ourkenflood

[ourkenflood]

Render unto Caesar

Sermon for Proper 24a  / Matthew 22: 15-22

I am reading a book at the moment called “The Joy of .....  Tax”.

That’s T.A.X.  – in case anyone misheard and thought I said some other three letter word ending in “X.” (Don’t pretend you didn't think it).

The first record we have a tax is from the ancient Babylonians. Even before there was money, as we understand it, people paid tax in goods – sheep and cows – and even in labour – a day’s work. It even looks like there were tariffs on imports – there is a record from around 1900BC of a person being imprisoned for smuggling. So, not only have we had tax for a long time, we’ve also had tax evaders.

One of the points made in the book is that tax is not just about money, but it is also a government and its values. And in liberal western democracies, where we elect governments on the basis of their tax promises; tax says a lot about society.

It is similar to a story that the former Bishop of Manchester, Bishop Nigel, told when he last visited here. He spoke a keen young man who goes to visit an old, wise Spiritual Director for the first time for guidance. They have a productive time together and mutually agree that it would be good to meet up again. And as the young man is leaving the Spiritual Director asks that him bring his last three bank statements with them next time. He is a bit taken a back. “Why should I bring my bank statements” he asks, after all he is there to talk of spiritual matters, of prayer, of inner discovery, and the stuff of heaven. So the Spiritual Director simply explains, “if you want to know the true values of a person, look at how they spend their money.”

I wonder what my bank statement says about me? How do I get my money and how do I spent it? I wonder what your bank statement says about you? What does it say of your priorities and what you truly consider to be important?

 The reason I’ve started talking about tax is, of course, because today’s gospel is about a tax.

In particular, the tax concerned is not income tax or V.A.T. but a poll tax. You may remember the hatred of this tax, in some quarters, when it was temporarily introduced into Britain. But the riots in London were as nothing when compared with the rebellion that broke out in Palestine when the Roman governors began it there. Every man and women had to pay one denarius (that is the equivalent of one day’s pay) each year on top of all the other taxes.

One of the racist stereotypes that persists through the ages is of the money grabbing Jew.  We can easily picture a character like Fagin from Oliver Twist, rubbing his hands together while gazing lovingly at a pile of coins. And like most racist images it breaks down when put against the facts.

The Jews of Jesus’ time were not opposed to this tax because they didn’t want to part with their money (or at least not to any greater extent than any of us want to part with money). The devout Jews of Jesus time were already paying a 10% tithe to the Temple, as many do to this day.

When we had a stewardship campaign a few years ago, the Diocesan Stewardship Officer told us that the average church goer in the Diocese of Manchester is donating about 3.5% of their income to the church. And yet we don’t keep promoting the stereotype of the money-grapping Anglican. But the simple fact is that, on average, a devout Jew is giving three times more than the devout member of the C of E.

The reason this tax was hated was because of who it was paid to – it went to the Romans, the foreign oppressor. This tax began the year Jesus was born. In fact the census that forced Mary and Joseph to travel Bethlehem was taken in order to begin this tax. In the 30 odd years it had been collected it was still despised.

In today’s gospel reading, the Pharisees and the Herodians are out to get Jesus. The previous day to this encounter, Jesus has cleansed the temple throwing out the money changers and stall holders. He was becoming a serious nuisance. They needed to either get rid of him or, at the very least, take him down a peg or two.

So they turn to the old problem of Roman tax. They much have thought they could really catch him out with this problem of the poll tax. They had a sure fire way of trapping him. So they begin by trying to lull Jesus into a false sense of security, they flatter him.      

“Teacher,” they said ” we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth,” (Have you ever heard anything so grovelling?)

Then they put to him the supposedly innocent question, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor or not”. This question was supposed to be one which would get Jesus into trouble no matter what he said.

First Jesus could have replied “Yes, it is lawful”. This would have meant he lost the support of many ordinary people.

