The Neglected Winemaker

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.’ (John 15: 5 – 8 )

Winemakers may also be vineyard owners, but first and foremost, they (surprise, surprise) produce wine. It’s really obvious, but it means that the vine has a specific overall purpose. However luxuriant its foliage, however full its buds, however strong its branches, its fundamental purpose in a vineyard is to deliver as many fine grapes as possible. The job of the vine is to deliver the raw material for wine.

Without that raw material, production stops, and there ceases to be a benefit. Spiritually, first century Judaea had ceased to deliver what God desired: the raw material of practical devotion to God that He could use to right a world that was so wrong.

The nation’s leaders had compromised values under the Roman Empire’s tyranny. Even the divine laws were interpreted by the religious elite in a manner that contradicted God’s underlying intent to benefit the whole nation. Those who were wealthy assumed that their accumulated comfort was proof of God’s approval. They segregated their social lives, ostracised the poor from positions of authority, abandoned the chronically helpless and publicly censured sinners with contemptuous disregard. It was all too easy to reap condemnation for even ceremonial mistakes. Forgiveness and reacceptance by society could only be provided through the temple officials at great financial expense. An even greater cost was imposed on pilgrims to Israel, who were forced to pay a hefty commission to convert their money into temple currency. It was far easier to condemn, than rehabilitate wrongdoers by giving them a chance to change.

John the Baptiser was hurled into the midst of this moral mayhem. He demanded that everyone in Israel re-evaluate their behaviour and devotion to God with a desire to make amends wherever they fell short and deliver fruit from their lives that was worthy of the nation’s God-given role. They should have been an example to the world, rather than a cause of God’s shame. For many, It was the impetus for change that they needed. A fresh start in a newly formed community. One that would let them bury the past and live a new life. He offered a simple ritual of cleansing that would signal an end to their neglect of God and a new focus on relaying God’s providence to others. A new life symbolised by BAPTISM: the purification rite of water immersion.

Teaching explains what we don’t understand, whereas preaching insists on what we already know. Of course, we know what to do. It’s just that we prefer to do something else and we can’t do both. The Prophets, Jesus, the apostles preach one message: without the mercy of God, our lives don’t deserve to remain part of God’s creation. Without the mercy of God, our nourishment through all that God has created will be lost forever. The Winemaker is on his way, so where’s the fruit we owe Him?

Foreseeing the destruction of Jerusalem a few decades later, John PREACHED to any Jews who lacked remorse that the era of privileged hereditary protection was almost over: ‘Even now the axe of God's judgment is poised, ready to sever the roots of the trees. Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire." This is the preaching of the Kingdom of God: ‘If there’s no desire for fruit, judgment is poised over my fate. No fruit? No more privilege. Where’s God’s fruit?’

It is mandatory. If we are casual and not eager to demonstrate moral change, our privilege of growing in the soil of God’s providence and revealed truth hangs by a thread. It is ready to be lost forever by those who don’t desire to respond productively to God. Those who do respond partially, are challenged to deliver even more fruit.

Christ also reminds us to ask for whatever we like. As long as it doesn’t hinder us from our primary purpose, guess what? We can have it!

All around us today, we see the proof that the status earned by our Christian forefathers is receding from our grasp. The freedom of Christian expression in society is opposed on all sides. Atheism, godless secular thought and mindless contempt for the church is on the rise. No fruit? No more privilege. It’s time to ask and when you do, ASK BIG!

Without fruit, as the Messiah promises ‘Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Notice their focus on ministry gifts: prophecy, exorcism, miracle-working are the tools to achieve the intended outcome, they are not the intended outcome. Imagine telling a winemaker who comes to collect grapes about the work you did on his behalf: how well you’ve tilled soil, pruned branches and spread fertilizer, WHEN WHAT HE WANTS IS FRUIT.

So what fruit does God require? You know already. ‘He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.’ (Micah 6:8 )

THE FRUIT:

• Discreet, practical empathy that reaches out to improve the lot of those confronted with hardship and injustice. Defraud no-one. Deceive no-one.
• Prayerful compassion that reaches out selflessly to empower those overpowered by hate, selfishness and helplessness.
• Thankfulness to and opportunism for God against evil in a world full of selfish grudging discontent with His natural abundant providence.

