In my sermon last week, I spoke about the problem of people in the Church who act in ways that are contrary to the teaching and example of Jesus. I spoke about the real harm those people can do, and often actually do, to other members of the Church, and about the damage those people do to the Church itself, and to the Christian faith, because their actions bring the Church and the faith into disrepute. Unfortunately, we have to face up to the fact that some people in the Church do cause trouble and problems by acting in this way, and that leaves the Church, and the members of the local congregations where these things happen with the additional problem of what to do about it.

In days gone by, when the Church and the clergy were regarded with much more reverence than is usually the case now, the parish priest would have dealt with it. He would have simply laid the law down to anyone acting in this way, privately, at first, and then, if that didn’t work, from the pulpit on Sunday morning. And, if they still didn’t mend their ways, he would have barred them from Communion until they did. If those of you who have a Book of Common Prayer at home want to read the instruction about giving notice of ‘Briefs, Citations and Excommunications, which was done before the sermon, and the Exhortations that were read after the intercessions, you’ll get the idea.

In these days of openness and transparency and due process though, that doesn’t happen anymore. People who act in ways that hurt others and damage the Church can still be barred from Communion, but only with the approval of the bishop, and that doesn’t happen very often.  It does happen, but in my own experience, I’ve only ever come across it once. So, these days, the problem of dealing with this kind of problem in a church, in a parish, is much more in the hands of the diocese than the parish itself.

But these days, bishops are usually very reluctant to act in what might be seen as an authoritarian or heavy-handed way with people. And that’s quite understandable in the society we live in. These days, the Church doesn’t command the respect it once did and there’s no shortage of people who would seize any opportunity to criticise the Church and the clergy. And any instance of the Church or the clergy using their authority against an individual, no matter what trouble or problems that individual was causing or had caused, would no doubt be immediately pounced upon as an instance of the Church or the clergy abusing their authority and bullying some poor, helpless  individual who hadn’t done anything to deserve such appalling treatment at the hands of a powerful institution like the Church and its clergy.

So really, when these cases come along, the Church finds itself in a Catch 22 situation. If the Church uses its authority against an individual, it could be accused of abusing its authority and of institutional bullying. And because the media might get their hands on a story like that, the Church is reluctant to use its authority to deal with these problems because of the damage that might be done to its public image. But, on the other hand, if nothing is done to sort these problems out, the Church suffers because of the damage that’s done to the local congregation and to its image in the local community. And perhaps, in the final analysis, the Church thinks it’s easier for the local congregation, the parish, to deal with a local problem, than for the Church to have to deal with a national scandal caused by a storm of criticism in the media.

But that leaves us with the problem of what to do about people who cause harm at a local level, in a parish, because of their un-Christian behaviour doesn’t it? Because, as I said in my sermon last Sunday, local problems of this kind, which are very rarely heard about or known about outside the few people who are directly involved in the problem and who are affected by it, cause just as much damage to the Church as the problems that are plastered all over the media. And not only within a local congregation and parish. In fact, I think it’s probably fair to say, that if the Church was more well-respected at a local level, people would be more inclined to believe the Church and less inclined to believe the media, when the media criticises the Church. It seems to me, that the damage to the Church’s public image has been done and what we need to do, is build that image back up by dealing with the problem of those who have damaged the Church, its image and its reputation by their un-Christian behaviour at a local level.

So what do we do? How do we deal with people like this? Well, as with any other problem or trouble we encounter in the Christian life, we should look to Jesus for the answer. And in this morning’s Gospel, Jesus tells us exactly how to deal with this problem.

If someone is acting in an un-Christian way, we should tell them that’s what they’re doing. And if they won’t listen, we should get witnesses to what they’ve done, or been doing, and tell them again. And that’s very important because a lot of problems in the Church are caused by simple misunderstandings and differences of opinion, and before we accuse someone of acting in an un-Christian way, we need to be sure that they have and they’ve not upset us just because they don’t agree with us about something.

But, if their behaviour is un-Christian, and they won’t listen to us or other witnesses, then we take the matter to the Church. At a local level, that means to the vicar, the churchwardens and the PCC. It doesn’t mean, at any stage, that we should go gossiping and rumourmongering about people to our family and friends because that in itself is un-Christian behaviour and, if we do that, we’re simply pots who are calling the kettle black. But, if someone has been acting in an un-Christian way and they won’t listen and change their ways, even after they’ve been spoken to by the Church, then Jesus says we should treat them as Gentiles and tax-collectors.

