Gloucester Pilgrimage

In May this year, Cllr Dave Smithson became Mayor ofKnowsley. At the same time, Cllr Mike Storey became Lord Mayor of Liverpool.Leaving aside the fact that they both belong to the same political party - andI really don't want to get myself oranyone else into trouble with accusations of political bias! - whatdo these two men have in common? One answer is that they both have Halewoodconnections. Cllr Smithson is a Halewood Town Councillor and Halewood resident,and Cllr Storey is Head Teacher at the Plantation School in Halewood. I don'tknow about you, but I find this encouraging: it seems good to me that Halewoodis firmly on the map in both Knowsley and Liverpool.

Another thing that both mayors have in common is a positiverelationship with the faith community. Cllr Smithson began his mayoral yearwith a service at St Nicholas’ Church, which was attended by Cllr Storeyand civic dignitaries from this and neighbouring authorities. Similarly, CllrSue Moretta began her year as Mayor of Halewood with a service at St Mark'sChurch, which she shared with Knowsley’s Mayoress, Cllr Sarah Smithson. I'msure that some people will be wondering if all this is a good idea: clergy andpoliticians cosy-ing up to each other. Mixing faith and politics has somethingof a chequered history. You may remember Alistair Darling saying on behalf ofthe then Prime Minister, “we don’t do God”, despite the fact that TonyBlair’s personal religious faith has been well documented. Darling was probablytrying to avoid any comparison with the situation in the United States,where religion has played a much more overt role in the political landscape.

Here we don’t want our politicians to appear too religious in case they are seen toidentify too closely with one particular community. Equally, we areuncomfortable with the idea that someone who holds political power might claimthat their manifesto has been handed to them personally from on high! Churchleaders too, need to keep some distance from the party political scene to avoidthe accusation of taking sides.

I was very pleased, however, when Cllr Smithson invited meto be his Chaplain during the mayoral year. As well as hosting his Civic Sundayat St Nicholas’, we are also looking forward to holding a Carol Servicein December this year. My other duties, such as they are, have not so farproved too demanding: it’s a simple enough matter to say grace or offer prayerson particular occasions. Having been asked a number of times, “Whatexactly does the Mayor's Chaplain do?”, I came up with the answer, “My job isto put the fear of God into the Mayor of Knowsley!”.

At a time when elected politicians are held in very lowesteem (as we have seen in the recent MPs' expenses scandal) - a situation thatdoes nothing to encourage people's engagement with the democratic process - Ihave to say that, in my experience, those who hold office locally are by andlarge well-motivated, committed people who want to make a difference to their community.Equally, those who belong to the faith communities of Halewood believe we havethe best interests of our community at heart, and sense that we are called towork and pray for the well-being of allwho live here. Christians believe that “God so loved the world”, and that God expectsus to love the world too. We’re not here simply to look after our owninterests, or just to occupy ourselves in narrowly religious practices.We are here to make a difference and some of us feel that we do that bestwhen we work in partnership with politicians, council employees and officers,people from other parts of the voluntary sector, and all people of good-will(of all faiths and none) as together we seek to make Halewood a better place tolive.

The Revd Alan Jewell, Team Rector, Halewood Ecumenical Team.

“Going anywhere nice for your holidays, Archbishop? Got any plans for Christmas?”

Desmond Tutu is, of course, more than happy to discuss religion and politics. He once said:

“When people say the Bible and politics don't mix, I don't know which Bible they are referring to. It’s not the one I've been reading.”

I suppose the problem is with bad religion and bad politics – the sort of religion that supported apartheid in South Africa, segregation in the United States, and Nazism and anti-Semitism in Europe.

More recently, we have had the uncomfortable sight of the British National Party claiming to be “the only political party standing up for” Christian faith and culture. I’m not generally in favour of a blasphemy law (I tend to think that God does not need us to defend him in court), but the BNP came close to converting me with their election poster featuring an image of Christ crucified, a quotation from scripture (“If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you;” John 15:20) and tagline, “What would Jesus do?” – the implication being that Jesus would vote BNP to defend Christianity in this country! I’m not convinced that the BNP would welcome Jesus the Jew as one of their supporters!

So, what kind of politics emerges from the Bible that Desmond Tutu reads? Some ideas from the bible readings set for Sunday 28^th June:

In 2 Corinthians 8, we read that the mother church in Jerusalem is in financial need - again. Paul writes to the Christians in Corinth to encourage them to make a gift to help their sisters and brothers in Jerusalem. He reminds them of the example of Jesus who, though we was rich, became poor, so that we might become rich, at least spiritually. Other churches, Paul says, have given generously, sacrificially, but the church in Corinth seems reluctant. Paul wants them to see that it is not right for them to have plenty – more than enough – while their sisters and brothers in Jerusalem are struggling. He points out that in the Old Testament story of God giving his people the manna in the desert – the bread from heaven – each had just enough bread to eat every day: no-one had too much and no-one had too little. That’s how it should be amongst us, he says: no one should have too much; no one too little. Amongst Christians there should be a level of equality, not vast inequality between rich and poor.