Many people still thought the Messiah was to be a political figure, a warrior, who would drive out the Romans and that Jesus was this person. But if Jesus said they should pay their taxes, these people would desert him. This Jesus of Nazareth was clearly not a warrior King sent by God if he went round telling everyone to pay their taxes to the foreign oppressor.

He would also lose the support of any devout Jews who followed him. The roman coin, which had to be used to pay the tax, was a piece of idolatry and blasphemy. Not only did it have a picture of the roman emperor on it, but it also proclaimed that this emperor was divine. No self-respecting religious Jew would even touch such a graven image. So Jesus clearly could not say pay the tax.

But Jesus could not say do not pay the tax either. If he said this, the Herodians, who only had power because of Roman support, could have reported Jesus to the Romans on charges of treason and got rid of him that way.

It was supposed to be a no win situation.

So what does Jesus do?

First, he asks to see the coin. It is such a simple act, but it turns the conflict on its head. Those out to trap Jesus are suddenly themselves trapped by Jesus’ request that he see the coin. For what are these righteous and respectful Pharisees, the pillars of their community, doing with such a blasphemous object on their person? Suddenly the accusers (for that is what they really are) become the accused. Such an apparently innocent request, to see the coin, exposes their hypocrisy for all to see.  

Jesus seems to have had a particular hatred of the hypocrisy of religious people:

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”, Jesus says elsewhere in the gospels. I always feel a little guilty when I read of Jesus gunning for the hypocrites, for if we are honest, who has not fallen into hypocrisy? We all fail to live up to the standards of goodness and honesty that we proclaim in our worship.

But then I remember the story of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee who go to the Temple to pray. The Pharisee stands in the middle of the Temple, thanking God loudly, that he is not like other people and a sinner, listing his acts of righteousness. The tax collector stands in the corner and simply says, “God be merciful to me, a sinner”. And it is the tax collector who goes home justified.

It is the Tax collectors utterly honest act of self-recognition before God that saves him from being one of the hypocrites. The problem with the opponents of Jesus was not so much that they failed to live up to their religious ideals, we all do that, but that they never acknowledged this before God. It was their lack of humility and honesty.

After asking to see the coin Jesus says his famous reply of “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Jesus’ double-edged command throws back the question of taxes to the accusers and issues a strong challenge.

 Some people, reading this passage have proposed that Jesus was saying that the Church and the State should be kept separate. The affairs of religion and the affairs of politics are separate realms, or kingdoms, which should never meet. These are the emperor’s things over here, and these are God’s concerns, and they must be kept distinct and distant from each other. But the saying is too brief and specific to mean this.

There is a long tradition in the old testament of the prophets intervening in the political discourse of their day. If this phrase says anything to me, “Give to the Emperor the things that are the Emperor’s” it says that we should be good citizens of our societies. And being a good citizen in a liberal democracy means being informed and being involved.

In Jesus’ day there was an Emperor – a supreme ruler, a dictator. And in that society there was little choice but to pay your tax and do as you were told.

In our day we don’t have an Emperor. In a liberal democracy “giving to the Emperor” means giving our tax, but it also means giving our opinion, our intelligence, and our values. We have a Christian duty to stand up for God’s values in our society and we do this through the ballot box, and by making clear to our elected officials what our societies priorities and values should be.

If our bank statement says something about our values, then our government’s bank statement also reveals our society’s values. On the income side, what does it say about our society that poor and average earners pay a much greater percentage of income in tax than the wealthy. Yes, we told the rich pay more because income tax levels go up, but when you factor in things like, V.A.T., national Insurance, petrol duty, road tax etc etc, the rich pay proportionately less in tax. What is that saying?

On the other side of the balance sheet - where we spend our money as a society - what does it say about our society that our government is still pressing ahead with the roll out of Universal Credit when virtual every agency and expert is saying that it has already, and will, cause thousands of people to fall into debt and increase even more the number of homeless people our streets.

“Give to the Emperor the things that are the Emperors”, Jesus said, What are those “things”? Sometimes those things are our duty to give our society and government our loyalty. But sometimes it is our Christian duty to make clear our contempt and disgust at what is happening.

