food4thought

A kids’ slot for all age church

Does anyone know the three jobs I’ve had as a grown up?

Here are some clues [use clothing]

• the first job I did was to be an officer in the Royal Navy
• the second job I did was to be a teacher in a school
• the third job I did was to pastor a church

Jesus had three jobs when he grew up. And I thought we could think about those over the next three weeks.

• He was a prophet
• He was a priest
• He was a king

We’re going to think this morning about Jesus’ job as a prophet. In a book in the Old Testament called Deuteronomy God was talking to Moses and God explained what a prophet is,

18 [God said] when I want to speak to them, I will choose one of them to be a prophet like you. I will give my message to that prophet, who will tell the people exactly what I have said.

God explains to us what a prophet is. He said you had to have 3 things to be a prophet.

1. A prophet had to be chosen by God

So you couldn’t just decide to be a prophet like choosing to a Ballerina or a Fireman. God had to choose you.

2. A prophet had to be listen to what God said

So you weren’t allowed to pretend and make up what you heard. A prophet had to listen to what God said in special dreams, special visions or in what He said directly.

3. A prophet had to explain what God said

So you weren’t allowed to just say anything you were supposed to say what God said.

Really a prophet is one of these [PowerPoint picture of mouth]. A prophet is a mouth.

Now before we go on I’m going to need some help. I wonder whether Flora could come and join me at the front. I’d like her to be my prophet. [whisper the following instructions to her]

‘Please do what I say?’ ‘Please stand up’ ‘Please say ‘hello’ to the people around you’ ‘Please sit down’

Flora was my prophet. She was my mouth. I chose her, I told her what to say and she said it. If you wanted to know what I wanted you had to listen to Flora.

In the NT part of the Bible, in the book of Hebrews the writer said this

1 Long ago in many ways and at many times God’s prophets spoke God’s message to God’s people. 2 But now at last, God sent his Son to bring his message to us.

What this means is that if God’s people wanted to know what God had to say they had to listen to His prophets. But now, if we want to know what God says we need to listen to Jesus.

God has given Jesus the job of prophet. He is the one who helps us understand everything that God has said. And so Jesus is the one who tells us what God has done for us and what God wants from us.

Let’s pray and thank God for sending Jesus so that we could know what God said.  

This is a letter that appeared in the Church Times accusing Oak Hill Theological College of producing theological muppets. There were several brilliant responses which you can find here http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=38669. Lee Gatiss, a friend at St Helen’s Bishopsgate, drafted a great response to which I was delighted to add my signature. It should be pointed out that I’m not an Oxbridge graduate. I had a place at Cambridge and turned it down. OK so it was a two year PGCE but it was still Cambridge! I went to Warwick.

From Canon Patience Purchas

Sir, - Before I recently retired as a director of ordinands, I and many of my colleagues were increasingly concerned about the theological limitations of the training offered ordinands at Oak Hill College. I read with interest the utterly condemnatory comments of the Bishop of Durham on the book Pierced for our Transgressions written by the Principal-elect of Oak Hill College and two of his students. (“deeply, profoundly and disturbingly unbiblical . . . systematically misleading in its outright refusal to have anything seriously to do with the Gospels”). Assuming that Dr Wright’s judgement is fair, I wonder whether bishops are still sending ordinands for training for the ordained ministry at Oak Hill. If so, on what possible grounds can that be considered appropriate? And why should the sometimes sacrificial giving of church members finance such work?

PATIENCE PURCHAS

Here’s the reply

From the Revd Lee Gatiss and others

Sir, - As rectors, vicars, curates, and Ph.D. candidates trained at Oak Hill and now in pastoral ministry in Britain and abroad, we were deeply upset to read Canon Patience Purchas’s inflammatory letter alleging fatal “theological limitations” in our training.

Many of us are Oxbridge graduates, and can testify that Oak Hill’s training was even more academically rigorous than our undergraduate degree courses, and repeatedly forced us to engage with arguments and material well outside our ecclesiastical and theological comfort zones.

We all learned Greek, and most of us learned Hebrew as well. We all had sustained year-long placements in Anglo-Catholic, Open Evangelical, Charismatic, and liberal parishes and chaplaincies, in which dialogue with and learning about other traditions was positively encouraged. We lived in a genuinely ecumenical environment alongside brothers and sisters from all over the world training for practical ministry (ordained and lay) in Anglican, Baptist, and Free Churches.

We are compelled to wonder from much of the highly prejudiced and grossly ill-informed criticism that has been thrown at the book Pierced for our Transgressions, written by three fine Oak Hill men, whether some in our denomination may have been sadly starved of the excellence in training which we were privileged to receive at the Church’s expense.

That such an excellent book could be written by the Principal-elect, the Revd Dr Mike Ovey, does not surprise us. That a passionate and careful piece of scholarship was written by him and two students who have not even completed their training yet makes us, and should make others, envious of the high standards exemplified by the College that the Revd Professor David Peterson has built up over the past 11 years.

We are amazed at the way the quality of training at Oak Hill has continued to improve. We respectfully suggest, therefore, that Canon Purchas desist from attacking the college, and submit to the proper authority of the Bishops’ Inspectors, who, in their latest report, commended Oak Hill’s practical training and academic rigour in the warmest possible terms.