So there’s a Christian, biblical principle – there should be a degree of fairness and equality in the distribution of wealth – but how to turn that into politics? Some would see this as a socialist ethic: “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” – to use a phrase popularised by a certain Karl Marx. (Historian Arnold Toynbee described communism as a Christian heresy; others have pointed out that Marxism and communism had their roots in Judaeo-Christian soil.)

Others would argue that the scripture points in favour of capitalism: if the Christians in Corinth hadn’t created wealth, they would not have generated a surplus from which to help meet the needs of their poorer sisters and brothers in Jerusalem. They would say this wealth needs to be created in order to trickle down to those less able to generate wealth.

Getting from a biblical or spiritual principle to a political application isn’t always straightforward: hence Tony Benn’s assertion that the Labour Party owed more to Methodism than it did to Marxism; and Margaret Thatcher’s use, on becoming Prime Minister, of the Prayer of St Francis. Both Benn and Thatcher claimed to draw inspiration from Christian teaching, but their applications were diametrically opposed in political terms.

Because of this, I have never felt that there could be a Christian political party – although we were given the opportunity of voting for The Christian Party in the recent European elections. There are plenty of Christians whom I love and respect, but whose political views I do not share. We may draw our inspiration from the same source, but we differ over how to apply those principles.

Nevertheless, it is a biblical principle that there should be a measure of equality: God has provided enough manna to feed us all. Why then do some of God’s children live with obscene wealth and others die in obscene poverty? According to UNICEF, nearly 10 million children under five years of age die each year from causes related to poverty. Peter Singer, in his book “The Life You Can Save”, points out that one billion people in the world have less to live on each day than we would spend on a bottle of water². He argues that world poverty could be ended relatively easily, if those who had the wealth were prepared to give a modest proportion of it to help those who have none. If you have clean water coming out of a tap that you could drink, but you choose to buy bottled water, you have more money than you need – while there are people in the world who have no access to clean water. Singer is not a Christian, but his argument seems to me to be eminently biblical!

In Mark 5:21-43, we see Jesus healing two people – a woman suffering from haemorrhages and a child who has died. If we are familiar with the Gospel accounts, we are not surprised by these stories. We might be aware that, in Jesus’ own day, religious leaders had little to do with women and children, whereas Jesus’ own ministry valued and honoured both women and children. But we might miss the fact that his contact with both of these people – the woman with the haemorrhages and the child – compromised Jesus’ religious purity, according to the religious culture of his day. A woman who was bleeding was considered ritually unclean: to touch her was to become unclean yourself. (In the gospel we read that she touches him, rather than he laying hands on her, but Jesus affirms her as well and healed and tells her that she may go in peace.) Similarly, a corpse is ritually unclean and it makes you unclean to touch a dead person.  Jesus takes the dead child by the hand and speaks to her, “Little girl, get up!”

A woman and a child – both are dangerous to Jesus’ religious purity. But that doesn’t stop Jesus reaching out to them, literally and spiritually, taking them by the hand and affirming them as God’s children.

From this we discern a biblical principle: the priority Jesus gives to those whom religion and society would exclude or marginalise. What would Jesus do? Reach out to those who are excluded, marginalised. How then should a Christian behave? What should the church do?

And how to apply this principle in the political realm? Again, that requires each of us to make a judgement, informed by biblical thinking and supported by prayer; but it is clear that when we vote and act, we are required to think what our voting and acting will do for those excluded and marginalised by our society.

It’s fair to say that today, those who seek and hold elected office are not exactly held in high esteem. In fact, the expenses scandal means that MPs have done the impossible and replaced bankers as the people we all love to hate. (It looks as though BBC executives might be next!) The biggest problem is when voters, or those who should be voters, say, “a plague on all their houses” and opt out. As we know, this simply opens the door to extremists. In my experience, local politicians are good people, committed to serving their communities – to making the world (or at least their part of it) a better place. We need those we elect to be clear about their principles. Those who seek to serve would do well to listen to the biblical principles of commitment to social justice and to the needs of those excluded and marginalised by society.

May God bless us – all of us – as we seek to love and serve Him in loving and serving the communities in which live.

On 24th May, the Church of England invites us to commemorate two of its most important sons: the brothers John and Charles Wesley. I once had a liturgical wall-planner (Aren't I the lucky one?) which came from a publisher more familiar with the Roman Catholic calendar than the Anglican. It came with a set of stickers so that you could add the Anglican Saints’ days and festivals. I was interested to see they had produced a sticker for “Saints John and Charles Wesley”.

I have no doubt that John and Charles were both saints in the sense that the New Testament uses the term (i.e., all Christian believers); but they don't get the title ‘Saint’ (capital S), which the Church of England tends to reserve for those who get their names in the Bible. But there are plenty of saints that we are invited to commemorate: John and Charles Wesley are remembered as Evangelists and Hymn Writers.

