Archives For author

Sermon for Morning Prayer on 4th November 2025 at All Saints Church, Penarth

Romans 12:1-16; Luke 14:15-24 

I want to talk about being ‘conformed to this world’.

What are the principles that you have to abide by if you are a Christian? Obviously you could trot out the two greatest commandments, to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself, but you need to go a little bit wider than that.

I think most of us would think about the Sermon on the Mount. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Go the extra mile. Not an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth any more. 

If you look at our lesson from Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, there are quite a number of bits of it which reflect the teaching of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount. Never pay back evil for evil. Bless those who persecute you. Bless and do not curse them. And you’ve got this interesting phrase at the beginning of the lesson, ‘Do not be conformed to this world.’

‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.’ [Romans 12:2].

We can see Jesus in his teaching, in our other lesson from St Luke, talking about people going by earthly standards, barging their way on to the high table at posh dinners and generally going for status symbols when in fact they were not entitled to them.

I’ve always wrestled with what the true meaning of these passages is, in that it’s all very well to talk about going by heavenly standards rather than earthly fashions; but how do we know what the heavenly standards are? I think if we look at the passages carefully, we may be able to get some reliable pointers. 

Saint Paul emphasises that we do not need to be people who have all the virtues at the same time. It’s perfectly okay to concentrate on the things that we are particularly good at and not worry if there are other things where we have no special ability. The kingdom of God is a team effort and some people play in the pack and others on the wing. 

Then again, you do not have to be particularly qualified or of a certain status or come from anywhere particular in order to qualify for entry to the heavenly banquet. Indeed, if you are too preoccupied with practicalities, this may be a disqualifying factor. I have just bought five yoke of oxen, says one chap. What is the equivalent today? Presumably he has just taken delivery of his new Lamborghini, and wants to try it out. But that shouldn’t stop him from coming to church and helping at the food bank.

Both Jesus and Saint Paul emphasise the need not to be snobbish about the company that we keep. 

‘Do not be haughty, but go about with humble folk.’ 

‘Go quickly into the streets… And bring me in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame’. 

Perhaps we should think again about this teaching in the context of what some politicians today are arguing, to restrict the benefits which we enjoy to a certain sector of society: to ‘people like us’. 

The argument is that people who are ‘not like us’, whatever that means, have not contributed to the cost of these benefits and therefore shouldn’t enjoy them. It doesn’t look as though Jesus or Saint Paul thought that sort of thing matters. You should look after anyone, anyone in need.

Let us pray that we can always see neighbours in need, and help them to come in to the Lord’s Supper, the heavenly banquet: to be fed, to be fed not just with the love of God in Christ Jesus – certainly that – but also with the best and tastiest food on earth.

Amen.

Sermon for Morning Prayer at Holy Nativity, Cogan, Penarth, preached on Bible Sunday, 26th October 2025

Isaiah 45.22-25, Luke 4.16-24, (see https://tinyurl.com/2nhd5rdf)

On Friday morning, when I started to write this sermon, everywhere I turned, whether on the wireless or in the pages of the newspaper or on social media, the airwaves were full of statistics: who was up, who was down, who had a future, and who was completely washed up.

It put me in mind of all the gloomy statistics that people have come up with in recent years concerning the church. How, particularly after Covid, attendances have been declining, and people have been beginning to speculate whether there would be any churches, or at least, churches with any congregations, in 50 years’ time.

But in amongst all this challenging and pessimistic statistical stuff, I experienced some much better numbers, which cheered me up a lot. That was when I went to Llandaff Cathedral on the Wednesday before last, for a presentation by the Bible Society called ‘Wales and the Word’, where, in preparation for today, which is Bible Sunday, they were introducing their work and their Bible Course – which some of the faith groups at All Saints are already following – and among all the various items, they reported that they had commissioned research by the pollsters YouGov, first in 2018 and then again in 2024, to ask a large sample of people in England and Wales about their perception of faith, the church and the Bible. The shift in attitudes noticed in the survey was remarkable.

The 2018 research reflected that ‘[t]he church is getting older and young people don’t go. But [the] Bible Society’s survey in 2024 revealed a turnaround. 16% of young adults are now saying that they go to church at least once a month. That was 4% in 2018. And if you poll just young men it’s gone up to 21%. 45% of people in England and Wales now believe there is probably or definitely a God or a higher power. 37% say they pray at least monthly. One in three people would like to go to church if only they were invited. And one in four are interested in learning more about the Bible.’ (Quoted from the Bible Society website on 25th October 2025, https://tinyurl.com/3rk2xczm).

The Bible Society has called their research ‘The Quiet Revival’. It would be interesting to see to what extent those numbers are reflected here in Cogan. It’s certainly true that, for example as I saw when I led a funeral here at Holy Nativity, this church is very much valued as being the parish church for Cogan and for that service the people of Cogan did come, in all their varieties and in numbers.

I suspect that quite a number of them do come at Christmas and Easter as well, and generally feel comfortable that their parish church is ticking over in the meantime. The Church is showing visible signs of life outside, with its beautiful new railings, and, looking inside, I think we must all be excited about the prospect of having a new vicar, (which is not to say anything negative about Father Mark’s work and the affection with which he was regarded here and in the other churches in the Ministry Area).

Will there be a quiet, or indeed quite possibly a noisy, revival here in Cogan, and the rest of Penarth? It’s interesting to look at what we are reading in our lessons today in that connection. Isaiah is prophesying the ultimate triumph of God, the true God as against false gods, human creations: the God to whom every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear.

And then we have this fascinating story about Jesus, in St Luke’s Gospel, going to the synagogue and reading the lesson, (another bit of Isaiah), and then preaching on it. And although this lesson is supposed to be all about the punchline, about a prophet being without honour in his own town, it is interesting to see what he was reading and preaching about.

Good news to the poor; release to the captives; recovery of sight to the blind; freedom to the oppressed, and a proclamation of a ‘year of the Lord’s favour’, which is a reference to the idea of Jubilee, a year when debts are forgiven and people are allowed to start all over again without the burden of debt. In other words, all the key features of social mission. They are almost things that could go into one or other of today’s political parties’ manifestos.

Just think, if any of those standing for the Senedd in Caerphilly had offered good news to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind and freedom for the oppressed, and then ultimately to cancel all debts; I hesitate to identify which of the candidates or which of the parties could come closest to that. Not but what those are all great things to put forward if you are going to build a caring society.

‘Good news to the poor’ presumably includes the news that they will no longer be poor. Is ‘growth’ the answer? Or do we have enough – but need to distribute it more fairly?

‘Release to the captives’ – why is it that we lock up more people than anyone else in Europe? Does it do them any good and does it protect society? Probably not. What about all the people who are locked up in prison really because of mental illness rather than anything really blameworthy, what we used to say was mad, not bad?

‘Recovery of sight to the blind’ must be a supreme piece of medical achievement, but it must also stand for all the other good works that the health service can now do. For example, if you have been following the TV programme ‘Saving Lives in Cardiff’, I commend to you the episode about the Ear, Nose and Throat team led by the surgeon Stuart Quine [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0jq4m9j].

They are not necessarily bringing sight to the blind, but are able to use an amazing robot which you will see on the TV programme, of which Cardiff has the first example in the UK, which enables the surgeons to remove cancers located in places which previously could not be reached without damage to the patients’ brains or their eyes. So ‘recovery of sight to the blind’ stands for all healing and wholeness.

‘Letting the oppressed go free’. It’s still true in 2025 that there are what are called modern slaves, modern slavery situations. The church was at one stage promoting an app on your phone which was called the Safe Car Wash app, where you could assess the hand car wash which you were using to see whether there was any evidence that the people working there were in fact the victims of modern slavery, and, if you found any, it gave you ways to summon help for them. I’m not sure whether it is still going but we can have a look on my phone after the service. [https://clewer.org.uk/campaigns/safe-car-wash] Modern slavery is unfortunately still with us and any social mission should surely include its eradication as a key objective.

And finally the ‘Year of the Lord’s favour’, the idea of debt release, Jubilee. To some extent, that has been done in the past, most recently under Gordon Brown’s government, but surely the time is coming when, as between nations and perhaps even within nations, there should be a release from debts, so that people can start their lives again.

That certainly applies to the countries, in Africa predominantly, who have become indebted to the International Monetary Fund, which has required them to cut public benefits and public investment, simply in order to pay back the loans made to them, so the bit in Isaiah which Jesus was reading still speaks to us today. Poor countries, and poor people, need a Jubilee.