Lee Gatiss ,Tim Ward, Ben Cooper, Jeremy Hobson, Jason Ward, Graham Wintle, Richard Espin-Bradley, Steve Walton, Rohintan Mody, Paul Darlington, David Gibbs, Mark O’Donoghue, Marcus Nodder, Phil Keymer, Darren Moore, Paul Dawson, Tim Chapman, Andy Fenton, Neil Robbie, James Oakley, Iain Baker, Steve Rees, Carl Chambers, Steven Hanna, Matt Fuller, James Paice, Tim Silk, Daf Meirion-Jones, Andy Bousfield, Rupert Mackay, John Lenton, Alistair Seabrook, John Brook, Frank Price, Matthew Mason, James Hughes, Pete Jackson, Stuart Dean, Daniel Howard, Geoffrey Firth, Kevin Newman, Phil Chadder, Marc Baker, Paul Worledge, Jon Hobbs, Tim Crook, Jules Beauchamp, Richard Perkins, Nick Alexander, Nigel Little, Andrew McClellan

A congregational e-mail to wake us from our apathy and get people to sign up!

Dear Everyone

The CCB bookings at Revive are disappointingly low and numbers are filling up. The closing date for booking is the end of May. Don’t miss out! We’re notorious for being late but I’m concerned that if we leave it till the last minute several people will be disappointed and there’ll be no space left. If you’re keen to come you need to act now. http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/revive.php

It may be that people need reminding, or discovering for the first time, how brilliant this weekend is. And so here’s my current three best reasons to come!

1. Revive is an opportunity to satisfy our appetites

If we’re hungry for some exercise there’s loads of organised and disorganised sport for all people whatever your sport, whatever your ability and whatever your gender! If we’re hungry for a chance to chat with people there’s loads of time off just to sit in the sun, relax on the beach or go for a walk round the coastline. If we’re hungry for entertainment there’s the historic dockyard, the consumer temptations of Gunwharf Quays, the aquarium, fireworks, an 80s disco and late night music in the bar. If we’re younger then there’s a packed kid’s programme, Colin Buchanan http://www.colinbuchanan.com.au/ and a bouncy castle! It’s a great weekend with something for everyone. Whether we’re a tired parent, a busy yuppie or an energetic kid there’s something to keep us amused and entertained. It is a terrific weekend and people love it when they come. I especially enjoy the impromptu game of tennis ball cricket that springs up among the lads as the girls sit outside the marquee drinking Pimms on a balmy summer evening!

2. Revive is an opportunity to be encouraged

One of the great features about Revive is the opportunity for some quality spiritual input. I know you get that every week but Revive is like church on steroids. The talks from John’s Gospel on the Holy Spirit from Mike Cain will be first rate. He’s been thinking about them and preparing for them all year! The seminars thinking about some of the more contentious areas of the Spirit’s work will be tremendously helpful. The book will be worth the entry price alone. Especially Ed’s chapter he tells me! But I suspect that one thing that people enjoy most is the opportunities for relaxed conversations. There’s time to talk about and take in some of the things that have been covered. The weekend is one long chance to stop, get away from the busyness of London and think about our spiritual lives. Many find it a great time to reach some decisions and make some resolutions. It’s such a good time to attend to our spiritual lives, receive the encouragement and give the encouragement we all so desperately need. I especially enjoy the chance to sit in the sun and chat about life, family and church with good friends whilst the kids run rampant on the playing fields!

3. Revive is an opportunity to express our unity

We’re united in two senses. We’re all God’s people and this will be a reminder to us and to others that God is bringing different people of different ages and different backgrounds into His one family under the Lordship of Christ. We ought to go not simply because we’ll benefit but because others will benefit from our presence. But we’re united as a part of a shared gospel enterprise. Revive is the obvious opportunity to express our commitment to that. Our congregations were launched from and have been supported and resourced by the generous and sacrificial giving of the Wimbledon and Mayfair congregations. This is a chance for us to pitch up and say ‘thanks’. It’s also a chance to pitch up and express our desire to replicate their gospel ambitions in the future. I especially enjoy the first session on the Sunday morning when we’re able to think about what God has done in this country and overseas through the Co-Mission partnership.

We’re aware that Revive isn’t cheap. It’s £140 for a single adult. That may be manageable for some of the wealthier congregations but it might be a stretch for some of us. Make no mistake, it represents excellent value for money. As someone pointed out last year it’s less than a ticket to Glastonbury http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/. And more use, I might add. But I’m not aware that we’re all queuing up for a weekend in the mud with the Kaiser Chiefs. However, we don’t want finances to be the reason why people can’t attend. As we were able to do last year, it’s hoped to have a Revive subsidy fund available for those who find themselves financially stretched. Please don’t hesitate to have a word with me if you’d like some financial assistance. That doesn’t of course mean that you’re to squander your disposable income on a new summer wardrobe and swan into Revive at someone else’s expense. But you’d worked that out hadn’t you!

I’m going on Revive. I thought I’d take the family. It’s brilliant. Don’t miss out. Come and join the rest of us.

With best wishes in Christ

perks

I bought and read this book after my colleague, Gavin McGrath, quoted from it in a sermon on 1 Corinthians 15. He preached the weekend that a friend and congregational member died. I thought I needed to read it and learn from it. I’m glad I did.