To understand what Jesus meant by that, we have to look at what he said, through 1^st Century Jewish eyes. Gentiles, as non-Jews, were not God’s people, they were outside the law and the covenant that God had made with his people. Tax-collectors were Jews, but they were seen as sinners; they were regarded as dishonest, as thieves and, in Judea at least, as collaborators with the pagan, Gentile Romans. So, tax-collectors, even though they were Jews, were seen as people who, because of their actions, their sins, had become the equivalent of Gentiles. In other words, they weren’t God’s people either. So what Jesus seems to be saying to us here is that, if people in the Church are acting in an un-Christian way, and they won’t listen to what anyone says to them and won’t change their ways, then they should be treated as though they aren’t members of the Church.

That’s a very different way of thinking and acting than we often see in the Church isn’t it. How often, for example, do those who are seen as ‘pillars of the Church’ act in un-Christian ways? And yet far from the Church treating them as though they weren’t members of the Church at all, they simply carry on in the roles that have made them ‘pillars of the Church’? And how much damage does it do to the Church, not only at a local level, but also at a wider level, when people see and hear about these ‘pillars of the Church’ acting in un-Christian ways?

It’s difficult, of course, to apply this teaching of Jesus. To do that, needs the Church to be of one mind about the actions of the person, or people in question, and about how to deal with them. And that is a problem because those in a local congregation are often our family and friends, and we put our family and friends on a bit of a pedestal. We might see what they’re doing is wrong, but we turn a blind eye to it, or we make excuses for them because they are our family and friends. And even if we know what our family and friends have done, or are doing, is clearly wrong, we don’t like to see any action taken against them, especially if what’s proposed hints of some kind of penalty or punishment. And so we tend to support our family and friends whether they’re right or wrong. But, in the Church, we shouldn’t have favourites. No matter what our relationship to someone, no matter how long we’ve known them, nor how good a friend they are, when it comes to the Church, as Christians our first loyalty should and must, only ever be to Christ.  As he said,

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

The word we translate as ‘hate’ in this teaching of Jesus isn’t quite so bad as it sounds, it really means to ‘love less’ rather than the loathing or detestation we usually associate with the word. And Jesus doesn’t mention friends in this teaching. But the meaning of what he says is perfectly clear; for his disciples, following Jesus must come above everything, and everybody, else. We must love him more than anything or anybody else.  

So, whenever we come across un-Christian behaviour in the Church, Jesus calls us to confront it. And if whoever is responsible for it, even if they’re our family or friends, won’t change their ways, to treat them as though they are no longer members of the Church. That’s very hard to do, but it’s what Jesus calls us to do as his disciples, and as members of his Church.

But to treat people as Gentiles and tax-collectors, as disciples of Christ should, means to treat them as he did, and we know that Jesus was known as a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. We might be called to confront those in the Church who act in an un-Christian way, but we’re not called to throw them out of the Church and have nothing more to do with them. This morning’s Gospel makes it clear that the point of confronting un-Christian behaviour in the Church is to persuade those responsible to change their ways, to win them back and get them to return to Christ and his way. It might be very hard for us to confront people, especially our family and friends, when they act in an un-Christian way but, it’s what we’re called to do. It’s what we must do if we love Jesus and want to call ourselves Christians. And, if we think about it as Jesus told us to, as winning back our brothers and sisters, it’s what we ought to do if we love them.

Amen.

---

You will find the Propers for the 23rd Sunday (Trinity 13) here.

Last week’s Gospel revolved around two questions that Jesus put to his disciples: who did the people think he was, and who did they think he was? In my sermon I said that Peter answered that question for Jesus’ disciples both then and now when he said that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. But, when we see the behaviour of some people in the Church, I think we have to question whether or not they really believe that. To be honest, I think we have to question whether some people in the Church are really Christians at all, or whether they’re simply people who go to church for some other reason.