But then Jesus goes on to say that ‘this scripture has been fulfilled’; not surprisingly, the rest of the people in the synagogue were sceptical, because it looked as though the problems which he had listed still existed, (and indeed they still exist today). But what Jesus was driving at was that this was all to do with the coming of the Messiah, the chosen one of God, who was going to do the work of healing and social reconstruction – and he was it. Well, that was the bit they couldn’t take. If you read on, you’ll see that they were going to chuck Jesus off a cliff and stone him to death – but he managed to escape.

So what? What’s the message for today? If there really is a quiet revival going on, what will the quiet revivalists do? Will we be like the people in the synagogue who couldn’t take Jesus’s message, or will we pick it up and follow him? That’s the challenge. I wonder who you think is going to win that one. Let’s pray that it is us, the people of Jesus in the church, and that the Bible is there to guide us.

Amen.

John 16:1-11

It must’ve been impossibly confusing to have been one of Jesus’s disciples. He said, ‘Now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asked me, where are you going? But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts.’ Keep up, disciples! You’re sad that Jesus is going, but it hasn’t occurred to you to ask where he is going; and indeed, whether in fact it’s a better place. Oh, well.

Then, even more confusingly, He’s got to go because otherwise, he says, he couldn’t send somebody called ‘the Advocate’ to them. Even after a lot of thought and reading, I’m not sure that I’m any better off than the disciples were, in fully understanding the implications of these sentences. Who is or was the Advocate? Where was Jesus going? And what does it mean that Jesus was going to send the Advocate?

Today I want to concentrate not so much on where Jesus was going, because I think, with the benefit of hindsight, we are rather better off than the disciples at that point, although perhaps if you are tempted to say, ‘Oh yes, he was going to heaven’, one ought to pause and ask whether heaven is a definite place in space and time, because no one’s ever found it, and it looks as though in some ways they never will, because it’s not that kind of place. It’s not defined in time or space. Well, that’s for another day.

But what about the Advocate? It’s a funny word, and if you read the King James Bible you’ll see that he is described as ‘the Comforter’. If you remember that really ancient hymn or canticle called the Te Deum, at Mattins, canticle at Mattins, theTe Deum Laudamus, ‘We praise thee, O God,’ there is a line in there, ‘Also the Holy Ghost; the Comforter.’ This is the bit:

The holy Church throughout all the world doth acknowledge Thee;

The Father of an infinite Majesty;

Thine honourable, true, and only Son;

Also the Holy Ghost: the Comforter.

The holy Trinity, God in three persons. Father, son and Holy Ghost: the Holy Ghost: the Comforter.

And if you read on further in John chapter 16, beyond our lesson today, you will see that Jesus goes on to say, ‘There is still much that I could say to you, but the burden would be too great for you now. However, when he comes who is the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:12–13, NEB),’ and the ‘Spirit of truth’ is clearly a reference to the Advocate or the Comforter.

The word in Greek which is translated as the Advocate or the Comforter is our Bibles, is Paraclete (παρακλητος). Sometimes people do talk about the ‘Holy Paraclete’ but that strikes me as being a bit of an ‘in’ word, in that only people in church, and only some people in church, know what it means. It’s a bit like the special language of railways. You don’t get off a train; you alight from it. To ‘alight’ is a railway word, an ‘in’ word for railwaymen. Similarly only nerdy vicars talk about paracletes.

The Greek word for the advocate, the comforter, has all sorts of connotations, probably starting with a courtroom meaning. It’s not quite an advocate in the sense of being a barrister or a KC, who speaks for you; it’s more a question of standing alongside you and supporting you, perhaps prompting you or passing you notes to help you in your case.

It definitely also has a context, outside the courtroom, of encouragement, of comfort, so the King James’s translation, the Comforter, is certainly a possible one. When you start thinking about ‘comfortable’ things in church perhaps you will remember the ‘Comfortable Words’ in the communion service; and interestingly, there is a quote in them, from not John’s Gospel but from St John’s first letter: ‘If any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous.’ [1 John 2:1 – my emphasis]. That’s interesting. There, the advocate, the comforter, is Jesus, but here clearly the Comforter is standing in for him.

I hope it’s not a heretical thought, but it has occurred to me that if you were, say, piecing together the gospel story from fragments, so bits were missing, but you had to work back from an ending with the church believing that God is a God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, (or Holy Spirit if you’re not keen on ghosts), you’d almost have to infer or make up the coming of the Holy Spirit.

If God created the world, and by sending his son Jesus demonstrated a continuing and personal concern and care for the world, there is no reason why, Jesus having ended his time among us as a man, God’s omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence should suddenly dry up; so it’s natural to expect that the divine presence would continue in some way. And Jesus seems to be saying exactly that, that God’s care for the world, his ‘comfort’ for it, will still be there, even when Jesus has gone.

Jesus says that he, Jesus, will send the comforter; so those of you who are connoisseurs of theology will realise that this might be one of the passages which people look at in connection with the anniversary of the Nicene Creed, where some people, influenced by the early theologian Arius (and it’s permitted by canon law in the Church of England, at least), can simply say, ‘…proceeds from the father’; whereas most of us include the words ‘and the Son… Who proceeds from the Father and the Son’. This passage in John 16 suggests that it is right to add ‘… and from the Son…’. It’s called the ‘filioque’ clause – which is just Latin for the same thing.

So the Advocate, the Comforter, is the divine Spirit of truth – but also the spirit of love as well, and hope; I’m thinking of Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, where Paul writes: ‘… hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.’ [Romans 5:5]

We look forward to the events of Whitsuntide or Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit came in a spectacular way, making everyone able to speak in a multitude of languages and setting their hair on fire without burning it up, with a sound like a rushing wind. Like so much in the Bible, we could never prove that it was literally like that, but clearly something happened, and it was sufficiently well known to end up in Saint Luke’s account in the Acts of the Apostles. [Acts 2]

So what’s the relevance of this today? I’ve just been to a conference held by Modern Church, which despite its name is one of the oldest theological societies in Anglicanism. It was founded as the Modern Churchmen’s Union in 1898.This year’s conference was called ‘Enacting Hope in a Ruined World’.

Hope in a Ruined World: and the line from Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans which I’ve just quoted, about the Holy Spirit pouring love into our hearts, so that ‘…hope does not disappoint us,’ was the theme of the conference: how we could bring a Christian hope to bear in our communities and in our national life in the face of the rise of populism, nationalism, fascism, war and starvation.

In the face of all that we do need an Advocate, a Comforter, a spirit of truth. We need to know what is true and to remember that the spirit of truth is also the spirit of love.

Hugh Bryant

(Sermon for Evensong on the 18th Sunday after Trinity, 19th October 2025, at All Saints Church, Penarth)

Sermon for Mattins and Morning Prayer (Principal Service) at All Saints Church, Penarth, 5th October 2025

Habakkuk 1.1-4; 2.1-4

Psalm 37.1-9

2 Timothy 1.1-14

Luke 17.5-10

It’s a pity that we don’t have lantern slides at 8 o’clock, because I could show you the picture on the slide which is going to be shown at 10 o’clock when I start to preach the sermon then. It’s a sort of shovel, or it could be a large spoon, with round things in it, quite small.

I wondered whether they were my favourite special-treat breakfast cereal, Grape-Nuts – I should explain that I didn’t choose the pictures, as Susannah is leading the service at 10 as well as this one – but I suspect that at 8 o’clock we need to stay away from pictures and screens and things like that, and just keep our worship simple and our pictures in our heads, where, of course, those of you who listen to the wireless know that the best pictures are.

What is in the big spoon? I asked Susannah and she told me that they were mustard seeds, picking up a reference to the Gospel reading, the New Testament lesson today. I have to say that it rather threw me, because I thought mustard and cress was something which you grew on a face flannel on the bathroom windowsill, but apparently this is what mustard seeds really look like.

The lessons are all about how we confront a world which is going wrong, which is going against us. The Old Testament lesson, from the prophet Habakkuk, comes from a time around 600 BC when the Assyrians had overrun the northern kingdom of Israel, and all that was left of God’s chosen people were the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, together with the survivors from the massacre when the Assyrians invaded the northern kingdom, who had fled to Jerusalem to take refuge there.

Habakkuk was preaching when the Babylonians were beginning to sweep down on Palestine; they are the Chaldeans, if you read a bit more beyond one of the bits that we have for our lesson, which is in two bits, the first four verses of chapters one and two respectively. If you read on in chapter 1, beyond where it says

Devastation and violence confront me;

strife breaks out, discord raises its head,

……

for the wicked outwit the righteous,

and so justice comes out perverted.