This is a book about mourning. But it’s not written from the detached perspective of a disinterested observer. Nicholas Wolterstorff lost a twenty five year old son in a climbing accident. This is what he felt as best as he could express it.

Wolterstorff wrote it he tells us,

‘in the hope that some of those who sit beside us on the mourning bench would find my words giving voice to their own honoring and grieving’.

It’s not a book that easily lends itself to a review. It’s not a coherent approach to the subject of grief. It’s grief, expressed. It’s a collection of his thoughts as he struggled to deal with the death of his son. Perhaps the best thing to do is to give you a taste of what he writes and encourage you to read it for yourself. It’s not long. It’s about 100 pages of short reflections.

On the issue of whether time has diminuished the intensity of his grief he writes,

‘The wound is no longer raw. But it has not disappeared. This is as it should be. If he was worth loving, he is worth grieving over. Grief is existential testimony to the worth of one loved. That worth abides’ p5.

Describing how life will feel in the future he says,

‘It’s the neverness that is so painful. Never again to be here with us - never to sit with us at table, never to travel with us, never to laugh with us, never to cry with us, never to embrace us as he leaves for school, never to see his brothers and sister marry. All the rest of our lives we must live without him. Only our death can stop the pain of his death’ p15.

On the transformation the gospel brings to grief he is brutally honest,

‘Elements of the gospel which I had always thought would console me did not. They did something else, something important, but not that. It did not console me to be reminded of the hope of resurrection. If I had forgotten that hope, then it would indeed have brought life into my life to be reminded of it. But I did not think of death as a bottomless pit. I did not grieve as one who had no hope. Yet Eric is gone, here and now he is gone; now I cannot talk with him, now I cannot see him, now I cannot hug him, now I cannot hear of his plans for the future. That is my sorrow’ p31.

He offers sage advice to those who are unsure what to do,

‘What do you say to someone who is suffering? Some people are gifted with words of wisdom. For such, one is profoundly grateful. There were many such for us. But not all are giften in taht way. Some blurted out strange, inept things. That’s OK too. Your words don’t have to be wise. The heart that speaks is heard more than the words spoken. And if you can’t think of anything to say, just say, ‘I can’t think of anything to say. But I want you to know that we are with you in your grief.

But please: Don’t say it’s not really so bad. Because it is. Death is awful, demonic. If you think your task as comforter is to tell me really, all things considered, it’s not so bad, you do not sit with me in my grief but place yourself off in the distance away from me. Over there, you are of no help. What I need to hear from you is that you recognise how painful it is. I need to hear from you that you are with me in my desperation. To comfort me, you have to come close. Come sit beside me on my mourning bench’ p34.

On the life sapping effect of grief he writes,

‘Let me try again. All these things I recognise. I remember delighting in them - trees, art, house, music, pink morning sky, work well done, flowers, books. I still delight in them. I’m still grateful. But the zest is gone. The passion is cooled, the striving quieted, the longing stilled. My attachment is loosened. No longer do I set my heart on them. I can do without them. They don’t matter. p51

This book should have been compulsory reading in pastoral counselling at Theological College. It wasn’t when I was there. Its sad that it took the death of friend to bring it to my attention. Death is where we’re heading. The gospel is the only thing that prepares us for it. Faith in that gospel gives us hope but it doesn’t negate the reality of loss. Wolterstorff is someone who understands and articulates what we’re feeling.

It’s better live! http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

Things are not always what they seem. To the naked eye, things can appear one way but the outward appearance can completely mask the reality of the situation.

Some of you will know that we’ve spent the last nine months living next door to a cannabis factory! On the outside, the house next door seemed like just another property in a quiet residential street in the urban sprawl of Streatham Hill. And its foreign occupants appeared like just another couple of young Chinese students who’d come over here to improve their language skills. It had completely passed us by that all the internal rooms had been cleared, hydroponics installed and £50,000 was being harvested every month. It has completely passed us by that the young Vietnamese couple were probably illegally trafficked immigrants enslaved by their gang bosses.

Things are not always what they seem.

So what are we to make of the death of Jesus Christ? To the naked eye Jesus’ death seems like a dismal failure. A flourishing religious reformation movement spearheaded by a charismatic preacher was brought to an ignominious end as he died discredited by the religious and secular authorities. But I want to suggest that if we’re going to square our views with that of the gospel writers we can’t accept that. The reality of the situation is somewhat different. Jesus died the death of a common criminal. But things are not always what they seem.

John knows that if he’s going to persuade people like us to believe in Jesus he’s going to have to account for his death. He says as much in (35)

35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.

John was an eyewitness. He’s telling us what really took place. But the reason he does so is that we would believe. He wants us to have a settled confidence in the truth. And so he recounts three events in the last hours of Jesus’ life.

• In (16-27) the crucifixion of Jesus
• In (28-37) the death of Jesus
• In (38-42) the burial of Jesus

But his intent is more than merely to provide us with an accurate narrative. He wants to defend Jesus’ kingship despite appearances to the contrary. In so doing he teaches us five things about God’s monarch and his rule.