The second half of Jesus saying is, of course, “and to God the things that are God’s.”

This part of the saying was a challenge to Jerusalem, the Temple, the rulers and all the hypocritical underlings: give God back, what belongs to him. Jesus’ consistent accusation is that the religious leaders have failed to worship their true and living God. They have failed to live as God’s people as a witness to the world.

Only the day before, Jesus has caused a small riot in the Temple because the very place where Israel was supposed to come and give God the things of God, in worship, prayer and sacrifice, has become a den of robbers. So concerned with the small details of religion, status and power, the letter of the law, they have ceased to live out the spirit of their faith and give God the worship he deserves.

And this is a trap that not only the leaders of first century Judaism fall into. We all fall into it.

It happens easily when we turn inwards and stop looking outwards.

It happens all too easily when we start to think we have all the answers.

It happens most easily of all, when we forget our dependence on God, and think we don’t need God anymore.

Today’s gospel reading is not about Jesus delivering a theory on the division of Church from State or Politics and Christianity. The bible elsewhere, teaches us clearly that our faith clearly has political consequences. Neither is it about Jesus showing off how clever and intelligent he is in avoiding the trap of the Pharisees. Although, no doubt, this was one of the reasons why this particular story was remembered amongst the early Christians.

Today’s gospel is about exposing the religious hypocrisy which comes when we abandon being honest with ourselves and humble before our God and our neighbour.  And it is about the ordering of our priorities and the promotion of God’s values - in our own personal lives and decisions, and also in our society and government. Amen.

[ourkenflood]

Right now, in the UK its Stratunday.

Guess what day it is…

[ourkenflood]

What are your #FridayNight music plans? #FenderParamountSeries

[ourkenflood]

Happy #Straturday! What’s the first thing you would play if you picked this #AmericanPro Strat up?

[ourkenflood]

Letter to General Synod in response to the House of Bishop’s Report on Sexuality and Marriage

Dear   ,

I am writing to you as a member of the General Synod from the Diocese of Manchester. In particular, I urge you to reject the recent report by the House of Bishop’s, Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations (GS 2055) at the take-note debate on Wednesday 15th February 2017.

In his statement on the report the Bishop of Norwich acknowledges that the report “invites members of General Synod and the wider Church, to contribute.  So this isn't the end of a process but we are somewhere in the middle of it.  We are sharing where we have reached in order to be as transparent as possible, and open to other voices”. I encourage to accept that invitation by sending a clear message of rejection to the direction the report takes.

Personally speaking, I am appalled at any document that proposes that the Church continue to be institutionally prejudiced and homophobic. The gospel of freedom and love which our Lord Jesus taught and died for speaks clearly to me of an imperative to include all people which far outweighs concerns which arise from a small handful of texts. I am astounded the House of Bishops seem to think that you can create “a new tone and culture of welcome” without changing the practice of the Church in any substantial way: in the hermeneutical contest between what is done, what is said, and how it is said, actions will always speak louder than words.

However, even if you do not share my progressive perspective I believe there are good reasons for rejecting the report. The Church of England is clearly now a “mixed economy” Church. From the issue of the remarriage of divorced people in Church, to the ordination of women, the Church of England has developed models that allow a differing of belief and practice to be maintained with integrity over second order issues. The report by the House of Bishop pays lip service to the variety of beliefs on human sexuality and marriage that exist in the Church, and then fails utterly to treat the different viewpoints with anything like an equal respect. It can be argued that one of the gifts the Church of England brings to the wider world is the model of being able to live together as one family while maintaining maximum personal integrity over great disagreements. It is hard to find a reason why that methodology cannot be applied to the issues of sexuality and marriage other than naked homophobia and fear. But we are supposed to be the people who believe “perfect love drives out fear.”