Habbakuk goes on in his prophecy by saying

Look, you treacherous people, look:

here is what will astonish you and stun you,

for there is work afoot in your days

which you will not believe when it is told you.

It is this: I am raising up the Chaldaeans,

that savage and impetuous nation,

who cross the wide tracts of the earth

to take possession of homes not theirs.

Terror and awe go with them;

their justice and judgement are of their own making.

Their horses are swifter than hunting-leopards

And he goes on to say how terrifying they are in all sorts of other ways. Obviously they fulfilled the American strategic objective for a successful army in the invasion of Iraq, ‘shock and awe’.

But this terrible army had its limitations.

Their whole army advances, violence in their hearts;

a sea of faces rolls on;

they bring in captives countless as the sand.

Kings they hold in derision,

rulers they despise;

they despise every fortress,

they raise siege-works and capture it.

A terrifying picture. Who could stand against them? But then –

Then they pass on like the wind and are gone;

and dismayed are all those whose strength was their god.

People who believe that ‘might is right’ turn out to be completely mistaken; and the key words in Habakuk’s prophecy come in the second chapter, in our second part of the lesson, [2:4]

Look at the proud!
 Their spirit is not right in them,
 but the righteous live by their faith.

It’s an idea that St Paul picked up on in two of his letters. In his great letter to the Romans, [1:17], he said that in the gospel of Jesus

is revealed God’s way of righting wrong, a way that starts from faith and ends in faith; he says, as Scripture says, ‘he shall gain life who is justified through faith’.

In the letter to the Galatians [3:11], where St Paul is drawing a distinction between following the provisions of the Jewish law, just carrying out the 10 Commandments, and having faith, saying that the way to salvation is through faith, he says that

It is evident that no one is ever justified before God in terms of law; because we read, ‘he shall gain life who is justified through faith’.

I’m not sure why the compilers of the Lectionary decided that we should have a lesson from the second letter to Timothy rather than one of these passages from Romans or Galatians, (which clearly reference the passage in Habbakuk), but certainly in the passage from the second letter to Timothy, St Paul celebrates that the fact that Timothy and his mother and his granny, Eunice and Lois respectively, all had strong faith.

But you might be a little bit puzzled about exactly what this faith is. It’s pretty clear that it’s not what we would call blind faith, just believing that something is true without any evidence for it. If that was true, you might never take another paracetamol ever again; or even worse, you might try to cure Covid by drinking some bleach. But we are not talking about President Trump’s belief system; this is a word which has more of a connotation of trust about it. It’s not so much about believing that something is the case, but rather, trusting in God to produce a good outcome, to right the wrongs. It’s very close to hope. Hope in the Lord. Trust in the Lord. As Isaiah puts it [14:31]:

but those who look to the Lord will win new strength,

they will grow wings like eagles;

they will run and not be weary,

they will march on and never grow faint.

They will soar, on wings like eagles: they will ‘mount up with wings like eagles’.

Just now our world looks a bit like what it must have looked like to Habakkuk; there is a lot going wrong. There are terrible wars, invasions; the rule of law looks to be under threat in places: –

devastation and violence confront me;

strife breaks out, discord raises its head,

…..

for the wicked outwit the righteous,

and so justice comes out perverted.

We can think of plenty of places and cases today, where those words would be very apt. We are going to have a vigil later on today here to pray for the people of Palestine; equally our prayers should go for the other places in the world where there is no peace and where the rule of law does not securely run: Ukraine and the south of Sudan chief among them, as well as Gaza and the West Bank; and all those places where people are held hostage or are fleeing violence and persecution and are becoming refugees.

We need to trust in the Lord, to pray with confidence and realise the power of prayer, even if our faith is only the size of one of Susannah’s mustard seeds, or a spoonful of Grape-Nuts. It doesn’t matter. You can rely on God to put things right in the end. Let us pray that he will use us in his service to that good end.

Amen.

Hugh Bryant

From the PowerPoint slides at the 10 o’clock service. What are those little beads?

Sermon for Morning Prayer on the Feast of Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist, 21st September 2025, at St Dochdwy’s Church, Llandough, and St Augustine’s Church, Penarth

2 Corinthians 4.1-6

1 Therefore, since it is by God’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practise cunning or to falsify God’s word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 9.9-13

9 As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him.

10 And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax-collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners?’ 12 But when he heard this, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’

Last Saturday I was in London at Southwark Cathedral. Actually it wasn’t just because I wanted to make friends with their relatively new but already fairly famous cathedral cat, Hodge – named after Samuel Johnson’s cat. Hodge arrived after their definitely famous Doorkins Magnificat died in September 2020. Doorkins got a beautiful funeral at the Cathedral, which you can still see on YouTube [https://youtu.be/sdCtdqmdgtI?si=o6h6htHMFt6xoTn5], led by the previous Dean, Andrew Nunn. 

Incidentally I am on another catty mission, which perhaps some of you could help me with, maybe even come with me, to our own cathedral in Llandaff, where I would like to meet the new cathedral cat there, called Frank. Frank is a black cat and so is Hodge. Anyway, I was delighted to meet Hodge during the day I was in the Cathedral. 

But really, the reason why I was there – with your support, because very generously our Ministry Area paid the registration fee – was to attend the ‘Festival of Preaching’ which was held that day, organised by the Church Times, with the help of the current Dean of Southwark, Mark Oakley, and the vicar of St Martin in the Fields, Sam Wells, both of whom I’m sure you will have come across on ‘Thought for the Day’ on Radio 4 if nowhere else. 

The theme of the day was ‘preaching truth to power’. The keynote speaker, who also led Holy Communion and preached, was the Bishop of Washington DC, Mariann Edgar Budde. 

You will remember, I am sure, that she is the bishop whom President Trump criticised for being ‘nasty’ when she used her sermon at the National Cathedral, in a service for the presidential inauguration, to implore Donald Trump to “have mercy upon” immigrants and LGBTQ+ individuals. 

I’ll read you what was in the Guardian, 22 Jan 2025, under the splendid headline,‘Trump criticises ‘nasty’ bishop ….’. The Guardian’s Anna Betts wrote:

‘[S]he made headlines for urging Trump during her sermon to show mercy to “gay, lesbian and transgender children” from all political backgrounds, some of whom, she said, “fear for their lives”.

‘She also used her sermon to ask that Trump grant mercy to families fearing deportation and to help those fleeing war and persecution.

‘She emphasised the contributions of immigrants, telling the president: “The vast majority of immigrants are not criminals,” adding that they were “good neighbours” and “faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara and temples”.

“Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were once strangers in this land,” she said. [Exodus 22:21, et al.]

This is not the first time that [Bishop Mariann] has called out and clashed with Trump.

During Trump’s first term, [Bishop Mariann] published an opinion piece in the New York Times. In the June 2020 article, she expressed outrage over Trump’s appearance in front of St John’s Episcopal church in Washington DC, when he held up a Bible for a photo after federal officers used force to clear a crowd of peaceful protesters demonstrating against the death of George Floyd.

[Bishop Mariann] wrote that Trump had “used sacred symbols to cloak himself in the mantle of spiritual authority, while espousing positions antithetical to the Bible that he held in his hands”.’

Nasty bishop indeed! I remember watching on TV as Bishop Mariann preached at the inauguration service and being very stirred by how she had indeed spoken truth to power. It’s a challenge that has faced Christians ever since the earliest days when Jesus was with his disciples. Today we celebrate his calling one of them, Matthew, but the story comes with an important challenge to Jesus, about the people he associated with.

‘Sitting down at meat with publicans and sinners’, if you’re old enough to remember how the old Bible used to put it. Because I was brought up a Methodist, I assumed that this was theological authority for taking the pledge, that anything to do with pubs and their landlords – publicans – was reprehensible, and Jesus was being challenged for associating with pub landlords, I thought. Disappointingly, our modern translation says they’re not pub landlords but tax gatherers; still bad guys but possibly less reprehensible. After all, you might be able to avoid going to the pub, but not the taxman. Death and taxes, you know.

Jesus emphasised the need to engage with these unsavoury citizens and not just people who were on his side. He was there for people who had not seen the light. That’s what Paul is on about as well. In a hostile environment ‘we do not lose heart’, he says. ‘…by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God. … even if … the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ’. 