1. Jesus is God’s suffering king (17-22)

So they took Jesus, 17 and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. 19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”

That Jesus suffered is clear from the manner of his execution. Crucifixion was synonymous with horror and shame. From the ancient historians, the Roman Cicero and the Jewish Josephus, we know that it was a death inflicted on slaves, bandits, prisoners of war and revolutionaries. Not only was it a humiliating way to die, it was also a horrific way to die. John’s description is remarkably understated but of course the original readers knew exactly what he was describing. Mel Gibson’s film, ‘The Passion’ majors on the physical suffering of Jesus in such a way that we can hardly watch some of the scenes. But John exercises commendable restraint in sparing us the gory details.

But the point is that Jesus’ crucifixion did not negate his kingship. On the contrary, John would have us know that the cross was in fact Jesus’ throne. As he hung on the cross he appeared anything but regal but Pilate’s notice unwittingly interprets events as John understands them.

In accordance with Roman custom a notice was prepared and fastened to the cross. Written in three languages the words were to be understood by everyone. It was written in Aramaic because that was the common language of Judea, in Latin because that was the official language of the Roman occupying force and in Greek because that was the international language in the same way that English is today. This ensured the widest possible circulation of its contents and served as a deterrent to every segment of the population. But it also advertised to the widest possible audience the declaration of Jesus’ reign.

Pilate’s motive for writing what he did was intensely political. He was having one last dig at the Jewish authorities who’d manipulated him into condemning an innocent man to death. He thought he was mocking them by parading a pathetic man as their ruler. But Pilate spoke better than he knew. This pitiful man was a prince and the cross was his coronation.

Jesus is a suffering king for reasons that will become apparent.

2. Jesus is God’s intended king (23-24)

23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, 24 so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfil the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things,

The division of Jesus’ clothes by the soldiers and the subsequent gambling over his undergarment are the occasion for John to remind his readers that everything that happened did so as part of a divine plan. The distribution of Jesus’ clothes fulfilled a scene from Psalm 22 in which the executioners divided the spoils of a righteous sufferer who suffered at the hands of and on behalf of sinners. Jesus, as the ultimate righteous sufferer, was fulfilling the events predicted hundreds of years in advance. John is at pains to establish that the events he describes fulfil God’s intent.

It’s noticeable that as John’s account approaches the time of Jesus’ death the frequency of Old Testament quotes increases. The idea of a crucified king is so preposterous that John is eager to place Jesus’ death within the purposes of God. And so the point is that this was happening under God’s control not despite it.

There were two intentions on that day. There was the human intent and the divine intent. The Jewish religious authorities instigated Jesus’ demise and wanted him dead. And they got their way. The Roman Military men acquiesced in the injustice, executed the sentence with violence and plundered their captive. And they got their way. But there was another intent that ultimately stood behind Jesus’ death. God had foreordained these events. We may wonder how He could sanction such a thing for His Son. And the answer must be that something of unparalleled significance must be taking place.

But there was nothing accidental about Jesus’ death. This was not an unforeseen disaster. Jesus was God’s intended king.

3. Jesus is God’s compassionate king (25-27)

25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

John includes a moving scene in which Jesus made provision for his Mother and his best friend. In the midst of his moment of intense personal suffering his thoughts are for others. I don’t know about you but when I’m in pain I’ve got very little interest in anyone else. This is an extraordinary act of kindness. The combination of royalty and compassion don’t always sit so obviously side by side.

We watched Helen Mirren in the Queen on Friday night. It’s a film which attempts to depict the events that surrounded the death of Diana, the Princess of Wales. In particular it focuses on the decisions of the monarch as she struggles to lead a nation very different fro the one she inherited. At the time she came under intense criticism from the British people for her failure to demonstrate compassion. Royalty and compassion don’t always go together. But in Jesus his reign is characterised by kind consideration, concern and empathy for his subjects.

And so we mustn’t for a moment think that Jesus doesn’t care. In our understanding of the cross we may be tempted to think of the cross of in legal categories as though some sort of mechanical transaction was taking place as our sin was transferred to our substitute and the Father’s wrath was diverted from us onto himself, in the person of His Son. All of that is true but it’s not the whole picture. In our enthusiasm to understand, defend and articulate the centrality of penal substitutionary atonement we may miss the motive that stands behind it. That motive is God’s compassion.

What Jesus did from the cross in caring for his Mother is entirely consistent in what he was doing on the cross. This king is a compassionate king. He loves us. We may find ourselves questioning that as the circumstances of life make that assertion seem less obvious. Some of us have had to endure real hardships in recent months. We may not be able to fathom the ultimate reason for the things that our King has sent our way but one thing we must not deny is his compassionate intent that lies behind them. Jesus loves us no less today than he did on that first Good Friday. We have a compassionate king.

4. Jesus is God’s successful king (28-30)

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfil the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Jesus’ death was not the lowest point of his life, it was his crowning achievement. His dying testimony was ‘it’s finished’. The ‘it’ of ‘it is finished’ was his mission. And so He didn’t mean ‘I am finished’ as though his life had ended in failure. He meant everything that the Father had given him to accomplish had been completed. The cross was where God wanted His Son to end up because he had something to do there that had to be done. If Jesus had not ended up there his life would have been a failure.

