a theology of post-place

I'm aware that what I'm about to write, may say more about my age and stage of life than other things. And they're half written thoughts, or is that, half thought writes? Years ago when someone left a place: they left. Went. And they'd still be able to be contacted, phone, mail, visits. Think particularly of school friends. As sixteen year olds, hanging out, going through the whole "exam experience". A connection that is built and promises to last. But then school turns into three or four colleges, or numerous employers, and suddenly that connection is shut down (or maybe just paused). After 6th form with a whole new set of friends, experiences, moments, another layer of potential life connections arise: and then: and then: and then: shut down, or maybe just paused, again. Then off to uni, or employment,.... And then postgrad.... And then jobs elsewhere... etc etc etc etc etc. Maybe all the above apply, or maybe only some, or maybe none. But the theme seems to be same. But sometimes something changes. As an undergraduate in approximately 1999 Friends Reunited appeared on my radar and suddenly, a connection could be remade - or at least a one way connection (unless you wanted to pay a fiver for two way communication). You could read what those old connections were up to. See from their point of view, who they were. A few years later, along came a certain book of faces. It became easier to keep in touch with those old friends you'd made such a connection with. It was possible for two way communication and to not only see how those "friends" saw themselves but how other saw them, which others saw them, and where and when they saw them (even to the point of them being able to log which shoe shop they were now at!). It also, it became easier to connect with the kids with the long face who sat three rows back in French in year 9. The conecpt of "friend" changed (and a whole host of other things........) From pre-internet, to Friends Reunited to Facebook the leaps have got bigger. Communication, digital and all that. But these leaps. Huge. Communication. Place. With each step the change in nostalgia, in memory, in experience, in choice jumped too. And with the ever expanding opportunities to return to past places via live streaming - a new leap has occurred. Obviously a change has taken place in what I'm writing about: people of connection, or places of connection. Sometimes both occur simultaneously , for a time at least. It is now possible to not only know what stage of life someone is at as in where they are and connect that way. But also to communicate two way. And to know someone through others. Or to know a place through others experiences of it. It now becomes possible to know a place or experience in a way that is distant, but also somewhat more closely connected. And I'm left wondering about nostalgia and connection and place and all sorts. The field has changed, perhaps its time for an update to John Inge's A Christian Theology of Place, to A Christian Theology of Post Place.

Matthew 20:1-16

A sermon I shared this morning at a 9:30 congregation.
The first half of the service is all-age.
The second half lasts about 20 minutes, with 5-8 minutes for the WORD section. Aimed at adults.
Not modelling this as 'good' sermon, but one I enjoyed writing and preaching.
=====================================================================================

PRAYER: Lord God, let my words be your words and our thoughts your thoughts. AMEN.

Page 987 in pew Bibles. Matthew 20:1-16

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. That’s what my Bible calls this parable, a name that wasn’t given by Jesus as he was talking to his disciples, a later added name for the parable: but this parable could so easily be called,

The parable of the grumpy, whinging, grumbling workers.

Or the parable of the really, overtly generous landowner.

But my preferred title would be, “the parable of the two kingdoms”.

Because really, that is what this parable is about.

A choice.

A decision.

There are two kingdoms: which one will you align yourself with?

God’s Kingdom in all its unexpected, confusing, grace-filled, extravagant and yet humble glory.

Or.

Humanity’s kingdom in all its predictable mundanity.

Our reading opens with the words of Jesus.

“For the Kingdom of heaven is like....”

That’s a pretty big clue,

A big clue that what Jesus is going to talk about isn’t just about a particular situation relating to employment contracts and workers rights and the ethics of agricultural labour.

As it happens, it is about those things: but it’s also about so much more.

From the outset we the reader, and the disciples, the original hearers are given a choice.

“What is it going to be, God’s way, or another way?”

‘The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out....’

The choice is really simple for us. Jesus makes it clear.

The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner.

Whatever the landowner is about to do.

That’s what the kingdom of heaven is like.

As it happens the landowner acts generously,

Not just to the people he hired at 5pm, an hour before work finished at 6pm.

But to ALL the workers.

The landowner is generous to the folk who have worked all day because he pays them that same day, something that didn’t always happen – often people had to wait until the next morning.

And the landowner is generous to the folk who have worked all day because he pays them what he promised to pay them, again, something that didn’t always happen.

The landowner pays them their one denarius – not a huge amount, but critically, enough to get by on.

Not enough to get rich.

But enough to live that day.

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven, give us today our daily bread....

Is that generous?

To earn just enough to live on?

Is this parable saying pay people the bare minimum?

No!

It’s saying pay what is agreed and what is recognised as fair.

Because in Jesus’ times,

Just as now,

Day labouring is pretty tough.