Nasty people doing nasty things and wrongly accusing good Christians of being nasty. How do we manage this conflict? How do we speak truth in the face of powerful opposition?

Coincidentally, while I was in Southwark Cathedral, not far away a huge demonstration was going on, led by the man who calls himself Tommy Robinson, addressed by Elon Musk by video link on giant screens telling people to be ready to fight; wrapping themselves in Union Jacks and blaming anybody who did not look like them – they were all white – for anything that wasn’t going well in their lives, and shouting that the country was going to rack and ruin. 

They didn’t want immigrants, they didn’t want black people, and it would seem they weren’t very keen on the law, because unfortunately there was considerable violence against the police. I came across numbers of them at London Bridge station on my way home. They were scary. They were nasty too. I could see black people on the platform looking nervous. Fortunately there were policemen around and no trouble actually ensued, but the whole atmosphere was menacing. Theirs was another kind of power. How would you speak to people like this, to them, to the power of the mob? 

Really it was a world away from the civilised discourse at the front of the nave of Southwark Cathedral which I had just come from. Hanging from the ceiling of the Cathedral was a huge installation of paper doves, each one inscribed with a prayer for peace. The only noise, when it came, was the music of the hymns that we sang and the anthems sung by the choir. 

Elon Musk’s participation in the fascist demonstration, by video link, demonstrated how that malign power of the extreme Right had crossed the Atlantic. It was somehow fitting that we had another American to show us how she had, with God’s help, stood up against it. No prizes for knowing which was the nasty American last Saturday.

I have no easy solutions to lay in front of you, but one message which came loud and clear was that it is very important that we should not just shut ourselves in our churches with our heads in our bibles, however faithfully, and not realise the need to engage, the need to preach truth to power.

There is such a lot going on in the world today which would not have gladdened the heart of Jesus. Our voices in the churches, speaking truth to power, need to be heard. We are specially praying today for the situation in the Middle East, for the release of hostages, for the cessation of violence, for the provision of enough food and water and the reconstruction of houses. 

There is going to be a vigil of witness led by ++Cherry at the Senedd on Wednesday at 12.30. If anyone else would like to go, I will be going along with Jimmy and Susannah, and would be very happy to give lifts if anyone needs one. We are planning a vigil for peace in this Ministry Area also, on 5th October in the evening, at  All Saints.

Jesus first, then his disciples, and then his ‘meta-disciple’, Saint Paul, his second-order disciple, the great theologian, all knew the importance of preaching truth to power. Let us pray that we are given the Lord’s help and encouragement in continuing that important work.  Amen.

Hugh Bryant

Sermon for Evensong at All Saints Church, Penarth, on the 5th Sunday of Easter, 18th May 2025

https://bible.oremus.org/?ql=614076925

I am a cat person, although I am going through a period of deprivation, because of the lack of a cat in the Bryant household.

So when I saw that our first lesson today was ‘Daniel in the lions’ den’ I was thrilled, as you can imagine. I wanted to tell you about the king of cats, lions; about lions who had not eaten people – Daniel, for one – even though they were given a good opportunity to do so.

I thought I would spend a minute or two reminding you of the wonderful story of Christian the Lion [https://youtu.be/EZ-da0AZcRU?si=36ryLiiLebWvA_wy] I’m not quite sure how he got his name and I doubt whether there is any theological significance to it, so far as I know, but there is a wonderful film about him, which you can see on YouTube today.

It’s a film about two trendy chaps in the 60s, living – where else? – on the King’s Road in Chelsea, who went to Harrod’s, who in those days had a pet department, if you can believe this, where you could actually buy pets, obviously pets of the calibre you would expect from such a leading store; so you could buy a lion cub. These chaps indeed bought a lion cub, whom they christened Christian. They took him home to their flat and started to bring him up.

He was a very friendly lion cub who certainly hadn’t acquired a taste for eating people. And this isn’t a story that ends like the Hilaire Belloc ‘cautionary tale’ of ‘Jim, who ran away from his Nurse and was eaten by a Lion’. You will remember that

There was a boy whose name was Jim

His friends were very good to him

They gave him tea and cakes and jam

And slices of delicious ham ….

Anyway, he ran away from his nurse when visiting the zoo and

‘Bang!

With open Jaws, a Lion sprang,

And hungrily began to eat

The Boy: beginning at his feet.

Well I’m sure that you will know that gruesomely wonderful poem very well anyway, but this is not one of those tales. This is like the story of Christian the Lion. It is the story of a lion, or lions, who didn’t eat people. In particular they didn’t eat Daniel.

Indeed the book of Daniel is full of amazing stories and visions: before the story of the lions’ den there is the account of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, the three young men thrown into the furnace for refusing to worship the Babylonian king in preference to the one true God, whom God saved so that they emerged from the furnace unscathed.

Later on there are amazing visions which Daniel had, described as apocalypses, revelations: they are a bit like the book of Revelation, visions of the end time, how God will put things right.

Our second lesson is the end of St Mark’s Gospel, what is called the ‘shorter ending of St Mark’s Gospel’, which doesn’t go on to talk in detail about Jesus after he had risen from the dead. It simply ends with the empty tomb. How does this relate to the story of Daniel?

Who rolled away the stone? I think that’s the link, because Daniel was thrown into the pit of lions and the entrance was sealed with a big stone to prevent any escapes, just as Jesus’s tomb was sealed, also with a huge stone.

You will remember that at the end of St Matthew’s account of Jesus’s crucifixion [27:62-66], the chief priests and the Pharisees went to see Pontius Pilate and asked for a guard to be put on the tomb and for it to be sealed, because they remembered that Jesus had said that he would rise again after three days; and they said to Pilate, ‘Command that the tomb be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, “He has been raised from the dead”.

So the link between the two lessons is supposed to be somebody appearing alive even though they’ve either been put where nobody could possibly survive, like Daniel and the lions, or actually securely entombed and very dead, like Jesus: but in both cases the person who has been locked in behind the rock, dead, reappears, alive.

Two different accounts of how two people came back from the dead? I am not sure that’s right; because the only one who definitely was dead was Jesus.

The whole point about Daniel was that he wasn’t dead, that the angel protected him, or the lion made friends with him, if he was a lion like Christian the Lion, so it wasn’t really a question of resurrection from the dead.

Daniel writes about himself as though he was operating at the time of King Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, about 580 BC, whereas he was actually writing 400 years later; so really, he was making things up, to produce an inspiring story to encourage the Israelites.

They had been overrun again – the first time had been in 587BC, when they were defeated by the armies of Babylon and they were taken off to Babylon as captives – Ps 137, ‘By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept’ – and in the time when Daniel was actually writing, about 165BC, Israel was under Persian occupation, as it had been invaded again, by the Persians, originally under Alexander the Great, in 330BC, and 150 years later, when Daniel was active, they were still being oppressed, at that time by King Antiochus, a descendant of Alexander.

Daniel’s book is effectively written in code; his dreams, predicting the downfall of the king, whom he names as king Nebuchadnezzar, (who was the king 400 years before), are code for statements against King Antiochus, who was his present company. It’s a political book. It’s a sort of tract, a revolutionary text.

Are there any parallels with the resurrection story in St Mark’s Gospel? The interesting thing that scholars always bring up is how abruptly it ends.

So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

That’s actually not a good translation. The Greek seems to end in the middle of a sentence. ‘For they were afraid’ doesn’t really give the full flavour of it. It’s really ‘…they were afraid, because…’ [εφοβουντο γαρ] Because what? It’s almost as though there is stuff missing. Indeed there are other manuscripts which do add bits, a couple more paragraphs.

One bit added to some manuscripts is this:

And they delivered all these instructions briefly to Peter and his companions. Afterwards Jesus himself sent out by them from east to west the sacred and imperishable message of eternal salvation.

That is described as the ‘shorter ending’ of the gospel: I think we might describe it as the medium-short ending, because many of the early texts don’t even have that bit. And some other manuscripts have an additional ten verses, which go like this:

9 When he had risen from the dead early on Sunday morning he appeared first to Mary of Magdala, from whom he had formerly cast out seven devils. 10 She went and carried the news to his mourning and sorrowful followers, 11 but when they were told that he was alive and that she had seen him they did not believe it.

12 Later he appeared in a different guise to two of them as they were walking, on their way into the country. 13 These also went and took the news to the others, but again no one believed them.