If people really do believe that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of the living God, they’d also believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and if they believed that, they’d do their best to do in their lives what he did in his. But, in many cases, we know that they don’t. I’m not talking here about the sins we all commit from time to time, the sins of negligence and weakness that we commit because of our human frailties, I’m talking here about the deliberate sins that people commit, often  repeatedly, in full knowledge that what they’re doing is contrary to the teachings and example of Christ, and in full knowledge that what they’re doing has no place in the lives of his disciples.

We know only too well, for example, because some of these cases have been well-publicised, that some members of the clergy have acted in the most appalling way towards children and young people. But there are also other cases of appalling behaviour by people in the Church that are very rarely publicised and that are usually known only to those directly involved in them or affected by them, but which are far, far more common and widespread than the cases we hear about in the media. Things like people who’ve become far too big for their boots, throwing their weight around in the Church. People bullying others in the Church and trying to get rid of them from the Church because they don’t like them or disagree with them in some way. People causing trouble in the Church because they want their own way and think everyone else in the Church should back down and let them have it, regardless of whether their own way is right or wrong.

These things are usually associated with what’s often referred to as the clique in a church, and that is a very common and widespread problem. But they’re what I call a symptom of the problem that arises in a church when people, some people at least, start to treat the Church as nothing more than a private social club for them, their families, and their friends. A private social club in which they make the rules and in which they think, they should decide who can have a say in running things and who can’t, and even who can be a member and who can’t. I think that really is the problem because it’s these club members who make up the clique in a church.

We might not think that this kind of thing is as bad as the more well-publicised examples of Church people behaving badly, but these things are still wrong: they’re still things that Christians shouldn’t do, to anybody, let alone to other members of the Church. In terms of Christian behaviour, in terms of discipleship, they’re just as bad as many more well-publicised cases because, just like those well-publicised cases, they bring the Church, and the Christian faith into disrepute. They drive people out of the Church; they drive people away from the Church and deter them from wanting to come to church and from being part of the Church. And in doing that, ultimately, they drive people away from Christ and stop them from coming to Christ. So all examples of un-Christian behaviour by people in the Church, whatever they are, are stumbling blocks to Christ, and they all result from minds that are set on human things rather than on divine things. From minds that are set on their own way rather than God’s way, the way the Truth and the Life set out, and lived out, by Jesus.

So I do think we have to ask whether people who do this kind of thing really are Christians, or whether they’re just people who go to church for some kind of earthly reward that it gives them. But, as Jesus makes perfectly clear in this morning’s Gospel, that is not what Christians are supposed to do and so it’s not what we should be coming to church for. And we can’t possibly square that kind of attitude and behaviour with what we heard this morning:

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?”

 What we should be coming to church for is to look for that life that Jesus is talking about, the eternal life that he promised to all those who believe in him. And if we believe in him, if we really do, truly believe in him, that’s what we’ll do. We’ll give up looking for earthly rewards and put our efforts into looking for a heavenly reward. And we’ll come to church to learn how to do that from Jesus himself, and then we’ll follow him and his way. The alternative is that we look for whatever earthly reward we can get from the Church now. And, believe me, that’s never going to amount to very much. Jesus said that the whole world isn’t worth losing our soul for and that there’s nothing we can give in exchange for our souls, in other words, our immortal soul is the most precious thing we possess or can possess. So why do people jeopardise their soul for so little?

In a historically inaccurate, but very powerful scene in the film A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More, having just been betrayed to death by the perjured testimony of his one-time friend, and now Attorney General for Wales, Sir Richard Rich, More says to Rich,

“Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?”

But it seems that some people in the Church are willing to jeopardise their souls for even less than that: not for the whole world, not even for Wales, but for what? For a few moments of physical pleasure? For a few extra pounds in their pocket or bank account? To feel important? To be a member of the clique? To turn a church into their own private social club? In the grand scheme of things, it hardly seems a good exchange does it? And Jesus lays it out for us quite plainly in this morning’s Gospel when he says,

“For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.”

So why do people do it, unless, of course, it’s because they don’t really believe that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of the living God, in which case, Jesus’ warning won’t mean any more to them than any other of his words.

We, in the Church, are called to be Jesus’ disciples. We’re called to be people who not only say we believe that he is the Messiah and the Son of the living God, but to live as though we believe it. We’re called to be people who are willing to deny ourselves some earthly pleasures so that we can follow him and his Way, his Truth, and his Life. We’re called to be people who are willing to give up some of the pleasures of this life for Jesus’ sake so that we can find and gain our eternal life with him in his heavenly kingdom.