Lines of people still queue up in Tanzania to work on farms for the day.

Or in South America, to mine for precious metals for a day.

Whether we get it or not,

In Jesus’ day, day labourers were worse off than slaves.

If you owned a slave you wanted to make sure they were fed and watered, that they stayed healthy.

But day labourers?

If they can’t afford food, or medicine, or shelter... and they get sick, or hungry,

You hired someone else.

So the landowner is generous to the folk who’ve worked all day.

And.

And the landowner is generous to the folk who have worked part of the day.

And.

And the landowner is generous to the folk who have only worked an hour.

And not just because they get paid a days wages.

But because they get paid at all.

The landowner is generous to these people in three ways.

The first way the landowner is generous is that he hires them at all. Typically the landowner hires the people he needs early in the morning. If he needs 30 labourers, he hires thirty labourers in the morning.

But this landowner keeps coming back to hire more.

And not because his vineyard has suddenly grown during the day.

Or because his work force weren’t coping.

But because he is generous.

The second way the landowner is generous is that he hires these people at all.

Who is normally left un-hired? Those who are unable to work.

The sick, the elderly.

In other words, the desperate.

And how can we know they were desperate?

Because they were still there waiting for work at five pm.

You have to be pretty desperate and seriously lacking in options to still be waiting for work when the vineyard is pretty much ready to shut down for the night.

Why are the workers who worked all day so annoyed that these late-comers get the same pay?

Because they didn’t do the same amount of work.

But more importantly, because the landowner treated these newcomers as the equals of those who worked all day.

Their equals.

These people.

The sick.

The elderly.

‘For the kingdom of heaven is like...’

The third way the landowner is generous is that the landowner goes to the market place to hire his own staff.

The landowner does this.

I’m pretty sure that when Richard Branson wants to hire some more train cleaners he doesn’t go down to the job centre himself.

And it’s the same principle 2000 years ago.

The landowner would normally have sent a servant down to the marketplace.

But the landowner himself goes down to the marketplace.

‘For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who...’

Where have we heard that before?

Of someone being so concerned about what is going on, that they go themselves.

Or perhaps they send their son.

And the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit that remains with us, even now.

‘For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who...’

And so we’re left with a stark choice.

The kingdom of humanity.

Or.

Or the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of humanity where we really want to grumble at all the perceived injustices we encounter.

Where people around us seem to be treated the same.

Even late comers.

Even the broken. (mock shock)

How easily do we do this?

Or.

Or we chose the kingdom of God.

God is generous.

God always leans towards generosity.

Always.

It’s who God is.

So how will we respond when we see God’s generosity.

Will we grumble and be envious.

Or will we celebrate God’s generosity, in all its splendour?

‘For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who...’

Let’s Pray: Lord, let your generosity reign in our hearts, let us learn to love like you love, let us learn to give like you give. Let us learn to live as your son Jesus Christ lived. AMEN.

The Power of Words

Words are important. The meaning of words are important, but equally important are the associations held in connection with words.

Take for example the current “rioting”, “looting”, “protesting” that is taking place around England at this time.

What makes something a riot?

What makes something a protest?

What makes something a criminal act of looting?

Can a riot be a legitimate form of protest?

Can looting be a legitimate form of protest?

Can a protest happen without looting?

Can public protest be justified?

Can public looting be justified?

Can public rioting be justified?

As citizens immersed in a social-media saturated culture, where news is forever updated (even if there are no updates to make), it is vital that we do not let words become unfairly associated with concepts, ideas, actions and values that are not directly part of the make-up of the word.

Whilst we may want to condemn the looting that has occurred on a grotesquely pornographic level and portrayed as such, we must make sure that we do not condemn the legitimate right to protest.

News media easily and often purposely associate words with other words. Sometimes these associations are accurate. Sometimes they are not.

Sometimes a ‘bridging’ word is used to carry a concept load – to change an agenda surreptitiously. This use of metonymy is often illicit and inaccurate. (As is my working-definition of metonymy)

Take for example, the word “riot”.

A “protest” can become a “riot”.

A “riot” can lead to “looting”.

A “protest” rarely leads to “looting”.

And never without becoming something other than a “protest”.

Why does this even matter?

It matters because we as citizens, must not let our right to protest be damaged, belittled, or denigrated because of the action of looters.

Looting is very rarely, if ever justifiable. Perhaps the only exception might be the looting of food and medical aid, or indeed, the looting of goods for sale to purchase immediate food or medical aid – but then, does the illicit taking of food or medicine on a personal scale become an act of “looting”, or “theft” – the power of meaning and the power of words – again.

A protest never immediately becomes a looting.

A protest must change from the act of protest to an act of violent conduct, perhaps, a riot, before it becomes looting.