14 Afterwards while the Eleven were at table he appeared to them and reproached them for their incredulity and dullness, because they had not believed those who had seen him after he was raised from the dead. 15 Then he said to them: ‘Go forth to every part of the world, and proclaim the Good News to the whole creation. 16 Those who believe it and receive baptism will find salvation; those who do not believe will be condemned. 17 Faith will bring with it these miracles: believers will cast out devils in my name and speak in strange tongues; 18 if they handle snakes or drink any deadly poison, they will come to no harm; and the sick on whom they lay their hands will recover.’

19 So after talking with them the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and he took his seat at the right hand of God; 20 but they went out to make their proclamation everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed their words by the miracles that followed. (Mark 16:8–Luke, NEB, https://ref.ly/Mk16.8-Lk;neb)

I think you could say straightway that, whichever bit is the real end of the gospel of Mark, he says enough to make us realise that something had happened, the like of which had never happened before and has never happened since.

But I think, with the greatest respect to Daniel, people’s lives haven’t been changed in the same way by his prophecies and the story of his escape from the lion. I’m tempted to say that Daniel’s story is just that, a story, albeit a very wonderful one; whereas Jesus’ is something else entirely. Perhaps that contrast helps us to appreciate just how amazing the story of Jesus is. Uniquely amazing.

But – you know, you can’t keep those lions out. After I’d finished composing this, I realised that there is still an important lion out there, who is still relevant today, and he is another link with Jesus. It’s Pope Leo – because ‘Leo’ is Latin for ‘lion’. Today he officially began his ministry, he went through the ceremony of his ‘inauguration’. Do watch it on BBC iPlayer. Let us rejoice, and let us wish Pope Leo, Leo the Lion, every blessing as he puts on the ‘Fisherman’s Ring’ as the successor to Saint Peter today. If I was a Rastafarian, I would say he was following the Lion of Judah.

Amen.

Hugh Bryant

Sermon for Evensong on 11th May 2025, Easter 4

Psalms 113, 114

Isaiah 63:7-14

Luke 24:36-49

Peace be with You

You are very welcome, on this sunny afternoon, to the fastest-growing service in the Anglican church. Certainly in numbers attending, Evensong is where it’s at. That might seem a bit counterintuitive, when you think of the success of some of the great big evangelical churches such as Citizen Church here in Cardiff, which offer an entirely different way of worship, but apparently there are statistics to back it up.

I have from time to time tactfully enquired of members of the congregation what they particularly like about Evensong, and one of the more surprising answers which I have received was from a rather formidable lady of a certain age, who said that she particularly liked Evensong because there was ‘none of that shaking hands or kissing nonsense’.

Indeed I read once upon a time that our brothers and sisters in the Methodist Church had a bit of difficulty over exchanging the Peace as it became very popular among the teenage members of the congregation, who certainly weren’t shaking hands.

They could have relied on a theological justification, because all the biblical references which are relied on as the background to this part of the liturgy refer to the exchange of a ‘holy kiss’ – see Romans 16 verse 16, 1 Corinthians 16 verse 20, 2 Corinthians 13 verse 12 and other references in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Peter.

Be that as it may, we will not be exchanging the Peace in this service, although I am sure we are at peace with one another in this happy band of pilgrims here in Saint Peter’s.

But ‘Peace be with you’ – who said that? “Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’” That’s in our New Testament lesson this evening. But also those were the first words that the new Pope, Leo XIV, spoke to the crowd at Saint Peter’s in Rome after he had been chosen by the conclave.

What a week to be thinking about peace! We have been celebrating V-E Day, peace in Europe at the end of the Second World War; and we have been hoping and praying for peace in Ukraine and in Gaza, in Sudan, in Syria, and in the Yemen; and most recently, between India and Pakistan.

Peace be with you! This is a message that an awful lot of people around the world need to hear. Peace is the result of expressions of brotherly love, of the kind of love, love for one’s neighbour, that Jesus made such a central part of his teaching.

So it’s entirely logical that the new pope should make this his first message; the new Pope, the new man in the line of apostolic succession, as it’s called, from Saint Peter. I think we’ve all spent a fair bit of time recently boning up on how the apostolic succession works, meaning how the Conclave works, so that excellent film, ‘Conclave’, has been very timely, and some of us have also enjoyed watching again the splendid imagined dialogue between the two previous popes in the film ‘The Two Popes’ with Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce in the starring roles.

Their real-life successor, Pope Leo, has begun his papacy with a message of peace, just like Jesus. I hope that the context of Pope Leo’s message will be looked back on in almost as wonderful a way as the context to the first time that these wonderful words, peace be with you, were uttered, by Jesus himself; because Jesus went on to demonstrate that he had risen from the dead: he wasn’t a ghost. You could touch him and feel him.

Last week we were reading about Doubting Thomas: Thomas said, ‘Unless I can touch him and feel him and put my hands where he was wounded, I will not believe that he has risen from the dead.’ And then Jesus appeared and gave Thomas the chance to do all those things; so Thomas realised who Jesus really was, that he was the Messiah, he was God on Earth.

This passage that was read to us tonight from Luke’s gospel is Luke’s version of the same story. He doesn’t mention Thomas, so this could be a slightly different way of looking at the miraculous events of the resurrection.

In a way, if you think of the story of doubting Thomas, what he says, and does, is really a way of reassuring you that the story is true. Thomas stands for all of us. We would need proof, especially of something so earth-shattering as raising somebody from the dead.

Luke has it a different way round, and it is possible that Luke’s proof is even more convincing than the live evidence of Thomas, because what Jesus does, to show to the disciples that he isn’t a ghost, that he’s real and that he really has risen from the dead, is to ask them for something to eat, and then to eat it in front of them. Obviously somebody who eats something has a physical presence; he is not a ghost.

I find the story of Jesus eating the fish very interesting, not just as a way of making this earth-shattering event more believable, (as ghosts don’t just eat their food and leave their plates clean in front of people), not just for that reason, but because the nuts and bolts of what Jesus did are very interesting in themselves, I think.

Our reading says, ‘They gave him a piece of broiled fish.’ ‘Broiled’ fish. What sort of fish do you think that is? Have you ever ordered ‘broiled’ fish in a restaurant? If you ordered it in any of our fine Penarth chippies, what would you expect to get?

At first, when I thought about this, I thought it was because we are using a version of the Bible called the New Revised Standard Version, ‘Anglicised edition’; and it’s called ‘anglicised’ because it is in fact an American Bible. Translated originally by an American team of scholars, it has been, or at least it claims to have been, revised in accordance with English English, as opposed to American English, by British scholars led by Professor John Barton.

But although I have a lot of respect for Professor Barton, I’m not sure that he has spotted all the Americanisms. The only broiled thing that I can think of is a type of steak called a New York broil. These days broiling is something you come across only in the USA.

But the funny thing is, if you actually look at the King James version of the Bible (1611), even as early as that, the fish is described as ‘broiled’. I think the explanation is that American English has actually kept some old usages – you know, they use some words which we would think of as archaic; for instance the word ‘gotten’, as in ‘he’s gotten himself into trouble’. ‘Broiled’ is one of those. It’s an old word for ‘roast’ or just generally ‘cooked’, so a better modern translation simply says ‘They offered him a piece of fish they had cooked which he took and ate before their eyes’ [NEB].

When you go back to the King James Bible and look at it, Jesus appears to have eaten an utterly disgusting combination, because in the King James it says that not only did he eat the broiled fish, but he also ate a honeycomb, he ate ‘a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb’. When you get to the Revised Version (1881), where they have had access to better copies of the original manuscripts, the honeycomb is not mentioned in the main text, but is relegated to a side note, which says: “Some authorities have ‘and a honeycomb’”.

My instinct is that, say, a piece of cod and a honeycomb is a truly disgusting combination – although I have to tell you that Kenny says, from an African point of view, that they are both individually nice-tasting foods; and Africans tend not to mind combining different tastes, so she wouldn’t have any particular difficulty with having a piece of fish and honeycomb at the same time.

But I think the more likely explanation is that an early manuscript contained a mistake. In the original Greek a ‘piece’ of fish and ‘honey’ are both very similar words: μέρος, a piece, μέλι, honey; mer-/mel-… I think it could be that one got mixed up for the other in the text, and so that might be how this mythical honeycomb crept in.

And the thought that what I consider to be a revolting combination, for someone else, is not, but is delicious, is indeed worth considering. We are what we eat. I am a beefeater; you might be a ‘cheese-eating surrender monkey’ and my friend in Hamburg is a Kraut (which is the name for a cabbage in German). So what was Jesus? He ate the fish – so he was alive. And he was a man, ‘a man in full’, as Tom Wolfe would have described him. Not a ghost. What he was offering was peace, brotherly love. And to remember that, we are encouraged to greet one another with a holy kiss.