In November 2012 the General Synod rejected the proposals over the admission of women into the episcopate, and caused much distress. But we know with hindsight that the delay forced by synod allowed alternative proposals to come forward which lead to greater acceptance. In refusing to take note of the House of Bishop’s report GS 2055 the General Synod is giving a strong steer that a new direction needs to be taken, one that takes seriously the reality of the Church and seeks to allow all its members to practice their faith with integrity.  

Yours in Christ,

The Revd Ken Flood

Rector of the Parish of St Clement, Chorlton-cum-Hardy

[ourkenflood]

This contrast between the dark and bright is so alluring. 🙏🏼 @zeadsdead ///////

instagram.com/zeadsdead

mineraliety.com

[ourkenflood]

Todd Parr’s children’s books explain bodies and self-esteem and non-traditional families in the simplest of terms, using bright bold line drawings to illustrate his ideas. Check out his books.

[ourkenflood]

“Drive-through tree” felled by storm

In the 1880s, someone carved out a tunnel in the middle of a giant sequoia tree in the area that would later be added to part of Calaveras Big Trees state park. Apparently the date it was carved out isn’t well known, but graffiti inside the tree dates back to that era. This tree became a popular site visited by tourists, first for driving through and then in recent years for hiking through after the trail was closed to vehicles. This tree, known as the Pioneer Cabin Tree, stood for a century and a third with this gaping hole in it, but unfortunately the combination of time and the storm mentioned here yesterday was too much for it.

Keep reading

[ourkenflood]

[ourkenflood]

[ourkenflood]

I would rather spend one lifetime with you than face all the Ages of this world alone.

J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (via wordsnquotes)

[ourkenflood]

[ourkenflood]

[ourkenflood]

From the Rectory - Jan 2017

As I reflected upon in last month’s magazine, 2016 was quite a year. After some years of relative political stability we are now entering uncharted waters: we simply do not know what will emerge from the BREXIT negotiations, and the signs are from the Trump presidency do not fill me with hope. I find myself wondering what next?

How are we to respond as Christians to this situation? I want to share a few thoughts.

First, we begin the year with the Feast of the Epiphany. We recall the Wise Men travelling from afar to pay homage to the Christ-child. In a world where some people are trying to exploit and promote divisions between different groups, Epiphany is a timely reminder of the universality of Christ’s mission. He came as the Saviour of all people, regardless of who they are or where they come from. As disciples of Jesus we should give no support to those who would demonize or scape-goat certain groups of people and actively oppose those who would promote hatred on ethnic or cultural grounds.  

Second, the Wise Men travelled and brought gifts; they were outward looking and generous. In times of uncertainty and stress there is always a temptation to turns inwards. People close down and want to stick to “their own.” I feel the last thing our country needs is for people to get even more insular. It was very apparent in the period following the referendum that we are a divided country with different groups leaving parallel and seemingly unconnected lives. We desperately need people to be generous, to reach across divides and seek to truly listen to one another.

A lot of politics in our country seems to be one group shouting at another. The way we receive political discourse heightens this: a good argument is more dramatic and better television than people being polite and respectful to one another. Also, while newspapers may have a degree of independence from government it is clear that they are swayed massively by the political posturing of their owners and editors.  This is so unhelpful and ultimately divisive. I increasingly find myself wondering how can St Clement’s be a place, for the wider community as well as for ourselves, where honest and generous conversation can take place. If we are serious about being an inclusive church it must mean we make space for people who disagree to meet together with mutual respect and love.

Holding these two points together is not easy. To clearly oppose prejudice while providing a space for people to truly speak their minds is difficult. It is the road less travelled. The much easier and common path is to continue along the road of labelling and then ignoring people. We know how that works, for example, I don’t have to think about your concern about immigration because it must be racist; I don’t have to acknowledge your question about the modern family and the raising of children because it is sexist or misogynist. But that approach has failed. It has brought about a bitter and divided nation. It has not address people’s fears, merely driven then underground. There has to be a better way: “perfect love drives out fear.”

#Epiphany politics

[ourkenflood]

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNSnVChys_Y)