There’s been a lot of interest in the resignation of Tony Blair this week. As we’d expect the question of his legacy has been raised. The Daily Telegraph said of his Government, ‘the story of New Labour has been one of expectations unmet, ambitions unfulfilled’. I suspect that after 10 years as the country’s premier, winning three elections with a commanding majority he’d have hoped to have done everything that he’d set out to do in that first election manifesto. But history will judge him and every other human ruler as fallible individuals who failed to do what they’d hoped.

Jesus went to his death satisfied that everything that he’d been asked to do had been accomplished. There was nothing left unfinished. He was a successful king. But what precisely had he accomplished?

5. Jesus is God’s redemptive king (31-37)

31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

We’re told that he died on the day of preparation for the Passover Sabbath and the two scriptural references interpret Jesus’ death in terms of sacrifice.

• Numbers 9:12 describes the requirements for the Passover lamb. Requirements that were fulfilled since Jesus’ bones remained intact. And so he would die as the perfect unblemished sacrificial lamb.
• Zechariah 12:10 describes a day on which the Lord will be pierced as a fountain of forgiveness pours forth from him. A fountain that was fulfilled in the literal piercing of the Lord with a spear as he died to accomplish the forgiveness of sins prefigured in the sacrificial system.

John sets Jesus’ death within the context of the Passover. The Passover provides a vivid anticipatory illustration of the redemption that Jesus would effect in his death.

The Passover festival celebrated God’s redemption, or liberation, of His people from captivity in Egypt. John wants us to understand Jesus death in the light of this. God had threatened a terrifying judgement on the land in which He would destroy every first born male in every family. In our family that’d mean my Dad, me and Rufus would all be destroyed. But in His judgement the Lord provided a merciful way of escape. He provided the Passover Lamb. Those who sacrificed the lamb, painted it’s blood over the doorpost and took shelter under its blood would be safe. The threatened judgement would pass over the house and those who’d taken God at His word would remain untouched.

John wants us to know that Jesus was the perfect Passover Lamb. He was the redemptive king that God had long promised. His death did not liberate us from captivity in Egypt. His sacrificial death liberates us from captivity to sin and condemnation under God’s judgement. If we will take God at His word and seek safety under the blood of the lamb we have nothing to fear and everything to gain from this King’s death.

This is what he accomplished.

Conclusion

An article in ‘The Week’ indicated that I should have guessed what was going on next door. In answer to the question, ‘are these cannabis farms difficult to detect?’ the article answered ‘No. Tell tale signs include covered windows, late-night visitors, piles of bin liners and compost, and vents in rear windows’. In my defence I’d like to argue that these guys were better than average!

It’s one thing to live next door to a cannabis factory and miss it but it’s another thing to look at the death of Jesus Christ and completely fail to perceive what’s going on. John won’t let us do that. And so he gives us a number of tell tale signs.

Our king may have suffered but it was intentional. It fulfilled God’s pre-ordained desire to redeem the His people from His righteous condemnation on their sin. Our king successfully executed His Father’s plan down to the last detail. And he did it because he loves us.

The following is a letter sent to the Church Times in response to Giles Fraser’s opposition to the Fulham church plant. I posted on this http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/05/14/dear-giles/

Fulham initiative is not a church-plant

From the Revd John Henley

Sir, — The Revd Dr Giles Fraser’s article last week (“Beating the bounds into the bishop”) about a new initiative in Fulham owes considerably more to sensationalism than to fact.

As a welcoming church, we at the parish of St Etheldreda with St Clement had accepted a kind offer from Christ Church, Down Street, to help with local mission in the parish for a trial period of eight Sundays — hardly a “church-plant”. Furthermore, given the resulting discussions and planning that took place with the Area Bishop, to say that the initiative was “parachuted in under the cover of darkness” is somewhat far-fetched.

As for Dr Fraser’s allegations of a disregard for parish and diocesan boundaries, it is true that the flyer launching “StEthel’s@Four” contained a map that showed a few streets from a neighbouring parish — but only to show directions to our church. It did not constitute any “marking of territory”, nor is any supposed “poaching” intended, since this initiative is purely about outreach within our parish.

The parish was originally approached by the Revd Rupert Standring , who lives in this parish and is the minister of Christ Church, Down Street, an Anglican church that is part of the diocese of London, and whose clergy are licensed by the Bishop of London. Rupert and his family are regarded as valued members of the local St John’s school community, where he has taught classes, and where his wife, Becky, leads a prayer group for parents.

I very much hope that, over the coming weeks, more of the local community, including members of the clergy, will get the opportunity to meet the Revd Rupert Standring and to learn about his work. Moreover, while I am sure that Dr Fraser’s concern for the territorial integrity of parishes in his neighbouring diocese is well-intended, it is not clear to me how local outreach aimed at unchurched young families within one parish could constitute poaching from another.

JOHN HENLEY
Priest-in-Charge of St Etheldreda with St Clement, Fulham, St Etheldreda’s Vicarage, Doneraile Street, London SW6 6EL

Try here if you prefer your sermons unedited http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

One of my favourite scenes in one of my favourite films involves a conversation between a hapless stockbroker and a world famous actress. The film is the romantic comedy ‘Notting Hill’ and the scene in question is the one in which the character called Bernie arrives late, straight from work and makes polite social conversation with the character called Anna Scott, played by Julia Roberts. It soon becomes apparent that Bernie hasn’t the foggiest clue who he’s talking to. Anna Scott is the world’s most recognisable actress on the screen but Bernie can’t recognise her when she’s only a few feet from him. Julia Roberts eventually disappears out of the room and Bernie’s friends reveal his stupidity. He feels like such a clot once his error has been pointed out. Do you remember the scene? It loses something in the telling doesn’t it?!