But before you get too excited, the ‘kiss’ is translated from a Greek word φίλημα which doesn’t have sex overtones but does mean brotherly love and affection, so I think you can maintain proper British reserve next time the Peace comes around. But just think what the brotherhood of man brings, what variety of approaches, of tastes. True peace. So with Pope Leo, with Jesus himself, I say, Peace be with you!

Sermon preached at All Saints Church, Penarth, 29th April 2025

Acts of the Apostles 4:32-37; John 3:7-15 – see https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:ab09bab9-b3d3-40fb-94f8-e2783f0f51ba

This morning I want to look at two or three words in our lessons which I think in one way or another, by a happy accident, because the lessons were chosen long before this came about, have reminded me about various things to do with the late Pope Francis. I am sure you have read and watched and listened to many reminiscences and obituaries which have given us a very colourful picture of this great man, this great man of God, this vicar of Christ, the man who takes the place of, represents, Christ – which is what the word ‘vicar’ means.

Someone who takes the place of somebody else. Vice, in Latin, as in vice versa; vice, vicar. I was very tempted just to read out to you a really good article in this week’s Church Times by Prof. Paul Vallely, biographer of Pope Francis, about the late pope. At the end I will read out a bit of the article because it is so memorable and, I think, gives a really authentic reminiscence of this good man.

But first let’s look at our lessons today in the light of what we know and remember of Pope Francis. ‘The Lord is king and has put on glorious apparel’; the opening line of our psalm appointed today; as the vicar of Christ, the pope is often dressed in amazingly rich and ornate robes, and I think that on occasions, Pope Francis was no exception: but very often we saw him just simply wearing a simple alb, a monk’s garment, not weighed down by a beautiful gilded and embroidered chasuble; and that was the key to so much about Pope Francis, that he was a man who believed in not being a ‘prince of the church,’ as it’s sometimes called.

I treated myself last night to watching again on Netflix that wonderful film that came out a few years ago called The Two Popes, with Sir Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis and Sir Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict. 

The film is full of lovely contrasts. The grand style of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, a great theologian but quite happy to go along with the tradition of the Catholic Church as it had grown up, and to enjoy the trappings: travelling by helicopter to the summer residence outside Rome and coming in to the Vatican, again by helicopter: and then where Pope Francis rings for a takeaway pizza, which is a very sweet moment; and so on. 

I’m sure we have all read about the only time that Pope Francis drove in a Mercedes was when he was in his Popemobile, whereas normally he used a Ford Fiesta. How he didn’t live in the grand rooms are usually allocated to the pope in the Vatican but rather in a modest guesthouse. How he rang up to settle his newspaper bill in Buenos Aires when he had been elected Pope and suddenly had to stay in Rome permanently.

For Pope Francis the image of the Lord was not so much that of a king who had put on glorious apparel but the servant king, the one who washed the feet of the disciples and healed the sick. One of the stories in the Church Times is of the Pope meeting a man who was horribly disfigured and his face was really repulsive – and hugging him, when nobody else would go near him. You feel that Jesus would have been exactly the same. When Jesus healed a leper it had the same connotation of touching the untouchable.

Then we look at the passage from the Acts of the Apostles with its picture of how the early church conducted itself, that ‘they were of one heart and soul, and no one had private ownership of any possessions, but everything that they had was owned in common’. I’m not going to get into a discussion whether the early Christians were communists – although you will remember what Jesus said about the rich man and the eye of the needle – but certainly there is this passage and the approving reference to Joseph of Cyprus, who became Barnabas and then travelled a lot with Paul subsequently, who, after selling some land, brought the proceeds to add to the early church funds.

This passage, the story, is very much in line with the humble approach of Pope Francis, although he wasn’t actually one of the ‘liberation theologians’ from South America who were also Marxists. He had a really big heart for the poor, and he wanted the church to be a ‘poor church for poor people’. The passage in Acts 4 is, though, certainly reminiscent of Marx’s ‘from each according to his ability: to each according to his need’. 

The other thing that it reminded me of, by pointing out that Joseph came from Cyprus, was what happened at the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday, that after the main funeral service in several languages, which you can read on the Internet on the Vatican website, there was a second mass in Greek celebrated by the Greek Catholics, the eastern Catholics; not quite the eastern Orthodox church, but certainly a nod towards them and the fact that Christians come in all shapes and sizes. 

At the time of Jesus Latin, which only became the international language of the Church from the time of Constantine, 300 years later, wasn’t used everywhere, but Greek was; so also the mention of Barnabas coming from Cyprus reminds us of the Greek heritage of the early church.

Just moving away from Pope Francis for a minute, our second lesson is this rather mysterious passage from St John’s gospel which tells of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus, a rabbi, a senior rabbi, a member of the Council who had come to see Jesus secretly by night. It’s worth reading the bit of the chapter which comes before our second lesson so you can see the context more clearly. 

‘‘Rabbi,’ he said, ‘we know that you are a teacher sent by God; no one could perform these signs of yours unless God were with him.’  Jesus answered, ‘In truth, in very truth I tell you, unless a man has been born over again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ ‘But how is it possible’, said Nicodemus, ‘for a man to be born when he is old? Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘In truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born from water and spirit. Flesh can give birth only to flesh; it is spirit that gives birth to spirit. [John 3:2–6, NEB, https://ref.ly/Jn3.2-6;neb]

You ought not to be astonished, then, when I tell you that you must be born over again. [John 3:7, NEB, https://ref.ly/Jn3.7;neb] In the lesson that was read out from a different translation, this line reads, Do not be astonished that I said to you, “You must be born from above.” [NRSV]

Born over again or born from above: which is it? The word in the Greek original – άνωθεν – could mean either of these things, so the different translators have gone in different directions and neither of them is necessarily wrong. But it does seem to me that more logically it must mean born over again, and this passage is all about that division between body and soul, body and spirit, which you come across here and also in Saint Paul’s letters, notably his first letter to the Corinthians chapter 15. 

Paul picked up on Jesus’s teaching here, and said that the mechanism of resurrection, being born again, involves the spirit rather than the body. The other thing to say at this stage is that as well as the word for ‘over again’ or ‘from above’ being capable of two different meanings, one single Greek word can mean spirit, wind, or soul. 

We will all probably remember the King James Version of this passage, ‘The wind blows where it listeth’, which is somehow much more memorable than ‘the wind blows where it chooses’ [NRSV]. The bathos of the modern translation loses the poetry entirely. 

But the point is that it’s not just the wind. The same word can also mean spirit, the Holy Spirit, and thus, the life force. There is clearly a reference here to condemnation and punishment in the reference to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness and the son of a man being lifted up, lifted up on the cross. The idea is that, as Moses made the golden serpent and lifted it up on the pole, and anyone who had been bitten by the snakes which were plaguing the Israelites had only to touch the serpent in order to be healed, so Jesus is suffering and death on the cross has the potential to heal as well. 

The exact mechanism, how this healing works, is really difficult to understand; I think we should have some sympathy with Nicodemus. I think in a way he is a bit like doubting Thomas in the sense that there’s nothing wrong with his intellect but the things that he is expected to believe, the things that he is confronted with, in his encounters with Jesus, are just beyond human understanding. 

But maybe even that passage has a reflection in the life of Pope Francis. Let me close by reading you a story about him from the Church Times, which shows how he answered another, similarly tricky, question about the mystery of God.

A FEW years ago, on a visit to a poor parish on the outskirts of Rome, Pope Francis offered to answer questions from the youngest parishioners. But, when one young boy, aged about six, was invited to step up to the microphone to ask his question, he became suddenly overwhelmed.

“I can’t do it,” whispered the boy to a papal aide. “Go on, go on,” Pope Francis said, sitting on a little stage in front of the children and their parents. Children clapped to encourage the boy, who was called Emanuele. He started to cry. “Come up, Emanuele, and whisper your question in my ear,” the Pope said.

The aide led the boy, still crying, up the few steps to Francis. The boy buried his face in the Pope’s neck and hugged him. Francis patted the boy’s back and placed his hand upon his head. The child began to speak. No one could hear. The crowd sat in silence. The Pope was listening. The boy was speaking. On the Pope’s finger we could see the silver ring that he had worn since he first became a bishop in Buenos Aires. On his wrist we could see his cheap black plastic watch.