Growth, Division, Multiplication

Organic growth is achieved through cell division, multiple cell differentiation, expansion and adaptation.

In church, are we willing to divide cells and build new smaller units of fellowship that expand and adapt for new purposes? How will those new cell units need to adapt to grow in a very different environment? How will they develop? Will a few parts of the body remain relatively unchanged in purpose and size, like our eyes?

Paul says, 'I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God gave the increase’ (1 Cor. 3:7).

Christ’s own growth example involved pruning away unproductive aspects of our individual and corporate lives: 'I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.' (John 15:1 - 4)

Our two-service proposal for Sunday worship is a low risk initiative that foreshadows future growth: the development of interdependent units of community, outreach and worship. Units that can spread and demonstrate the message of God’s Kingdom in a wider context than is possible now.

That's the ultimate aim of church growth. Beyond the numerical outreach, this proposal is a test of whether the church cell is capable of the cell division and differentiation needed to adapt to the needs of our community. To do so, the church needs to draw upon the moral and emotional energy reserves bestowed by God on all its members.

Uncontrolled, rapid cell division does not provide normal healthy growth and adaptation to a changing environment. It is like cancer and it can destroy us by first disrupting existing useful functions and finally spreading to destroy vital organs.

As a pre-cursor, it is far better to spur change by challenging church members to re-group around smaller initiatives that may involve working towards a goal outside of each other's comfort zone.
Beware of inward focused self absorption. There are those who believe that the church's primary duty is towards the comfort of its existing members. It's not change in itself that they fear, but the disruption of the comfortable relationships and roles that they've built for emotional support and insulation. As you know, Paul faced major emotional upheaval when the Holy Spirit made it clear that he had to move on from Ephesus never to return (Acts 21:13)

Finally, what are the lessons to be learnt from our past outreach initiative, Taste?
Was the whole church involved?
What worked and what didn't?
Was the mission to invite outsiders and attend with them accepted by all members?
Did any of the existing church members reject the idea on the level of personal encouragement and involvement?
Did it end for natural reasons, or was too much responsibility for success imposed on too few church members?
Why won't history repeat itself this time?

The best ideas come from the top.

It seemed like a brilliant idea for the bank. The managers had racked their brains to find a way to sell more financial products, but they had finally cracked it.

The background was that the last quarter's sales figures were less than impressive and Head Office wasn't happy. ISAs, postal accounts, loans, insurance and pensions had all taken a tumble. 'We need to sell these products when customers are thinking about money. So give us your best ideas' said the memo.

Over a lunchtime brainstorming session replete with bottled water and one attendee's reflective guitar piece, the plan was hatched. 'From now on, bank tellers will be expected to sell directly to walk-in customers. Given that they will be thinking about money in the middle of a transaction, it's the best time to make a sale.' Head Office was filled in with all the details of what they did to arrive at the new scheme and approved the plan.

It took a few months, but all teller staff were duly trained in the features and benefits of a range of financial products. Memory aids were positioned within the easy reach of each of them as a back-up should they forget. IT ensured that monthly payment and APR information was accessible from every teller's computer terminal. As the system went live, the branch managers rubbed their hands together with glee, revelling in the prospect of income from the erstwhile expensive human cashpoints becoming a welcome addition to the sales force.

A few months later, another e-mail was despatched from Head Office: 'while the sales figures relating to teller staff are promising, customer services has noted a sharp increase in teller transaction times and customer complaints of delays and mis-selling. Given that the training issues have been addressed, we hope that branch managers will resolve this and deliver a winning formula to improve the level of sales while maintaining the highest standards of customer service from their tellers. We do realise that to develop a better plan, you will need more resources and we are committed to providing them'. An hour later, two cases of Evian and the Paul Simon song-book arrived at each branch.