Failing to recognise someone can be socially embarrassing but the episode this morning demonstrates that it can also be eternally disastrous.

We’re about to look at an account in which Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea came face to face with the Son of God, the divine Son in a human body, and didn’t recognise him from Adam. He hadn’t got a clue who he was dealing with. His stupidity is revealed to us, the readers.

John, the man who wrote this book that we’re reading from this morning, reports far more details from the trial that any of the other three gospels combined. Though Pilate features in every scene of the unfolding drama it’s not really about him. Though he’s centre stage the central theme is the kingdom authority of Jesus. John wrote his gospel with a purpose. Wonderfully we don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work it out. He made his objective pretty clear as he reached his conclusion. In 20:30&31 he writes this,

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John explains that what he wants to produce in us is faith, not wishful thinking but reasoned confidence ·

• The reason for that faith is the evidence that he’s recorded for us to read.
• The response that faith produces in us is the decision to follow Jesus Christ.
• The result of that faith is life; an eternal relationship with God forever.

Chapters 18&19 are part of the ongoing narrative of the last days of Jesus’ life. In chapter 18, having concluded the upper room discourse Jesus led his disciples across the Kidron valley to the Garden of Gethsemane where he was arrested. The events in our passage narrate the trial scene before Pontius Pilate.

We’re about to immerse ourselves in the transcript of a courtroom drama. It’s an episode with three principal actors; the Jewish authorities and their supporters, Pilate the Roman Governor and Jesus. There’s a certain political intensity to the exchanges because of the tension that existed between the Jewish authorities and their Roman occupiers. The great danger is that we’ll spend ages dissecting the motives for why the various groups said what they said. But to do so is to miss the wood for the trees. 

There are two things that John records that I’m convinced he wants us to know about one of the central characters.

1. Jesus is a heavenly king (28-40)

This section focuses on Jesus’ interrogation by Pilate. There are three scenes in this part of the drama.

a. Pilate questions the prosecution (28-32)

28 Then they [the Jewish authorities of the Sanhedrin under the leadership of Caiaphas] led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters [the praetorium]. It was early morning [some time after sunrise]. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate went outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They answered him, “If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.” 31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 32 This was to fulfil the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

Pilate’s question to members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, opens the trial. They seem taken aback by Pilate’s tactic. They’d already colluded since Roman soldiers had been used in Jesus’ arrest. They expect Pilate to rubber stamp the verdict of the Sanhedrin and for Jesus’ crucifixion to go through on the nod. Their admission that under Jewish Law the capital punishment they sought wasn’t possible exposes their intent. They weren’t interested in bringing Jesus to justice, they wanted him dead. But behind all the political machinations John detects the hidden hand of God. This confrontation had to happen. It was the means by which Jesus would be lifted up in crucifixion. It meant that he would die the way he’d promised.

b. Pilate interrogates the accused (33-38)

33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

Pilate withdraws from the Jews to interview Jesus. He’s incredulous that Jesus is the claimant to the Jewish throne. His appearance is anything but regal. And so he asks Jesus to substantiate the claim to the Jewish monarchy. Jesus wants to know whether his enquiry is borne from genuine interest. Pilate makes it clear that he has no personal stake in the answer. He keeps Jesus at arms length. Jesus concedes that he is a head of a kingdom but it’s not one that Pilate should fear as a political rival. It’s not one that’s supported by military action. But it is one that’s established by revealing the truth. This king had come into the world in order to recruit subjects for his kingdom. Those who wanted the truth listened to him. Pilate dismissively turned his back on the truth and walked away. Like many of is He didn’t want a spiritual chat with anyone.

c. Pilate delivers his verdict (38-40)

After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. 39 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” 40 They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber [literally ‘one who seizes plunder’ he’s more resistance fighter than common thief].

Pilate returns to the public arena and declares his findings. In a calculated move he misjudges Jesus’ popularity amongst the hired mob. He expects them to call for the liberation of Jesus. But they consign him to death and call instead for the release of Barrabas, a notorious revolutionary. This is not going how he wanted.

John would have us know that Jesus is a heavenly king. The interrogation by Pilate is an opportunity for us to discover that the origin of his rule and the character of his rule were heavenly. This doesn’t mean that his rule has nothing to do with this world, quite the opposite. In the incarnation of the Son the heavenly ruler has entered our world in order to be exercise his rule amongst us. But this heavenly ruler is no threat to earthly authorities. He is not about undermining secular rule he’s about declaring the truth and seeking subjects for his kingdom. So if heaven is where we’d like to belong then this is the king we need to submit to.

2. Jesus is an innocent king sentences to his death (1-16)

This section focuses on the sentence pronounced by Pilate. There are four scenes in this part of the courtroom drama.

a. Pilate flogs the accused (1-4)

19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him. 2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe. 3 They came up to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands. 4 Pilate went out again and said to them, “See, I am bringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt in him.”

