy and righteous man and he is afraid that John has been raised from the dead.  Fans of Shakespeare may be reminded of Macbeth being haunted by the ghost of Banquo.

As we know, John the Baptist was a fierce preacher and proponent of a return to holy and clean living.  He saw Jewish society being corrupted.  Thinking about our imagery from the prophet Amos this morning, John the Baptist was holding a plumb line, or perhaps a spirit level, up to the society of his time and found that it had gone wonky.  At the top of this part of Jewish society was the Herodian royal family, who lived more like mini-Caesars than as observant followers of God.

Herod Antipas was married to Herodias who had previously been married to his half-brother.  John the Baptist was outraged by this quasi-incestuous marriage and he voiced his indignation to Herod by saying:

It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”

And indeed Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21 forbids a man to have sexual intercourse with his brothers wife, although, interestingly Deut 25 commands it when his brother died without leaving a son, although that is not the case here.

Although these prophetic words are spoken to Herod Mark tells us that it is his wife Herodias who takes most offence:

“And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him.  But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him.”

Although Herod had John arrested and taken into custody Mark tells us that Herod may actually have done this to keep him safe from Herodias. 

Of course, John the Baptist is not the first biblical character to incur the wrath of a queen for daring to speak out about their morality – there are real echoes here of the prophet Elijah and his denunciation of Queen Jezebel in 1 Kings, and that is far from accidental as many view John as the returning Elijah, heralding the messiah.

So Herod seems to have John in protective custody but not only did he know that John was a righteous and holy man but, it seems, that Herod was intrigued, if confused, by John’s teachings:

When he heard him he was greatly perplexed,and yet he liked to listen to him.”

It would have been very easy for Mark to have portrayed all of the Herodians as being almost like cartoon villains, but here we are being told that despite all his other faults that there was something going on inside Herod which recognised that there was something special in John and wanted to protect that from harm.  I am reminded here of the way in which Pontius Pilate, and in that case also his wife, recognised the holiness of Jesus.

But despite Herod’s apparent desire to protect John an ‘opportune day’ came for Herodias.  It was Herod’s birthday party and the Herodians had a reputation for knowing how to party.

And as one would expect everyone was there – in our translation it says “the courtiers, officers and leaders of Galilee” – in another translation it sounds even grander as it says : “his lords, military commanders and magnates of Galilee.”  Anyway, you get the picture, anyone who was anyone in the ruling class in that part of the world was invited to this birthday party.

And like all good parties it really got going when the dancing girls arrived.  Although in this case, and perhaps this is indicative of the slightly strange, not to say inbred character of the royal household, the dancing girl is Herod’s own step daughter.  Actually it is even more complicated than that:  She seems to have been Herodias’ daughter by her first marriage and was therefore Herod Antipas’ niece (on her father’s side), his grandniece (on her mother’s side), and his step daughter by marriage to Herodias.  I hope that is clear.

Some commentators have been shocked at the thought that a Jewish king would have a young girl, especially one of his relatives, dancing to entertain a group of men at a party like this, but it should be fairly clear by now that the monarchy at this point had rather departed from traditional or devout Jewish values, and of course that is exactly what John was telling them off for!

In this atmosphere of general debauchery the young girl danced for the men and we are told that is ‘pleased’ Herod, so much so that he promised her half of his kingdom.  I suspect that this was not the polite sort of pleased – this was not a round of applause at the end of seeing a good play – the fact is that Herod Antipas and no doubt many of the men there were extremely pleased at this girl dancing for their pleasure and it was in that atmosphere of drunken, not to say, erotic pleasure that Herod makes his rather rash promise to give her anything she desires, up to half of his kingdom.  And it probably says something about her age that the girl has to go and ask her mother Herodias what she would like and, of course, that is the moment for Herodias to get her revenge on John the Baptist.

Herod has painted himself into a corner – he has given his word in front of all these people.  To break his word and, at the same time, to continue to spare the life of someone who had been so outspoken against his household, would have been the ultimate act of weakness, which is the last thing that any ruler can afford.

Herod was deeply grieved, but he knew he had no option and he sent for a guard to behead this holy man.  And we then have this most grisly scene, in the middle of a feast the guard returns with John’s head on a platter and he hands it first to the young girl and she hands it onto her mother.  One writer referred to this feast as the evil twin of the last supper, and it is easy to see why.

But for me, today, the tragedy of this story is not simply the execution of John.  Herod did not just put John to death – I believe that he put his own better nature to death.  Herod knew that John was a holy man and although John reminded him of his own sinfulness he liked to listen to him.  Despite Herod’s best intentions he ended up ordering John’s horrific execution – whether it was drink, misplaced lust, the desire to show off in front of others we can’t tell exactly but we do know that Herod did something that he did not really want to do – he ended up killing someone that he did not want to kill.  And where did that leave Herod?

Herod ended up being frightened of the reports of what Jesus was doing because this also reminded him of his failure to live up to a higher standard.

And I wonder how much that also applies to us?  We are attracted and intrigued and called by holiness and yet so often we fall down and fail – often perhaps because we don’t want to look silly in front of others.  Everytime we fail to live up to those high standards perhaps we feel a little bit further away from God, perhaps even a little bit afraid to hear about Jesus because that reminds us, that haunts us even, that we are not the people we really want to be, the people that God really fashioned us to be.