Even if the protest is against an electrical corporation, or global brand, in a protest that is leaning towards becoming a riot, the consumer goods produced by that global brand, might be destroyed, in protest.

But never “stolen”.

A protest wouldn’t “steal” the consumer goods, it might eradicate them, destroy them, but never take them for personal gain.

Again the power of words – I’ve associated “looting” with “stealing” because that is what it is.

Stealing or looting can never be the natural end product of protest.

A protest that becomes a riot (or something other than a protest ) can lead to looting: but that is not the end-product of the protest: if anything, it is the end-product of a corruption of the protest.

Stealing and looting are not the natural end product of all riots.

The right to protest must be protected.

The right to riot – that is a much deeper question: and yet no!

As citizens, we must be wary and aware in the days to come.

We must not let “protest” and “looting” become synonymous with each other without the inclusion of the word “riot”.

Protest – looting = Not without riot.

We must hold on to our legitimate claims to protest. We must not let protest be quashed for illegitimate fear of “looting”.

Once the right to gather in groups and peacefully speak against perceived injustice is curtailed (protest) – it is at this point that people may decide to take things further (riot).

We must not let “protest” be muddied with “looting”.

PRAYER: Christ, keep us safe from the temptation to over-simplify. AMEN.

Jesus videos

A Time To Talk and A Time To Listen

This evening, I had the privilege of hearing Chris Howson speak at St. John's College in Durham. Chris gave a mission lecture three years ago, and it was a really memorable occasion. In March this year I got hold of a copy of his book, 'a Just Church: 21st century Liberation Theology in Action' which is a fantastic little book. But this isn't what I want to talk about.

If you don't know Chris, then you could do worse than to hear him speak at Greenbelt 2011 or to have a read of his book. Chris is into mission in a big way and sees liberation theology being a key expression of God's mission in the world. But this isn't what I want to talk about.

Chris spoke to us about things he's been involved with in Bradford, things he describes in his book. Chris would probably be the first to admit that there are some real complexities in the campaigns he is involved with, Us and Them doesn't quite cut it, though it's sometimes where things end up. But this isn't what I want to talk about.

Chris has a really interesting take on mission and in his conclusion he says somethings I've read elsewhere, but in a down-on-the-ground-PRAXIS way that I really love. But this isn't what I want to talk about.

Chris' argument is strong, even if there is one big-ish area I disagree with him on and would love to have a chat over a pint with him about. But this isn't what I want to talk about.

As Chris spoke there was a buzz, of some folks agreeing with somethings and some folks disagreeing with somethings. It was really good. But this isn't what I want to talk about.

Because what I want to talk about, is sometimes we need to PAUSE, take a breath, and hold in the question, the thought, the minuscule bubble of doubt that will soon dissipate and let things just go.

With the approach I've just outlined there is a real danger that too many things are let slip and before we know it, we're either living out a heresy, or being pastorally naive, or even break relationships and doing damage to the cause we are attempting to support.

But sometimes, we just need to stop. And listen, and pray.

Because, sometimes, we just have to say, "thank you for what you are doing"

Not, "thank you for what you are doing, but I think you're not realising the implications of liberation theology expanded to the nth degree"

Not, "hmm, I like your point but how would that suggestion manifest itself on a global scale"

Those aren't real questions raised in Chris' seminar, but the danger is we too quickly belittle what someone is doing.When at the very least they are doing.

And at the most, they are building a part of God's kingdom, most of us don't even second glance at.

I suppose, I've been affected by Stephen Cherry's Barefoot Disciple (which Clare and I read over lent).

In that great little book, Cherry talks about the difference between grumbling and prophecy. Grumbling, simply is when we moan about something that is bad, but don't do anything. Prophecy is when we see that something is bad, and want to speak against it, to transform it.

It would be easy to grumble about things we read, or hear, or things that people do with good intentions. It can be easy to belittle the efforts of others.

Instead of grumbling, let's try being prophetic.

Or as the old phrase goes,

"PUT UP, OR SHUT UP."

SECOND NATURE - PRAYER

It's when prayer doesn't feel like "second nature"
that something needs addressing.

And what does that even mean, "second nature"?
Presumably it's some sort of second reaction, ingrained
like an instinct, too deeply embedded to be forced back
or repressed. It will happen no matter what.
In case of so and so happening, the physiological
entity in all it great complexities will respond in a certain
way, a particular fashion. Similar to fight or flight, perhaps.

When prayer isn't one of those first port of call options,
I wonder why. What is it that has taken its place.

Whatever the answer (and its usually grumbling or getting angry)
one thing is for sure. I would prefer that first instinct to be
to pray. Sometimes we need to pray for help to pray.
To pray for God to put on our hearts a hunger to pray.
So that, is what I think I need to do.
Goodnight to you all.

Rough Edge