Every indication is that this was not the horrific flogging that Jesus endured immediately prior to his crucifixion. This was a less severe beating normally administered for relatively light offences. It appears as though the flogging was a tactical move designed to fulfil three criteria. Pilate hopes it would satisfy the Jewish leaders that punishment had been meted out, teach Jesus a lesson and stimulate sympathy from the crowd for his release.

b. Pilate fears the accused (5-8)

5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!” 6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.” 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” 8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid.

Pilate presents Jesus as a beaten, harmless and pathetic figure. He mocks his alleged pretensions to kingly rule. But the hired mob is decided. Pilate’s reminder that the Jewish authorities need his consent for the crucifixion they seek is met by a change of tack. Up to this point their case against Jesus has been couched in political language. In presenting Jesus as the king of the Jews they’ve portrayed him as a threat. But their real issue isn’t political, it’s theological. They think he’s committed blasphemy through his claim to share divine prerogatives, as the Son of the Heavenly Father. But this was something that Pilate neither needed to know nor would understand. But they’re forced to reveal it because of Pilate’s intransigence. The news that he’s dealing with the Son of God catches him unaware. He finds it unsettling that he is about to be implicated in the unjust death not only of an innocent man but a divine one.

c. Pilate questions the accused (9-11)

9 He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

He retreats inside once again, troubled by what he’s just heard and keen to alleviate his anxiety. In judgement, Jesus provides no answer to his question. This irritates Pilate. Jesus is untroubled by Pilate’s protestations of authority. He is fully aware that any authority Pilate wields he wields only in a derivative sense because no authority exists apart from God’s say so. Pilate’s authority is held in check by the hand of God, he is nothing more than an instrument in the divine purpose. Though that didn’t exonerate him from blame the real guilt lay with Caiaphas who’d manoeuvred the whole judicial procedure.

d. Pilate sentences the accused (12-16)

12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.” 13 So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” 15 They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

John presents Pilate as a weak victim of peer pressure. The Jewish authorities went for the jugular when they accused him of disloyalty to the notoriously brutal Roman Emperor. Pilate caved in and ordered the crucifixion.

Three times Pilate declares that he’s failed to find any piece of evidence on which to convict Jesus. John is at pains to point out that this is therefore not the justifiable judicial verdict on Jesus’ life. He is not a revolutionary insurrectionist of which he has been accused by the Jewish authorities. Jesus was innocent. As a result of this miscarriage of justice Jesus was sentenced to die by crucifixion. Hanging on a tree he would die, according to OT Law, cursed by God. But he was completely undeserving of the crucifixion that he was about to endure. Why did God permit this to happen? Last week we discovered that Jesus died a sacrificial substitute, dying in the place of those who really deserve God’s wrath. This passage establishes his innocence. We’ve known it all along but it’s unmistakable at this point in the narrative. Jesus did not deserve to drink the cup of God’s wrath. He’d done nothing wrong. He did this for others. This innocent heavenly king is the suffering servant just like the one predicted by the OT prophet Isaiah some 700 years previously. He dies the death we deserve to die so that we might go free.

Conclusion

Let me suggest that there is one dominant implication that arises unmistakably from this passage.

the necessity for decision

This is the most significant feature of this passage. The way the account is structured forces us to identify with Pilate as he oscillates between inside and outside, as he travels between public declaration and private interview. He faced a choice between what he was learning in his interview with Jesus and what he was being forced into by the crowd.

In the same way every one of us must choose between two opposing opinions. On the one hand there’s the interpretation of Jesus’ life provided by his enemies. On the other hand there’s the interpretation of Jesus’ life provided by Jesus himself. We must decide to whom we listen.

Pilate came this close to Jesus, he began to investigate what Jesus had to say but he walked away. In so doing he found that the moment had passed, it was too late and there was no turning back. There’s a decision to be made and if we let the moment pass the decision will be made for us.

We must not repeat Pilate’s mistake. He refused to engage with the issues, hu turns his back on a spiritual conversation, he succumbed to peer pressure and he decided anything for a quiet life. And in so doing he fatally rejected the Son of God. He is a weak vacillating man. The closest he got to making the right response was mild discomfort that he was part of a miscarriage of justice and superstitious fear that he was implicated in the death of a holy man. I think John is having a go. At us. He’s especially mocking those of us who remain unbelievers.

Failing to recognise someone can be socially embarrassing but the episode this morning has demonstrated that it can also be eternally disastrous. The very thing that John, in giving us his gospel, is eager that we avoid. The very thing that Jesus, in giving of himself, is eager that we avoid.

A new church was launched in Fulham this week. I’m excited.  But it’s not a view shared by everyone. The Rev Dr Giles Fraser is exercised http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=38558.

You’d have thought that for the gospel to be making any sort of progress in this city is surely a cause for rejoicing. Apparently not.

I notice that others have commented here http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2973/ and in the comments section here http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002392.html

I’m employed by the Co-Mission Initiative and I wholeheartedly support the church planting agenda that characterises our shared gospel enterprise. Rupert Standring is a friend and a colleague and I wholeheartedly support him. So I’m not a disinterested spectator. I’m biased. For Co-Mission, for Roo and for the gospel. I’ve not had any involvement in the proposed plant other than to pray for it and encourage our congregation to do the same. It’s probably unwise to comment on Giles Fraser’s article. But let me quote from Stephen Smith’s comment on Thinking Anglicans [he’s a congregational member at The Bible Talks from which the Fulham Plant is partly resourced]

The church plant is with the full backing of the Bishop of London, Bishop of Kensington, the parish vicar and the PCC. Consultation has been taking place for the last 18 months.

