Tomorrow’s Sermon: The King Rides In

Matthew
21:1-17

1. Humility
On Thursday morning, I had to take two assemblies at Broomfield Primary School. Sharon
Young, the RE Co-ordinator, had asked me to take ‘Palm Sunday’ as my theme. I wondered
what to do. Then, stealing inspiration from a book on my shelf, I asked them
whether they watched Top Gear[1].
From the raucous response, I gathered the answer was ‘yes’. So I asked them
about people and cars. If the Queen turned up to visit their school, what kind
of car would she be in? The consensus was Rolls Royce. If Gordon Brown came for
a political photo opportunity, what car would carry him? Some kind of black
limousine was the main answer. And if David Beckham arrived to launch a branch
of his Football Academy, what would he drive? Here, the argument was purely
about which kind of sports car it would be: Ferrari, Lamborghini or Porsche.

Then I asked them what they would think if David Beckham
turned up in a Reliant Robin, or on a pushbike. I think the overall response I received
could have been summarised by the word ‘derision’. A famous or important public
figure just wouldn’t travel that way. We discussed how people would feel if
(locally born hero) General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Head of the British Army,
rode a bike rather than a military vehicle to an official function.

But that, I said, was exactly what Jesus did on what we call
Palm Sunday. He came, not on a warhorse, but a donkey. He came as king, but not
as the warrior king. He came fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah on a donkey,
an animal signifying peace and humility. Jesus was a different kind of king. What
kind of different king?

To make this point, I asked for two volunteers. The forest
of hands was dense! I invited one boy at the back to come out with a friend. I sat
the boy down on a chair, and asked him to remove his shoes. Then I asked his
friend to smell his feet. Fortunately, the boy didn’t use a rude word! He looked
closer to it when I then suggested he should wash his friend’s feet!

So I explained the foot-washing story from John 13, and how
it was necessary to wash feet after long journeys on Palestine’s dusty roads, wearing
sandals. I told them how Jewish servants found it too demeaning to do, and how
the task was allocated only to Gentile slaves. How shocking, then, for Jesus to
wash his disciples’ feet. The same Jesus who had ridden into Jerusalem on a
donkey, now also shows peace and humility in the act of foot washing. This is a
different kind of king. This is not one who lords it over others, but one whose
deepest concern is for those who – in terms of rank – are far beneath him.

We know all this – don’t we? It’s something we cover most
Palm Sundays and every Holy Week. Jesus is the ‘humble king’. But it raises the
simple points about Christian humility. Do we prefer the needs of others to our
own? Do we consider some activities beneath us? Are we a little too keen to
name-drop and make ourselves sound more important than we really are? Maybe this
year it’s time for a little check-up on our pride and self-importance. If Jesus,
the king of God’s kingdom, could behave with such humility, what would he call
us to do as a sign of that kingdom? Have we become more serious about ourselves
than about Jesus? Is it time to take ourselves a lot less seriously, and Christ
much more so?

2. Peace
Humility isn’t the only way in which Jesus will confound his crowd of
supporters. They shout, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’, thus giving him a
messianic title. And – as we know again – they had certain ideas about what
Messiah would do when he came. He would save his people from the sinners who
were oppressing them. But Jesus has been given that name at birth for a
different reason. Not that he will save his people from sinners, but that he
will save his people from their sins.

And for that reason, he rides in on a donkey, not a
warhorse. He comes in peace. He will not save his people from their sins with
violence – he cannot do it that way. The humble king comes in peace, not to
inflict violence, but to suffer violence. In doing so, he will in some
mysterious way stand where his people should, absorbing that which rightly should
be theirs, sin being condemned in his body instead. Jesus rides into Jerusalem,
knowing that later in the week he will walk out of the city, carrying a crossbeam.
Hence, we sing:

Ride on, ride on in majesty
In lowly pomp ride on to die

This is how he establishes his kingdom. He conquers the evil
that opposes his reign not with force but suffering. And if that is how he sets
up his kingdom, then it sets the tone for life in that kingdom. This is why we
can never advance the Gospel violently. It is not a matter of arguing over what
individual verses of the Bible mean: it is a question of the Cross. The Cross
is why we can say clearly that historical atrocities like the Crusades and the
Spanish Inquisition were unequivocally wrong. It is why we can be dubious about
the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, who allegedly saw the Cross in a
dream and heard the message, ‘In this sign conquer’, taking it as the promise
he would win a battle. It is why – in my opinion – it is dangerous for the
Church to be too closely allied to the State, because the State inevitably has
to use violence.

We can argue all we like as Christians about whether there
is ever such a thing as a just war, or whether all Christians should be
pacifists. However, one thing should command our universal agreement: we cannot
and must not promote Christianity by force, because that is contrary to the
Cross.

Thus, a friend of mine in the 1980s, a Kenyan clergyman,
once told me: ‘If I am attacked because I am a black man, I have no problem in
fighting back. It is a matter of justice. But if I am attacked because I am a
Christian, then I must accept suffering.’