Then it was over. The boy was led back to his seat to applause. The Pope spoke to the crowd: “OK. I asked Emanuele’s permission to tell you the question he asked me. And he said Yes. So I will tell you. He said: ‘A little while ago I lost my father. He did not believe in God, but he had all four of his children baptised. He was a good man. Is my papà in heaven?’”

The Pope continued: “God is the only one who says who goes to heaven. But what is God’s heart like, with a dad like that?” he asked the rows of parents. They were silent. The Pope smiled. “This dad, who was not a believer, but who baptised his children and gave them that advantage, what do you think? God has a dad’s heart. Would God be able to leave such a father far away from himself?”

“No,” said a few people in the crowd.

“Louder,” said Francis. “Be brave, speak up. Does God abandon his children, when they are good?” “No,” chorused the crowd. “There, Emanuele, that is the answer. God surely was proud of your father. Because it is easier as a believer to baptise your children than to baptise them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much.” Smiling at the child, he added: “Talk to your dad. Pray to your dad.” [From Paul Vallely: ‘Pope Francis was pastor to the world’, Church Times, 25th April 2025]

I hope that this Easter will be remembered, and you will remember it, as the Easter when Pope Francis, the humble pope, went home to the Lord. He was a Holy Father indeed.

Sermon for Evensong on Palm Sunday 2025

https://bible.oremus.org/?ql=611300034

Two vineyards. Two stories about vineyards at the start of Holy Week. You might think that we are being exposed to, talking about, another temptation involving wine, but that’s not it. The two vineyard stories in Isaiah and St Luke’s gospel.

Isaiah the prophet singing for his beloved concerning his vineyard – I’m not quite sure how the genders work – the beloved having done all that is necessary to create a fruitful vineyard on a very fertile hill; he expected it to yield grapes, but it yielded, according to our translation here, ‘wild grapes’: although apparently, according to one of the commentaries which I read, the word in Hebrew literally means ‘stinkers’. Heaven knows what a grape has to be like to be described as a stinker; anyway it was not a successful planting of a vineyard. Somehow the vineyard didn’t turn out as it was intended to be.

‘What I will do to my vineyard’ – it’s quite difficult to follow who’s who in this story – it’s somebody and his beloved who builds the vineyard and then it’s me, it’s my vineyard. And because the vineyard produces stinkers I’ll dismantle it and make it a wasteland so that it’s overgrown with briars and thorns. There isn’t really some boyfriend’s Château Musar somewhere which has suddenly stopped producing decent grapes.

Similarly Jesus talks about a man turning his vineyard over to tenants – literally, farmers – in the King James Bible, husbandmen. Where have all these good words gone? I like a world with husbandmen in it. And where are the handmaidens? I ask myself. The word here is γεωργος (Georgos, which is Greek for ‘farmer’). Like a lot of names, George is derived from the Greek, so if you are called George, in Greek you are a farmer. In Jesus’ story, they were tenant farmers of some kind. And he sent members of his staff – literally, his slaves – one at a time to try to collect the rent, or a share of the produce instead, which certainly seems still to be the way that it works in the south of France even today. A friend of mine had a house there including a vineyard. He let the local cooperative manage the vineyard, in return for which they harvested the grapes and gave my friend a share in the wine produced. He took his rent in bottles.

Here, however, the parable is about wicked tenants who didn’t pay their rent and instead, eventually, when the owner sent his own son, the tenants, having kicked out his servants one by one when they called on the farmers to hand over the rent, actually killed the son. So what did the owner of the vineyard do? Obviously he evicted the wicked tenants and passed the vineyard over to other managers to manage.

Again, this is not an actual story about something that actually happened. It’s a parable and it’s very relevant to Easter. Jesus is forecasting what is going to happen, and the scribes and the chief priests, hearing him, get angry because they realise that what he is saying is directed against them, Jesus suggests that if they do behave like the wicked tenants then ‘the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’, and that stone will trip people up fatally, and it may fall on other people, with similar devastating consequences.

If they, the Pharisees and scribes, are builders, and if they reject a stone while they are building something, if they reject Jesus, then He will become a stumbling block for them, or even fall on them and obliterate them.

Ploughing up a vineyard. Fatal trips and falls. Being crushed by a massive boulder. I’m not sure whether, when we read these lessons in the Bible, even in the context of Lent and even as we look forward to the commemoration of the amazing events of the first Easter, even so, I’m not sure that these lessons really grab us in the way that some of the language used indicates that they are meant to.

Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces and it will crush anyone on whom it falls. And Isaiah’s friend’s vineyard producing ‘stinkers’ instead of the sweet juicy grapes that he might reasonably have expected and so getting dug up and bulldozed. These are two parables, two stories that are not meant to be taken literally, but which colourfully illustrate, dramatise, an idea or principle; and they have been chosen to be readings for Evensong today because they put you in mind of what we are going to commemorate at Easter.

Jesus is the son who is sent to the vineyard, the vineyard being the human race, the only son, who gets rejected and killed by the people who are looking after his father’s property, the vineyard, the world that his father has created. The Israelites, the Jews, were the bad tenants who threw out the only son and killed him; or rather, they would be, because Jesus is telling the story before he gets crucified.

But so what? Look, there are only 43 of us here – although that’s a really good turn-out: there are only a few thousand, perhaps, in Evensong services all over the UK. Most people couldn’t care less. Most people are snoozing after Sunday lunch or maybe having a nice walk in the park.

Even if they are vaguely aware of Easter having more to it than just a lot of Easter eggs, nevertheless there is nothing vital or urgent about it so far as they are concerned. Even if they’re going to turn up on Easter Sunday, if they are in the habit of coming at Christmas and Easter, say, (which, incidentally, if they were in the Roman Catholic Church would count as regular attendance), but even if they are really rather sparing attenders at church, or if they never come, they presumably don’t feel any compulsion, any need or anything really vital for their life today about this teaching of Jesus or this prophecy of Isaiah.

Nobody much today really thinks that because they might be descendants of the people who cast out the son and killed him, (in these terms), they should worry that a stone might be a stumbling block or that it might fall on them and crush them. It’s probably a metaphor too far, even if they do know a bit about Jesus, because the idea that Jesus would take some dreadful vengeance on people, crush them and grind them into dust, is not consistent with our picture of ‘gentle Jesus, meek and mild’, the suffering servant, who washed the disciples’ feet – as we will wash at least one of your feet, on Thursday at Holy Nativity.

What is our Lent reflection about this? I want to read you something which was written by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great German theologian who was executed by the Nazis in the dying days of the Second World War because he was a member of the Stauffenberg Plot to kill Adolf Hitler in 1944. The church remembered the 80th anniversary of his death last Wednesday. He wrote, from prison, what he called an ‘outline for a book’, in which he tackled the idea of a world in which people do not feel they need God any more. He speaks of a God in “religion” as a deus ex machina. Literally it means ‘god from the machinery’. That’s defined in the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary as a ‘power [or] event that comes in the nick of time to solve difficulty.’ The ‘machinery’ was what they had in ancient Greek theatres, to make the actors playing the part of gods fly through the air.

Bonhoeffer felt that religious people had been seeing God in a way as a magic fixer, that “[God] must be ‘there’ to provide answers and explanations beyond the point at which our understanding or our capabilities fail.” But as scientific knowledge has increased, so people have needed God less and less. They may well feel they can get along without needing God at all.

Bonhoeffer felt we ought to accept this, that this was a sign of the world ‘coming of age’. He wrote, ‘The only way to be honest is to recognise that we have to live in the world etsi deus non daretur – even if God is not ‘there’. Like children outgrowing the secure religious, moral and intellectual framework of the home, in which ‘Daddy’ is always there in the background, God is teaching us that we must live as men who can get along very well without him’.

He went on to set out a paradox at the heart of this, which I think leads very well into our reflections for Lent. Bonhoeffer wrote, ‘God allows himself to be edged out of the world, and that is the way, the only way, in which he can be with us and help us. … This is the decisive difference between Christianity and all [other] religions. Man’s religiosity makes him look in his distress to the power of God in the world; he uses God as a deus ex machina. The Bible however [has] directed him to the powerlessness and suffering of God; only a suffering God can help.’

