Sermon preached on Proper 24 St Peter's 19 October 2003

Revd Mark Bonney

Power and how it is exercised effects all our lives. We all exercise power in a variety of ways - lots of people and things exercise power over us - some we can control others we can't. It's a highly complex picture. 

Power and authority feature strongly in our gospel passage today. James and John express naked ambition and ask for the top places at Jesus' right and left hands. As an aside it's interesting that in Matthew's gospel it's not James and John who make the request, but their mother - Matthew transforms a piece of blundering barefaced ambition into a touching example of maternal pride (that minor change highlights important things about how we read the Bible, and well illustrates the fact that the gospel writers were making their own points in writing as they did rather than simply recording what happened - the Bible hardly ever, if ever at all, simply records what happened - but the fact that a considerable number of people think that is so is, I think one of the principle reasons the Anglican church is in the mess its in). But that's the end of my aside.

Mark has James and John being unashamedly ambitious. It fits in well with his general portrait of the disciples. It's true to say that in this gospel the disciples were called and they followed - and they did so unhesitatingly -they are also given the secrets of the kingdom of God; but the rest of the time they fail to understand, they get things wrong, they fail to rise to the kingdom's call - and when it comes to the final moments of Jesus life they all betray Jesus and flee into the darkness; the other gospel writers temper that picture considerably - but in Mark the disciples pretty well completely fail to understanding what Jesus is on about - and James and John's request is part of the corporate misunderstanding.

Jesus gives two answers to their specific request, and then tries to explain the positive nature of his mission.

The first answer uses the images of being put into water and being given a cup to drink, and points to Jesus suffering as his destiny (and likewise the destiny of those who truly keep his company). The second answer is to do with the giving of honours that is God's business alone and is something in which Jesus has no role.

And then we get into the most challenging part of the gospel that reverses all power-seeking and authority-exerting: "whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first must be the slave of all." 

The kingdom of God is completely counter-cultural: last week's gospel had one would be disciple being told to sell all he had in order to follow Jesus; today's turns upside down understandings of the exercise of power (and remember, in the gospel the passion of Christ is just around the corner).

The question I find myself grappling with is - to what extent can we maintain such a counter-cultural vision today in the Church, and in our daily lives? Some early Christians were so counter-cultural that they were anti-cultural and took flight and lived completely apart from others - but that's not possible - and only an illusion anyway - you still need the food and electricity and the rest that the world provides. But the obverse is such that Christians are in danger very often of being no different from anyone else around them apart from the fact that sometimes they go to church on Sundays whereas other people go to the gym or play golf. 

I have been reflecting on what it means to be counter-cultural not least in the light of the events surrounding the meeting of bishops in Lambeth this last week.

One thing that horrifies me is the power of money - and how inculturated so many are in this sphere. There's a lot of money from a fairly strong Right -wing evangelical lobby being pumped into parts of Africa and the southern cone of America that is, to some extent, making those bishops dance the tune they dance. It is very much part of our culture to be individualistic - if I don't like it I'll pick up my ball and not play - if I don't like it I'll take my money elsewhere, so you'd better do what I like (blackmail by any other name).

The churches of the Anglican communion could give a counter-cultural message if, instead of threatening to do their own thing and breaking away, they really did what the Archbishop of Canterbury has been asking, which is to talk and listen and to experience the pain of living with difference, and working and praying and discerning together. And one can do that with integrity even if you disagree with the party-line. To take another issue - many priests including myself, thought for many years that there were circumstances in which it would be right to marry in church a couple where one or both were divorced. However, the CofE had until last year had not allowed this - this was not enforceable by law, but the decisions of Convocations and the General Synod had a moral force, and I accepted that, even if I disagreed with it, and voted in favour of change at every opportunity. Similarly with the current issue - I disagree with the church's teaching, work for change where I can, but abide by the rules of the church. And being is such a position is very hard and painful at times, and there are many, many times when I think about leaving - but I don't because if I do that I'm just as bad as those who pick up their bags and form schismatic groups - every time I say the creed I say that I believe in a "one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church" - which I do; I do not believe in a multitude of protestant sects which we're in danger of heading towards. 

It would be a fine counter-cultural example - even though it is certainly part of following in the footsteps of Christ's passion, if the churches were true to that part of the Lambeth Conference resolution of 1998 which was reaffirmed last week that emphasises the need "to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and …to assure them that they are loved by God, and that all baptised, believing and faithful; persons, regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ." 

If the Episcopal Church in the US goes ahead with the consecration in two weeks time of Gene Robinson, however canonically valid it will be in their own jurisdiction, they will jeopardise the listening process - so likewise will others if they anathematise the US as a result. Both groups are in danger of being the kind of tyrants that today's gospel speaks against. 

Being 'in communion' is a very, very special gift - as we gather around this altar to be in communion with one another and with our Lord Jesus Christ, let us specially hold in our hearts all members of his broken body the Church and pray for the coming together of the broken fragments, not their further fragmentation - and may it all be in the loving service of the one and only living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.