Such talk about suffering in peace rather than responding in
violence may seem remote for many of us (although it isn’t for millions of our
sisters and brothers in Christ). But we have our smaller acts of violence that
we need to repudiate. Our acid tongues. Our character assassinations. I can
think of churches I know where stories like this are common: ‘W won’t come to
church any more, because X was cruel to her’; ‘Y can never trust Z again,
because he ripped him to shreds’. A peaceable kingdom doesn’t just mean non-violence:
it means reconciliation.

3. Inclusion
But then this peaceable Jesus goes to the Temple. And here he doesn’t look too
peaceable at all. In a sign of the judgment to come, he overturns the tables of
the moneychangers and the seats of the dove sellers. He quotes Old Testament
prophecy:

‘It is written,
“My house shall be called a house of prayer”;
but you are making it a den of robbers.’
(Verse 13)

Why is Jesus mad? He doesn’t oppose the sacrificial system,
but he is angry that changing ordinary Roman coinage for the special Temple
currency and then the selling of doves for sacrifices using this holy money is
happening in a particular place. Is it that it is happening in the Temple? No.
To get a clue, we need to think about where Matthew got his material, and when
he wrote it.

Matthew adapts a lot of Mark’s Gospel. Mark records Jesus as
saying that the Temple should be ‘a house of prayer for all nations’. However, unlike Mark, Matthew is probably writing
after the destruction of the Temple by Roman armies in AD 70. It is now
irrelevant to his readers that non-Jews might use the Temple as a house of prayer.
But that thought is probably central to Jesus’ original actions. Why? Because
the moneychangers and dove sellers had set themselves up in the one part of the
Temple to which Gentiles could be admitted. It was called, ‘The Court of the
Gentiles’. The presence of moneychangers and dove sellers there prevented
Gentiles from coming to worship Israel’s God. They had been excluded as a
result of preoccupation with religious business. That makes the Temple ‘a den
of robbers’: the authorities have robbed Gentiles of the opportunity to worship
the Lord.

And if you doubt the idea that the religious tastemakers
were an excluding lot, look at their offence over the noise, the healings and
especially the children. They protest at the noise – a din that has arisen
because Jesus has healed sick and unclean people; a racket that is all the
louder, because children are participating in it and don’t know how to fade the
volume. It’s as if the authorities would have been happier to see the sick
remain unclean and outside the Temple. And they certainly didn’t appreciate
children who should still be learning the ropes in synagogue school leading the
worship.

Outsiders, the unclean and children: still today these
groups face exclusion rather than the welcome Jesus issued to his kingdom – a welcome
found through the grace of repentance. So, for example, when I finished my
second assembly at Broomfield Primary on Thursday, I was invited to go to the
staff room for break time and drink a welcome cuppa. Among a few conversations
was one with the Head. I never realised before that she, too, was a Christian. But
she told me a shocking story of a ‘christening’ she had recently attended in a
parish other than her own. One child was
apparently so happy at the service that she began to sing and dance. The vicar
demanded that her parents keep her under control. Then two other children
wanted a better view, so they walked down the aisle and sat on the carpet near
the font, holding hands. Was that an ‘Aaah!’ moment? Not in the eyes of this
vicar. ‘Get these children out of my way!’ was his response.

It’s a good job my Head Teacher friend is a Christian, but
what must it have been like for the families of these children, and others attending?
What did it say for the welcome to the church family that was purportedly being
issued in the baptism of the infant? The opposite message was being conveyed
loudly.

It’s actually not much different from saying that children
are the church of tomorrow – a claim that excludes them from their proper
participation now in the community of God’s kingdom.

I wonder whether we have any groups of people who would be
silently or subtly excluded. Are there those whose backgrounds we dislike, and
whom we’d rather find a way of suggesting they don’t belong here or should find
a different spiritual home?

The crazy thing is, when we exclude those who don’t usually
fit our conventional ideas about who might be worthy citizens of God’s kingdom.
If Debbie and I have an urgent personal prayer request, there are a small
handful of people to whom we turn. If we have time to get on the phone, there
are my parents and a couple of people from our last circuit: a man in his eighties
called Cyril, and a woman in her seventies called Isa. My parents, Cyril and
Isa meet conventional church-insider stereotypes. But the other person we will
ask (provided the situation is suitable for her to know about) is Rebekah, our
daughter, who will not be five until next weekend. If anyone has a hotline to
God, it’s her!

Maybe you just find that a heart-warming story about a
little girl. But I challenge you to consider that those whom we exclude are
those for whom Christ rode into Jerusalem and then died outside its walls. They
miss their inheritance of faith, and we miss their contribution to the kingdom.
Their inclusion in the kingdom is required by the humility and peace that
Christ sets as core values.