You got to know when to hold ‘em

Last night, I wrestled with the idea of how people move on. Some people seem more resilient than others at calling it quits, while others seem bent on continually reliving their past mistakes and relationships.

The whole debacle of modern relationships reminds me of a poker game. Successful card-players mix the luck of the cards dealt and drawn with a powerful memory of past successes and failures, considerable skill and, at times, sheer ruthlessness in securing a winning hand.

Even if, at the outset, you have a pair of high-ranking cards (like A♠ A♦ K♦ Q♥ J♣), you might find that one of them doesn’t follow suit, or discover that the Jack can also be a Knave. Your hand still needs three other cards to complete a ‘full house’, so if you must win, you’ll need to get rid of anything that doesn’t fit.

For instance, ‘One pair’ (perhaps the King and Queen of Hearts) however high and well matched is easily defeated by a complete family of lower ranking cards that all follow suit.

That hand might look good to you, but a straight flush led by a Queen (Q♣ J♣ 10♣ 9♣ 8♣) is a lot stronger than a King and Queen paired by themselves. Similarly, you might also win the pot with a lower-ranking family called ‘Four of a kind’.

Perhaps, most of all to secure a ‘full house’, you need to know how to exploit the ‘wild card’.

Of course, you will probably have close friends and family looking over your shoulder and whispering wise words like ‘lose the Queen’, or ‘just use the wild card’. All the while, they will claim to have your best interests at heart. Be careful, especially if all that they really want is to spend your success on themselves. You might want to check their own track record with lady luck before accepting advice at face value.

In the end, those who can move on quickly realise that:

1. There’s more than one game in town;

2. It’s better to bluff indifference and hide revealing ‘tells’ by a stoic poker face;

3. They can have more success if they can team up with a better bluffer;

4. You can’t focus on the defeat of the last hand, when the next hand you hold promises greater winnings;

5. Playing solitaire is only the last resort for losers.

So, whether you end up winning with ‘Queen straight flush’, or losing with just ‘two of a kind’, try to remember never to bluff your entire future in trying to gain one card and that eventually we all get played at our own game.

Perhaps, only then it will dawn on us that (with the high stakes involved, and however much we bluff indifference and holding a better hand than everyone else) LOVE IS REALLY NEVER A POKER GAME BECAUSE THERE IS NEVER AN OUTRIGHT WINNER WHO TAKES ALL.

Till then, if you insist on playing games, as Kenny Rogers sang:

You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, Know when to walk away, know when to run.

You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table,
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

No mean feet!

Clearing weeds, tending festering wounds, removing rotting garbage, washing away perspiration: we would prefer to avoid the detritus of life that clings to everything we touch and do, for it arouses in us a sense of disgust when we are dealing with something that is either distasteful, or potentially harmful, or demeaning.

If we are employed in the service sector, we prefer an unpolluted, safe and healthy work environment. We want our homes to be shrines of almost clinical, allergen-free cleanliness. If we are well paid, qualified and competent professionals, we can probably afford to have someone perform the task of cleansing the environment on our behalf.

Domestic employment is often considered to be thankless drudgery and so poorly paid as to be on a par with slavery. In the healthcare sector, we fail to recognise the dignity of those assigned to cleanse bedpans, disinfect our toilets and remove medical waste with adequate pay.

Yet, we also pay a premium for beauty therapists to cleanse our faces and remove dead skin from our feet and hands every now and again. That's because we want to be seen at our best: our hair to be shining and our complexions, radiant and blemish-free and our bodies toned and strong. In spite of this, Christ, the King of eternity CHOSE, in spite of His status, spectacular talents and abilities, to inhabit our real world of dust and debris. Even in respect of John the Baptist, He asked his audience: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet’

John, like Jesus, was a man of simple tastes. The desert caves were his home. Living on a Spartan diet of locust and wild honey, he wore a cheap, coarsely-woven camel tunic and leather belt. It disturbs us that anyone could live so sparsely. Yet, it was all he needed. His wealth was in knowing how to transform broken lives into those pleasing to God. His reward was great in heaven!