Well the good news is this: you are not beyond the forgiveness of God and the redemptive power of Jesus.  No matter how often you have failed or fallen down and no matter how badly you think you have sinned God has not given up on you.  The path to holiness is not a destination it is a lifetimes journey and everytime we recognise that we have fallen short of the glory of God and say sorry we move a little further along that path.  And the amazing news is this: today we are closer to God than we were yesterday and tomorrow we shall be closer still, by the grace of his Son and in the power of his Holy Spirit.


Sermon – Trinity 5

Trinity 5 – A prophet without honour

Sunday 4 July 2021

Readings: Ezekiel 2:1-5, Mark 6:1-13

On Tuesday of last week the Church celebrated the two Saints Peter and Paul together.

Bearing in mind that most Saints, even ones you have never previously heard of, get a day all to themselves it may look a bit odd that these two pillars of the church, have to share.

It looks even more odd when you realise how different they were in so many ways.  Peter was a ‘salt of the earth’ fisherman from Galilee, not very learned, often a bit impetuous.  Paul was more of a scholar, advanced in his studies of Judaism and an early persecutor of the church.  Even as apostles they did not always agree with one another.

But, despite their obvious differences in character and temperament, they did have something significant in common.  They both responded to the call of Jesus on their lives to make a difference in the world.  Peter was called by Jesus in person to leave his nets and become a fisher of men. Later he was called to be the Rock on which the church would be built. Paul was called spiritually by Jesus whilst he was on the road to Damascus, to stop being a persecutor of the church and he became its greatest evangelist.  

What I love about these two saints being celebrated together is that we are reminded that the church is not built on those who are like us and who agree with us in all things.  The church was never intended to be a club for the like-minded but is the place where the whole world is redeemed, and the whole world includes people who are different from us in all sorts of ways.

So, the sharing of this day by two great saints says loud and clear that the church can live with difference and diversity and even disagreement.  We can choose our friends but we can’t choose our family and the Church is a new family.

This time of year, often called Petertide, is also about the calling to minister within and to the church.  Peter and Paul were both called and ‘ordained’ to their different ministries and most Dioceses in the Church of England ordain their deacons and priests at this time of year, and my Facebook and Twitter feed has been full of ordination photos and memories.  

Although this ordination season is a source of joy and excitement, and it is always a privilege to respond to God’s call on your life, and to see others do so, we are also reminded that ministry can be a costly business, even for Jesus.

Last week we heard that Jesus healed a woman merely by her touching his cloak and that he brought a 12 year old girl back from death. It is clear to all those around him that Jesus is a powerful miracle worker, a prophet of God and perhaps even more than that.

And then Jesus returned to his home town of Nazareth – the place where he had grown up with his family, had been surrounded by friends and neighbours – in short the place where he had been known since being a young child.

When Jesus started preaching in the synagogue things seemed to be going well at first. We are told that the people who heard him were ‘astounded’ at both his words of wisdom and the deeds of power that he had been doing. And they wondered “Where did this man get all this?” The obvious implication being that such power and wisdom must come from a place above and beyond his humanity – that it comes from God.

But in the blink of an eye the astonishment of the people in the synagogue turned to doubt and to cynicism:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary – are not his brothers and sisters here with us?

The crowd allowed their knowledge of Jesus as a person – a person with a family and a history – someone they may well have seen scampering around the streets of Nazareth as a child – to destroy any possibility that there was something else, something divine, going on here. And we are told that they ‘took offence at him’.

I am reminded here of not one but two Monty Python sketches.   In the first John Cleese enters a room dressed smartly in a suit and his elderly mother and one of her elderly friends are there. He says “Good evening Mother” and the two old ladies are amazed that he can walk and talk until, eventually, he says: “Mother, I am the Secretary of State for Trade.” and that sets them off again.

And the other is, of course, from the Life of Brian when Brian’s mother says to the gathered crowd, “He is not the Messiah, he is a very naughty boy.”

And we can probably understand the human nature of what is going on. Here in Hadlow, where no one knew me as an 8 year old, I am the Vicar and many people like to imagine that Vicars drop from the sky fully formed. But when I visit friends and family I am not the Vicar, I am simply Paul and rather than getting to preach I usually struggle to get a word in edgeways.

But of course, the whole point of the incarnation is that Jesus was fully human, a person with a family and a history of growing up in Nazareth who was also fully divine. God works through real, living, breathing human beings not only in the person of Jesus but also in his church – sometimes that makes it hard to discern the divine through the human but it is a useful reminder that we need to open our eyes to the divine presence in the familiar and the material – ordinary bread and wine are transformed to divine service but so too are ordinary men and women – even those we may have seen growing up and even those we know to be fallible human beings.

So, the encounter in the synagogue that started well with the crowd being astounded with Jesus ends with him being amazed at their unbelief. 

In many ways this passage should be a comfort to those of us in ministry who may have unrealistic expectations about people liking us because we are seeking to do good or being won over by our preaching. And, indeed, when Jesus sent out the apostles he made it very clear that just as his ministry was not welcome in Nazareth so there will be times and places when the apostles are not welcome either.   It is the apostle’s responsibility to go in the name of Christ and do what they are commanded to do but if the people won’t respond then that is the people’s responsibility.   Likewise it is the prophet Ezekiel’s responsibility to go to the people, but it is up to them how they respond.

With the exception of Jesus himself, who still had to suffer the disbelief of his home crowd, all those called and ordained into the service of God including Peter and Paul and this Paul are fully human beings with pasts and with faults.  Do we choose to take offence at the humanity of the preacher or do we choose to listen to the divinity of the message?

What is that message?  God loves you and he calls you to love him and love each other, even those who are unlike you in every way.

How will you respond to that message this week?