Archives for posts with tag: Mercedes-Benz

Sermon for Evensong on Palm Sunday, 20th March 2016
Isaiah 5:1-7, Luke 20:9-19

Did you see the Shetland pony this morning? The children made a beautiful tableau and there was a Shetland pony pretending to be a donkey for them to ride on, to make a procession, to remember Jesus as he rode into Jerusalem for the last week. It’s really a bittersweet message. For that lovely hour or two, Jesus led a procession of people who believed that he was God’s chosen saviour, God’s chosen saviour in a triumphal sense, like a Roman general returning in triumph from conquests overseas, leading a procession into the capital.

But the sad thing is that that was then, but the mood darkened very quickly thereafter. The clouds started to gather and Jesus started to challenge Jerusalem. This parable, the parable of the vineyard, some of which, on one level, was simply a retelling of the story from the prophet Isaiah, sets the tone.

Holy Week is about divine judgement; for God, against God. For man, against man: ‘Judge eternal, throned in splendour’. Isaiah made a prophecy of the kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah – the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is Israel, and the men of Judah are the plant he cherished – ‘He looked for righteousness but found it denied, for righteousness but heard cries of distress.’ [Is. 5:7, NEB] Jesus put out this story as a challenge. You are the chosen people, Israel. You have all the advantages. God has done everything he can to make the vineyard a good one.

Then he let it, to professional winemakers, tenants. Those tenants are the human race. The human race rejected God’s son and eventually killed him. What will God do? What will the landlord of the vineyard do? If we, who are tenants in his vineyard, have a lease on life in this world? What will God do if we have killed his son? It is a truly terrifying prospect.

Even so, we don’t really appreciate its force these days. This morning I said my theme was that we know what comes next. There was a sort of spoiler alert. We know that after the Passion, after Jesus’ terrible suffering, after Jesus dies, after God is killed, God rises again in glory on Easter morning.

Maybe we can’t really help knowing what comes next, but still, we ought to appreciate the force of the Passion story. We ought to appreciate that we are still like the tenants in the vineyard. If we have no care for God, if we do the things which killed Jesus, if we have no love for him and no love for each other, if we pursue false gods, then we are like those hard-hearted people who figured that it was to their advantage to free Barabbas and crucify the son of God.

Whatever we have been doing by way of Lenten reflection, in prayer and abstinence in the last four weeks, in this week of all weeks we should remember that we are tenants in God’s vineyard.

Maybe, just as with a new story, if we know what happens, we should keep it to ourselves – spoiler alert! – we should actually be cautious about saying we know what happens next. What will the owner of the vineyard do? We’re very cavalier. We just carry on. We live our lives as we’ve always done. We don’t receive the stranger, and take him in: we don’t give him clothes, when he’s shivering with cold. Is he a real refugee, or just a migrant?

But Jesus wouldn’t have made that distinction. In that time of final judgment, when Jesus separates the sheep and the goats, he will decide, he will judge, by what we have done for the hungry, for the thirsty, for the homeless stranger, for the person with no clothes. [See Matt. 25:31f]

It is disgraceful that there are still thousands of people in Calais and Dunkirk who are marooned without proper habitation, without washing facilities and proper sanitation. These are people whose homes in Syria have been bombed, whose families have been decimated. Some of the children in the camp actually have a legal right to join relatives in this country, but it’s not happening.

We are going to take the Foodbank van over there soon. There was some confusion at first, and we couldn’t find out how to get access to the camp; but now we have established contact with the local Guildford charity, Guildford People to People, and we’ll be able to get in. Many of you have already given clothes and blankets, which is great. I’ll let you know if there are any other needs which we can supply. We must do it. Jesus will ask us, when he was a stranger, a refugee, what did we do?

Then again there was another terrible story in the paper this week. An MP, Stella Creasy, had actually thrown the chief exec of a charity out of her office – called a policeman to throw him out of the Houses of Parliament – because she was so cross with him.

His charity had sold some flats which it owned, all of which had been occupied for years by poorer people who thought that the charity was looking after them. The charity sold the flats to a developer, who promptly gave all the poor tenants notice to quit. The MP raised this with the chief exec of the charity. Was it not wrong that their old tenants, old people, should be made homeless in this way? He shrugged his shoulders and said,’It happens’. All that mattered was that they had raised a lot of money by selling the flats. ‘It happens’ is what people say, far too often. We have to try to stop ‘it’ happening. ‘It’ is the sort of thing which has killed the son in the vineyard.

Let’s not be like the tenants in the vineyard. Let’s not do the things that kill the landlord’s son. Jesus was challenging us, us just as much as he was challenging his contemporary audience. We must not throw Him out; we mustn’t leave him shivering outside; we must make room in our hearts for Him.

Lord Young of Graffham, the 81-year old former cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher, who is now the Prime Minister’s adviser on ‘enterprise’, was on the BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme today saying that 95% of the companies in Britain are small enterprises employing a couple of people or fewer. ‘If they all hired one more person, our unemployment problem would be solved’, he said.

The trouble is, what sort of employment is it? The Conservatives such as Lord Young want to ‘reduce red tape’ allegedly affecting small businesses, so as to encourage more people to start up small companies. Revealingly, Lord Young also said recently that a time of economic recession (the existence of which he conveniently denies) ‘low wage levels … made larger financial returns easier to achieve’ for the owners of businesses (The Guardian, 11 May 2013).

The difference, seen from an ordinary employee’s viewpoint, between a big company and a little start-up, is in the likely security and longevity, in the overall quality, of employment offered. Rolls-Royce in Derby (and worldwide), whom I recently visited, offer 100 local youngsters apprenticeships, and 100 graduates graduate training programmes, in their Academy each year. Once their training is complete, these people can expect long-term, pensionable employment with full employment protection under the law.

In a start-up following the Lord Young model, young people will be employed for short term contracts on the minimum wage, contracting out, where possible, of the protection offered by law – for example under the Working Time Directive, limiting employees’ hours of work. They will have minimal job security – this is the obverse of the much-vaunted ‘flexibility of employment’ which the current government makes such a virtue.

The Thatcherist programme continues. Having destroyed much of our manufacturing industry, the Thatcherists now work to ensure that the gap in quality of life between the rentiers, the bosses, and the employees is not just a question of rewards – although that gap has widened hugely since Thatcher came to power – but also involves huge disparity in job security and the ability to achieve a stable place in society.

Is there any evidence that cheap labour automatically makes for successful business? I suggest not. Good products and investment in people and technology would seem to be much more productive. Rolls-Royce in the UK, or, for example, Mercedes-Benz in Germany, are good examples. Government should make policy to help such companies to grow and prosper, rather than adding to the number of vulnerable, rootless and exploited short-term workers without proper skills, training or reward.