It was typical of ancient Eastern hospitality to extend the courtesy of cleansing the feet of those who have arrived exhausted after a long and dusty journey. Among the lower classes, overland travel was largely completed on foot. Yet, while the Pharisees were offended by the fact that Christ had participated in a meal without observing rituals of hand washing, His host, Simon the leper could not be bothered to supply water for Christ to wash His own feet. Oh, the irony! Christ contrasts the blatant discourtesy with Mary’s tears of gratitude: ‘Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair’ (Luke 7:44), the lack of hospitality amply demonstrated the absence of any social acceptance. Christ was sat at dinner with his enemies.

Judas aside and in spite of their constant bewilderment, the apostles were sure He was the Messiah. This was contrary to the many others who had abandoned the cause, offended as they were by what they saw as stern, grandiose and uncompromising pronouncements.

At the Passover, Christ sat at dinner with his friends. In relative seclusion, He treated His inner circle of disciples as honoured guests. They had stayed the course and, separated from their contemporaries by holding onto His entire message, they could exclaim, ‘Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?"

Christ explained the effect of His message on those who do stay the course: ‘Now you are clean by the message that I have spoken to you.’ (John 15:3) Paul also attests to this cleansing action of divine insight through the gospel: ‘Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word’ (Eph. 5:25,26)

Yet, Jesus’s later reply to Peter on the cleansing ritual is startling: “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” Peter said to Him, `You shall never wash my feet' Jesus answered him, `If I may not wash you, you have no part with me.’ (John 13:7 – 8)

The gulf between vastly differing statuses is crossed in rendering such a personal level of service to another. The action of foot-washing unveils a deep truth of salvation. Mere mental agreement to the truth of gospel is not enough. It may even distinguish churchgoers from the wayward society that we live in. Nevertheless, each of us, in turn, must submit to the principle of Christ washing our feet. In effect, we must each accept and exalt His sacrificial act of cleansing our moral grime, however foul or undignified that might be.

For Peter, the act was filled with unacceptable prospect of a role-reversing indignity towards his master. Yet, the foot-washing merely foreshadowed the next day’s horrendous indignity of Christ’s surrender to humiliation and death on the cross. The ritual only made sense and became a model for us to emulate after Christ’s sacrifice, resurrection and exaltation were understood by the apostles, not before.

Paul put it this way:

‘Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:5 – 8)

The service rendered by Christ towards us and that we, in turn, offer each other, is not just about embracing or conveying the lofty morals of godly behaviour. However that may dedicate us to God morally, true Christian service begins by restoring fallen humanity to cleanliness and wholeness at the most basic practical level of human need. BUT IT MUST BE AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR PRECIOUSLY GUARDED STATUS. To make a difference, we must all get our hands in the water and wash away the debris, rather than doing no more than pointing out where people have accumulated dirt.

It’s no mean feat, but if Christ does not restore us at that practical level, we can have no part of Him. If we do not restore each other at that practical level and at the expense of our pride and status, we can have no part of each other.

Marriage is not just about two people

The report of the European Court of Human Rights ruling regarding the recently decided civil partnership adoption rights case is by itself more fascinating than any of the headline grabbing journalism about it. Please see the English summary. It supported the refusal of French authorities to authorise an adoption that would transfer parental rights from a child’s biological mother, Ms. Dubois to her civil partner, Ms. Gas.

We might be tempted to think that an adoptive transfer of parental responsibility to Ms Dubois's civil partner would be the best way of securing the primacy of Ms. Gas's parental rights over all other family claims, especially should Ms Dubois die prematurely. The French authorities rightly saw that this was not in the best interest of the child, given that should their partnership be dissolved, it could inadvertently challenge her own access to her biological child. Marriage, given the body of case law, is the only exception in which the parental responsibility is shared between the biological parent and the adoptive husband, or wife.

But surely, this is discriminatory? Well, no. Had there been a French prohibition on forming opposite-sex civil partnerships (as there is in the UK), the Strasbourg court would most certainly have viewed the adoption ban as discriminatory. In fact, opposite-sex civil partners in France equally fall foul of this limitation on the transfer of parental rights. So, in this case, the adoption refusal was *not* about sexual orientation, however loud others might scream to the contrary.