Having said that the calendar invites us to commemorate them, actually, this year, it doesn't! The commemoration of John and Charles Wesley is, according to the Church of England, a “lesser festival”; since lesser festivals don't replace more important ones, today is actually the Seventh Sunday of Easter or the Sunday after the Ascension. So “Saints John and Charles” get missed out this year. But I thought I'd risk it and remember them anyway.

A couple of years ago my wife had a meeting that involved spending the day in London. I went with her and we made a weekend of it. So, I had a day in London all by myself: the world  - or at least our capital city  -  was my oyster. I did what many of you would have done: I went to the Museum of Methodism, and treated myself to a bit of a Wesley pilgrimage.

The Museum of Methodism is situated on the City Road, in the crypt of the chapel that John Wesley had built in 1778 as his ‘London base’. Next to the chapel is the house where he lived during that time and where he died in 1791. For me, the highlight of my visit to the museum was being able to stand in the very pulpit from which John and Charles both preached. I’m not sure how to describe what I experienced while standing in that pulpit: but I felt something…

Did you know that John Wesley pioneered the use of machines that could pass electrical currents through the body? It was believed to be therapeutic. Wesley reasoned that, if it worked for rich people,  then poor people should also have the opportunity to experience the healing power of electricity, and so he raised money to buy electric shcok machines.

I also enjoyed the tour of John Wesley’s house: what struck me was how small and simple the rooms were. The Wesleys were not much given to ostentation or luxury and John lived a simple life: he drank tea from a gallon teapot, and didn’t like spicy or fancy food – but he did enjoy a glass of claret with his meal. He also lived the single life, his wife having left him after 15 years of an unhappy marriage, and without them having had children. In fact, his home and life were shared with his preachers and many other visitors. Next to his bedroom is the little prayer room where Wesley began every day – having got out of bed as early as 4:00AM. (Not something I’m inclined to imitate, I’m afraid.) This room is still thought of as the ‘power house’ of worldwide Methodism.

I wasn’t able to spend much time in the Chapel itself – the BBC had taken over for a broadcast the following morning – but my guide managed to sneak me in past the BBC engineers, and their equipment and cables, so that I at least got chance to have a look around. This time, I didn’t manage to get into the pulpit (I might have tried, if no-one had been looking!), but I did see the chamber organ that belonged to Charles Wesley.

John Wesley was buried in the grounds of his Chapel – in what was regarded as ‘un-consecrated ground’. (Unusual for a Church of England priest!) His mother, Susannah, is buried just over the road from the Chapel, in Bunhill Fields Cemetery – again, not a Church of England burial ground, but the last resting place of such Nonconformists as William Blake, Daniel Defoe and John Bunyan.

After seeing Susannah’s grave, I made my way to Aldersgate Street, to the spot where, on 24th May 1738, John Wesley attended a meeting at which Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans was being read. Wesley wrote in his journal:

“while he was describing the change in the heart through faith in Christ I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given to me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.”

There’s not much to see there today – the meeting place having been demolished long ago – but there is a plaque commemorating this event, the significance of which is felt around the world to this day.

A vicar we knew once went into the pulpit with a book of fairy tales. He opened it at the last page and began to read:

"And the Prince and the Princess got married and they all lived happily ever after. The end."

The vicar then proceeded to tear the page out of the book. The congregation was impressed - apart from his young daughter, whose book it was. The point he was making was this: it is only in fairy tales that the wedding is the end of the story.
Of course, your own wedding day shouldn't feel like the end of anything; the only thing that is coming to an end is your single status. Everything else that is at the heart of today is all about tomorrow and continuing, developing and making new. This is clearly not the end of the story.
Having said that, with the amount of time that you have spent preparing for today, maybe it has been difficult to think beyond the wedding. All the things that you have been planning for so long, all the essential details - the dress, the flowers, the decorations, the food and drink... By this time tomorrow, all those things will be over, finished! But that still doesn't mean it's the end of the story.
Lianne and James: your two stories have for some time been coming closer together: today, in front of family and friends, you are saying that you want your two stories, that have become one, to remain one story, forever. The story of Lianne and the story of James have become the story of Lianne & James.
But there is another story, it's an "old, old story". Old, because it began before either of you was even thought of; before this church was built; actually, before the foundations of the world. It is the story of God who created the world in order to love it; and who brought us into being in order to love us. It's the story of how God sent his Son Jesus, to show us what love looks like lived in a human life and to invite us to become part of that "old, old story".
And even though it is an old, old story, it is the story of the one who "makes all things new". The story of Lianne & James is part of that much bigger story: the story of how God invites us to know his love and to love one another. We can read His story in the bible and in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But - and here's the thing! - God invites us to write some new chapters, with his help, of course, but they are our story. Lianne & James have chosen to write these next chapters together. Family and friends are here as supporting characters; but, as with the very best stories: who knows what lies ahead!
Lianne & James: we wish you well; may you know God's blessing as you write this story together.