“[Bonhoeffer wrote that he would explain in his book] the experience that a transformation of all human life is given in the fact that Jesus is ‘there only for others.’ His ‘being there for others’ is the experience of transcendence. It is only this ‘being there for others’, maintained till death, that is the ground of his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.” Those are the essential characteristics of the divine, of God, of what he calls ‘transcendence’. He goes on: “Faith is participation in this being of Jesus (incarnation, cross, and resurrection).” Those are the key things about Jesus: incarnation becoming human, the cross, and resurrection. According to Bonhoeffer,“Our relation to God is not a ‘religious’ relationship to the highest, most powerful, and best Being imaginable – that is not authentic transcendence – but our relation to God is a new life in existence for others, through participation in the being of Jesus. The transcendental is not infinite and unattainable tasks, but the neighbour who is within reach in any given situation.”

We need to think very carefully about this really big mystery. On the one hand we believe in God as a kind of omnipotent father figure, but on the other we read that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. God, Jesus, is in the needy people, the ill people, the homeless people, the naked people who have no clothes.

The sky has turned darker since the joyful procession this morning on a donkey. Donkeys are great, and Jesus was on that donkey. But what else was going on? That’s for us to ponder in this week to come.

Quotations are from ‘Outline for a Book’ in Bonhoeffer, D, (enlarged edition) 1971, ‘Letters and Papers from Prison’, London, SCM Press p.380f., and from Bonhoeffer as quoted in Robinson, J. A. T., 1963, ‘Honest to God’, p36f, ‘Must Christianity be Religious?’

See https://bible.oremus.org/?ql=610162457

Rejoice! Let me speak to you in Latin. ‘Laetare Hierusalem et conventum facite omnes qui diligitis eam: gaudete cum laetitia…’ : it means, ‘ … be ye glad for Jerusalem, all ye that delight in her: exult and sing for joy with her,’..

It says on your pew sheet that today is Mothering Sunday. So what is all this Latin stuff – ‘Laetare’ – all about? This is also, and indeed it has been for a lot longer than it has been Mothering Sunday, what is called ‘refreshment’, or Rejoice! Sunday, which is what the Latin word ‘laetare’ means: laetare, ‘rejoice!’

Traditionally, pink vestments can be worn by the priest on Refreshment Sunday, so it’s also known as Rose Sunday. It’s halfway through Lent, and it’s a chance to relax the rigours of fasting. So if you have been denying yourself, today you have no need to lay off the Ferrero Rocher and vino di tavola rosso di Toscana. Today, you can indulge without feeling guilty.

Mothering Sunday is an old mediaeval concept, which fell into disuse, but was revived during the last century by a lady called Constance Adelaide Smith, a vicar’s daughter, who picked up on plans in the USA to introduce Mother’s Day, which came to fruition in the USA in 1914. Miss Smith wrote a booklet called ‘The Revival of Mothering Sunday’ in 1921, and it started to be celebrated again in the UK around that time, on the fourth Sunday in Lent, Refreshment Sunday.

The rather formidable Miss Smith campaigned for Mothering Sunday to be a celebration of a number of various aspects of motherhood: these were ‘Mother Church’ (the church where you were baptised), ‘mothers of earthly homes’, Mary, the mother of Jesus; and Mother Nature. It is a very wide spread of people and places and things, all to be celebrated as being aspects of motherhood, motherhood to rejoice in on Mothering Sunday.

I think it’s fair to say that these days we mainly think of it as a day to celebrate our mothers, ‘mothers of earthly homes’. It’s a nice opportunity to make a fuss of them, for those of us who still have mothers around, or if not, at least to think about and remember our wonderful mothers.

At this point I must say that in the midst of all this happy celebration, for quite a number of people Mothering Sunday or Mother’s Day are not happy times. If you are a mother who has lost a child, or who has not been able to have a child, this is not a time you want to celebrate. We should pause, and take that to the Lord in prayer. If any of you are suffering in that way, I hope you will excuse my carrying on in a way that may not suit the way you feel. You are not forgotten, and you are in our prayers today.

I don’t think that you really need a homily from me on how to be nice to your mother or to be nice about her. But I would just like to take a minute or two to look at a couple of the things that come up in our Bible readings. I’m struck that in two of them the interesting thing is that the compilers of the Lectionary have selected passages, which come just after, in one case, and just before, in the other, verses which are perhaps more familiar to us and more significant than the ones which have been selected.

The first story, from the first book of Samuel, is the story of the birth of Samuel to his mother, Hannah – obviously today, one of the common themes is stories of mothers – and it is a bit like the story of the birth of John the Baptist to his mother, Elisabeth. Neither woman had been blessed with children for a number of years.

Hannah was praying to the Lord for children, and eventually her prayers were answered. In her prayers, she had said she would dedicate any son who was born to the Lord as what was called a Nazarite. This meant that she would give him over to the priests of the Temple to become somebody who was dedicated, set apart, for the Lord in the Temple. He would not be allowed to cut his hair, touch strong drink, and a whole load of other restrictions, which are all set out in the law of Moses in the book of Numbers.

But the bit which you might expect the story to go on to tell us, is what Hannah did to celebrate, because she sang a song. The song that she sang is very similar to another song in the Bible. She sang:

‘My heart rejoices in the Lord. …

Strong men stand in dismay…

Those who faltered put on new strength …

Those who had plenty sell themselves for a crust,

The hungry grow strong again.’

It has strong echoes of Mary’s song, the Magnificat, that everybody will remember from Evensong.

‘My soul doth magnify the Lord,
and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.…..

He hath shewed strength with his arm.
He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat
and hath exalted the humble and meek. ….

He hath filled the hungry with good things.
And the rich he hath sent empty away.’

Clearly, Mary knew her Bible, and she remembered Hannah’s song from the story of the birth of Samuel. And not only that, but in these songs the two mothers-to-be really forecast the way that God wants us to do things. The last shall be first. The humble and meek shall be raised up. The hungry shall be filled up with good things. A really important message. Think what the world would be like if we really followed it.

And then, in our reading from Saint Paul’s letter to the Colossians, ‘..[C]lothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience..’, all those lovely ideas about how Christians should treat one another. ‘Clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.’

Wonderful words; but the ones, that are not captured by our reading, come just one verse above.

‘There is no question here of Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman; but Christ is all, and is in all.’

No such thing as Jew and Greek. This is the first sign of Christianity bursting out from being just a small denomination within Judaism.

Anybody could become a Christian. Christ was, is, there to become a saviour for anyone. It’s the origin of Inclusive Church, which is a charity that the Ministry Area Committee have decided to register our churches with. Of course, we know that we are inclusive, we welcome everybody: but we will also have signs outside, and we will do lots of practical things, to let everybody know that they can come in, and that they will be welcome.

The Lord is here. His spirit is with us. His spirit is for everybody, whatever they look like, wherever they come from.

I suppose if you go away and do your homework and read the lessons at home, you will come and tackle me to say that, when I was mentioning things that weren’t in the lessons, I should have mentioned not just the bit that comes before our lesson from Colossians. but also the bit after, because it has St Paul’s rather infamous words, “Wives, be subject to your husbands“, and to be fair, “Husbands, love your wives, … children, obey your parents, for that is pleasing to God, and is the Christian way“, and so on. Given that there is nothing really about mothers in the lesson from Colossians that we heard, it is quite important to remember that St Paul did include, in this great letter, his own ideas on what makes for happy families.

But then perhaps in our Gospel reading, there is the most moving reference to a mother in the Bible, the story of Jesus on the cross, and what he said, while the three Marys were standing there.

More Latin – ‘Stabat Mater dolorosa’: ‘His sad mother was standing there’; the Marian Hymn, as it’s called. Some of us will no doubt be able to hear in our heads one or other of the beautiful musical settings, by Palestrina, or Charpentier or Vivaldi, among many others right up to today, including James McMillan and Karl Jenkins.

When I was looking at this heart-rending scene in my mind, it did slightly remind me of another time when his family was mentioned, in Saint Matthew’s Gospel chapter 12, at the end of the chapter, where he was speaking to the crowd when his mother and brothers appeared, and someone said, “Your mother and brothers are here outside, and want to speak to you”. Jesus said, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” And, pointing to the disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of my heavenly father is my brother, my sister, my mother.“

This is different; it’s more simple than that; it’s just the story of Jesus, as he was dying on the cross, making sure that his mother was looked after by the disciple whom he loved, (who is sometimes identified with John the Evangelist). It looks as though his earthly father, Joseph, was no longer there, and had perhaps died already.

What a nice example Jesus was setting. Even in a moment of the most acute pain and suffering, he took time and made sure that his mother was looked after. I don’t think there’s anything I can say to improve on that. ‘I was glad’ – and I hope that today, you mothers, and children of mothers, on this Mothering Sunday, are glad too.

Amen.

Hugh Bryant