So thankfully it is neither unauthorised nor covert, nor indulging in false advertising. Does that allay fears?

If that is true, as I believe it to be, I think that means that we need to read Giles’ article in a new light.

Not everyone will be able to use this kid’s slot, because they won’t agree with it, but for those of us with paedo-baptist convictions might find it useful…

 

This morning Jessica is going to be baptised. If she was a grown up we’d have a massive bath and she’d go down under the water and come back up again. But because she’s little I’m going to hold her over the water and then pour it over her head. We need to understand what baptism means.

Baptism helps us remember the good news of Christianity. It reminds us what it means to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus.

It’s a symbol that helps us understand something. It doesn’t actually do anything except get her wet. Jessica’s not going to be changed by her baptism. But as she grows up it ought to remind her of three things.

1. Baptism reminds us that we belong to Jesus

When someone becomes a Christian they become someone who loves and follows Jesus. Baptism is like having something that reminds us that we belong to Jesus.

It’s just like deciding to follow a rugby team. In our house we support Harlequins. And we wear things to show that’s the case. [Get a volunteer up to the front to be drssed] We might wear their shirt, wear a cap and wave a flag to show who we belong to.

Baptism reminds us that we’re on Jesus’ team.

2. Baptism reminds us that we’ve changed sides

Baptism shows that we’ve become new people. We used to do what we wanted to do but once we start following Jesus we start to do what he wants us to do. We’re saying that the old me has gone and the new me has come.

If you support Harlequins you don’t support Northampton. We went to watch Northampton against Harlequins with Rufus’ cousins a few months ago. Even though their family supports Northampton we cheered for Harlequins. That was hard for me because Saints used to be my team. It’s where I grew up and I actually played a couple of games for them. [Underneath the Harlequins shirt is a Northampton Saints shirt]

Baptism reminds us that we don’t support the old selfish me any more.

3. Baptism reminds us that we’re part of church

Baptism shows that we’re part of group of people who also love and follow Jesus. When someone becomes a Christian they join God’s church and therefore they’ll want to meet up with others like them.

Because we support Harlequins we try and go and watch them play. When we go, we meet up with thousands of other people. There are a few more of us here. [Someone else in the congregation stands with a shirt on, someone else waves a flag!] See there are others who think the same way that we do!

Baptism reminds us that church is full of people just like us who follow Jesus.

Conclusion

Baptism reminds us that we belong to Jesus, that we’ve changed sides and that we’re part of church. Because Jessica is very little she can’t say she wants these things for herself. But let’s pray that one day she will.

Yesterday turned out to be more interesting than I’d expected. Thursdays are usually nose to the grindstone, face in the text trying to work out what a particular Bible passage means in preparation for the sermon on Sunday. It was hard to concentrate yesterday.  

The Police raided our neighbours, a young Chinese couple, at about 10 am. Fortunately the kids were away all day. Didn’t fancy having to explain that to them just yet. They’re too young and they’d be scared. In his futile attempt to escape the young man tried to jump out of the top floor window and broke his ankle. It turns out that for the last 12 months we’ve been living next door to a Cannabis Factory! The whole house was converted into a farm producing a crop of the stuff every four week or so. Every wall in almost every room was apparently covered in reflective foil and an irrigation system installed. The house would have been heated to a temperature in excess of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Thermal imaging cameras on the Police helicopter probably gave them away. One things for certain. It wasn’t me. We were clueless!

We didn’t suspect a thing. They’d have left with £50,000 worth of harvested cannabis in black plastic bags or giant laundry baskets every month. I just thought they had a lot of washing! Every now and again a Chinese friend would pitch up outside in an expensive BMW. It didn’t quite fit with who they were but nothing ‘clicked’. I just assumed that they had shift work and so it was quite normal to meet them at home in the middle of the day. We’d tried to make efforts to say hello but had assumed that their English was too poor. They smiled, seemed really friendly and were especially kind to the kids. We’d made plans to invite them to supper with a Mandarin speaking friend last Sunday. One of the Policemen said he was glad I hadn’t offered to cook them a joint!

I never learnt their names, knew where they were from, how they came to be in the country. Of course, they may never have told me the truth. But I’d have liked to have tried. I now don’t know whether they were enslaved by one of the Chinese gangs or whether they chose to become cannabis farmers. I’ve no idea how long they’ll get in prison, assuming that the girlfriend is found. It’s a sad waste of a human life though. I bet when they were kids they didn’t dream about becoming illegal immigrants and becoming criminals.

Jim Winslet, a professional photographer who lives in the street captured the event on film. He sent me the picture with this caption. ‘Streatham druglord Pablo Escoperkins does a runner from the Peelers before they discover the secret tunnel linking his house to the shifty foreigners next door. "They seemed like such a nice family, kept themselves to themselves" said local baker Graham Carlow’. I deny everything! When someone next door said ‘nice grass’, I thought they were commenting on the state of my lawn…