In a sense, the limit on the right to marry is the final counter-argument. Surely, it was the lack of access to marriage that scuppered the couple's bid to share parental rights over Ms. Dubois' child. The blunt answer is that EU governments are under no obligation to extend marriage to same-sex couples. The legal implications for the church can only be applied, once same-sex marriage has been granted, not before.

The approach of the French authorities is vastly preferable to the 'blue skies' thinking that permeates the current UK government proposals for re-defining marriage and that leaves off defining a gender-free common standard for annulment through non-consummation and even adultery as issues for judges to unravel under case law.

This case does highlight the very real problems in extending the rights of marriage beyond its historic definition and without discerning the full implications. Marriage is clearly NOT just about two people who love each other. It can naturally trigger legal consequences far beyond those two people; consequences that matrimonial case law has thoroughly considered. Marriage also carries a gravitas (derived from human history and supported by case law) and an essential framework of commonly held mutual obligations that can be relied upon in law. It is this gravitas, when compared to the relative informal ease in ending civil partnerships, which led the French authorities to restrict the sharing of parental rights via adoption to married partners.

While it is a painful outcome for the couple, we return to Lord Penzance's 1866 statement in Hyde vs. Hyde: 'It may be, and probably is, the case that the women there pass by some word or name which corresponds to our word “wife.” But there is no magic in a name; and, if the relation there existing between men and women is not the relation which in Christendom we recognise and intend by the words “husband” or “wife,” but another and altogether different relation, the use of a common term to express these two separate relations will not make them one and the same, though it may tend to confuse them to a superficial observer'

An open letter to my vicar

Hi Rachel,

I hope that your retreat was a time of spiritual growth and insight. There's a lot of good that your pastoral oversight imparts, so I'm glad you're back.

At the same time, the recent report cataloguing the culture of connivance at Chichester exposes a terrible history of episcopal errors. In spite of the damning evidence, the Bishop of Lewes, Wallace Benn, remains in office until retirement later this year. He'll collect his pension with not so much as a censure on his record of public service. A skilled communicator, he even appeared as a bit of church PR on Top Gear some time ago.

The 'apology' extended to the child victims who are now adults (the perpetrator went after choirboys, once he was dismissed on similar grounds from the Scout movement) merely cites systemic failures that we should now presume to be fixed, rather than holding specific clergy to account for their lack of protective oversight: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005403.html#comments

Yet, we wonder why so many have abandoned the Anglican church. Even if you discount the comparative ignorance of the '60's, we are now in an era in which CRB checks are routinely mandated. Yet, the 'good' bishop was happy to endorse a 1999 Permission to Officiate for a previously convicted paedophile.

This case needed a clear and inspiring show of root-and-branch disciplinary rigour. Instead, victims got a set of ecclesiastical sound-bites aimed at avoiding organisational incrimination. Perhaps, we need a Christian equivalent of the Nazi-hunter to root out these convicted perverts before they occupy a role of trust. There must be a range of XXXL granite dog-collars on reserve for them in hell.

It's not the quality of theology, preaching and social initiatives that undermine the Anglican church, nor the rise of secularism. It is the reasonable public fear that at a certain level, we are a church run by those who can dismiss the damning evidence that would prevent interlopers ('wolves in sheep's clothing') from exploiting public trust with impunity.

There is an abiding recognition that many of our leaders are far too interested in publicised political debate, civic prominence and the advocacy of single-issue social causes to worry about a nurturing relationship with each individual parishioner, as a true shepherd would nurture sheep. Yet, the gospel not about driving through grand policies, but the transmission of divine grace through nurturing change, mentoring guidance and committed personal interaction. You can easily identify those who don't engage at those levels.

You can't overcome those obstacles from the pulpit alone. You can only establish important ideals. People will respond to someone who is alongside, rather than above them. That's why I'm signing up for the mentoring course that I mentioned last year. My extended two-cents worth here might just add up.

Regards,

Dave