[1]
Yes, I know it’s environmentally unsound and Jeremy Clarkson’s humour is often ‘inappropriate’.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

We Interrupt This Programme …

I interrupted my leave last week to conduct the funeral of a ninety-two-year-old church member. (We have quite a collection of ninety-somethings; the air may have given some asthma round here, but it seems to have other more beneficial effects, too).

The funeral was due to commence at noon. At 7:45 that morning, one of my church stewards had posted large notices advising people that the car park would be needed then. The notices were particularly needed, because we let the back hall to a pre-school of a weekday morning. Most people obliged. The pre-school leaders even said that had they had more notice, they would have finished their session early for us. Very kind.

However, one mother – who had seen the signs when dropping off her child and again when collecting – was tardy. Her green Vauxhall Astra got blocked in by the hearse. Apparently, it was our fault she would now be late for an appointment. She made ludicrous accusations against one of the most gentlemanly church members I’ve ever known anywhere.

As we were about to process into church with the coffin, she demanded my time. I refused, as I was more concerned with grieving people. I invited her to phone me later. She never did. But the gist of her complaint was that we should not be allowed to hold a funeral at church when we hire out to the pre-school. She claimed that the pre-school’s rental includes car parking spaces (it doesn’t), and she acted with total disregard for the mourners. The undertaker had promised to move the hearse at the earliest opportunity, but this was unacceptable.

As we took the coffin into the church where the deceased had worshipped for fifty or more years, Mrs Angry gunned her engine as loudly as she could in protest. She was no hoodie or shell-suit wearing inner city type. She was a literate middle-class woman, who clearly thought that money deserved to talk louder than compassion. The distress she caused the bereaved family was appalling. The example she gave to her young child was dreadful.

And so I just wondered – what are your funeral horror stories?

Technorati Tags: ,

Larry Norman

I only read this last weekend about the death the previous Sunday (24th February) of Christian music pioneer Larry Norman. He was 60. He had suffered from heart problems and other health difficulties for years. Sales of his CDs went to help pay his medical bills.

Norman was the man who opened up the Christian rock music field. You might think, encountering the Mammon-infested wilderness of much ‘CCM’ (Contemporary Christian Music) that this was nothing to be proud of. But Norman was so different from many who succeeded him. Yes, as other bloggers have pointed out, his song ‘I Wish We’d All Been Ready’ held to a crude eschatology based on a simplistic reading of Scripture. But he was as far from the ‘Left Behind’ nonsense and its associations with the Religious Right as it were possible to be – absolitely remarkable, given his upbringing in the Assemblies Of God. There was nothing other-worldly about his faith. A common thread in his music and concerts could be summed up in the title of another song of his: ‘Feed The Poor’. Another song, ‘The Great American Novel’, from his landmark 1972 recording ‘Only Visiting This Planet’, contains these lines:

You say we beat the Russians to the moon
And I say you starved your children to do it.

The same song berates racist murder and sexual abuse. It’s not exactly Pat Robertson territory, is it?

The only surprise about ‘I Wish We’d All Been Ready’ being so literalist about the ‘Rapture’ is that Norman was a man skilled in using evocative imagery. The fact that he did got him into trouble with Christian bookstores, who wouldn’t sell his LPs. ‘Nightmare #71’ on 1973’s ‘So Long Ago The Garden’ bears comparison with the best of Bob Dylan’s incendiary 1960s’ material. In the context of a nightmare, Larry describes a vapid entertainment industry, environmental pollution, murder, adultery and soulless town planning as signs of human fallenness:

Man does not live
He just survives
(We sleep till he arrives)

Love is a corpse
We sit and watch it harden
We left it oh so long ago the garden.

Like the prophets, Norman was a strange, if not downright eccentric character. I once stayed with a family in Plymouth who had hosted him when he played a concert in the town. They had many anecdotes of his bizarre behaviour – not least in the realm of disappearing at night and not returning. But then, there is plenty of ‘eccentric’ precedent in the habits of Old Testament prophets, and to some extent Norman might be compared with them.

But, like all of us, Norman was a flawed individual. Counter-cultural as he was (both to society and a complacent church), he also aped the culture. His second wife, Sarah, had been his friend and convert Randy Stonehill‘s first wife. No wonder Norman and Stonehill endured a rift of twenty years. One of the tragedies about the timing of his death is that the two of them were planning to write and record together again.

Larry Norman, conflicted individual, blazed a trail for Christian music in a contemporary vein. So many have followed into Christian rock, so few have had his prophetic edge. For he didn’t give us the bland prophecy of ‘Thus says the Lord, I love you O my children’. He gave it straight, no chaser. He dissected church and society with clarity and precision. May God raise up many more to do this in music and the arts, as well as in the pulpit and on the political hustings.

Tomorrow is my birthday. I think I’ll spend some of my birthday money replacing some of my lost vinyl Larry albums with some CDs. His music was a treasure. Enjoy your eternal reward, Larry.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