So are we willing to do that, and be the people we’re called to be as disciples of Christ? Or do we want to chase after earthly pleasures and be stumbling blocks to Christ instead? The answer won’t be found in our words, but in our actions. And the answer will depend on what we each of us really, truly believe.   

Amen.

---

You will find the Propers for the 22nd Sunday (Trinity 12) here.

In this morning’s Gospel reading, we hear Jesus put a couple of questions to his disciples. First of all he asks them,

“Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

We know from the Gospels that ‘Son of Man’ seemed to have been Jesus’ own title of choice so this was a question about who people thought Jesus was. And, as we heard, the disciples tell Jesus that people think different things about him. Some think he’s John the Baptist, some think he’s Elijah, some think he’s Jeremiah and some think he’s one of the prophets. Given the Jewish understanding of things at the time, that suggests that a lot of people thought Jesus was the herald of the Messiah, the one who was to come to prepare the way for the Messiah.  

But Jesus makes no comment on what the people thought, he simply asks the disciples another question:

“But who do you say that I am?”

That was a very pertinent question. And, in many ways, it was a far more important question than the first one. The disciples were the people who’d spent a lot of time close to Jesus, they’d seen him work and heard him speak much more than anybody else. And they’d not only seen and heard what other people had seen and heard, they’d had the privilege of seeing and hearing what others hadn’t. They’d see the miracles he’d done when no one else was around and they’d had the parables explained to them when they were alone with Jesus. So they were the people who knew Jesus best. And so, whatever anybody else thought about him, they were the people who really ought to have known who he was. And it was very important that they did know who Jesus was because not only were they were the people who were working with him now, they were the people who were going to continue his work after he’d returned to the Father and, as we heard a little later in this morning’s Gospel, they were the people who were going to become the Church and who were going to take the Gospel into the wider world to teach people who Jesus was, and is.  

But, as we look at the world today, 2,000 years after Jesus asked those questions, I think we must realise that his questions are as pertinent today as they were then. It might not be Jesus who asks them today, but people are still asking who was Jesus?

And, just as when Jesus asked the question, there are lots of different answers. To those outside the Church, who don’t have any faith, Jesus might be a great philosopher or a great teacher of wisdom or morals and ethics. For those outside the Church and of different faiths, Jesus is usually seen as a great prophet, but one who was misunderstood by his contemporaries, especially his own followers who founded a new faith and the Church around him.

As Christians, we might agree with some of those answers, but to us, Jesus was, and is, much more than any of those things. As we heard in the Gospel, Peter answered the question on behalf of all Jesus’ disciples when he said that Jesus was

“…the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

But even so, Christians, or perhaps I should say people in the Church, often still disagree about who Jesus was.

I don’t mean by that, that people disagree with Peter’s answer to the question; no one in any mainstream Church would say that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah and the Son of God, and if they do then, quite frankly, they shouldn’t really be calling themselves Christians or members of the Christian Church. But what people do disagree on is what Jesus taught and what he meant by his teachings. People put their own interpretation on Jesus’ words and teachings. Rather than conforming their lives to Jesus’ life, which is really what it means to be a Christian, to be Christ-like, in a sense they conform Jesus to their way of life. And that affects the Jesus they preach to the world.

That’s always gone on to some extent and we only have to read the Gospels to see that each of the Evangelists have their own particular interest or slant on who Jesus was.

St Mark shows Jesus as a man of action, rushing from place to place, wherever he’s needed, with no time for rest. St Matthew shows Jesus as a great teacher and as the Saviour of Israel. St Luke’s Jesus is a universal Saviour and great healer and someone who carries the burdens of others. And St John shows Jesus as a great miracle worker and emphasises his divinity and close, personal relationship with the Father, more than any of the other Gospel writers.

We think the Evangelists did this so that Jesus could be portrayed as addressing the concerns of the particular Christian community each evangelist was writing for. That’s understandable. But, if we don’t take all the Gospels into account when we’re building an image of who Jesus was, we can end up with a distorted image of him. The same thing can happen if we look for examples of Jesus addressing our own particular concerns and ignoring examples of Jesus speaking against our preferences. And I’ve come across lots of examples of that.

There was a lady with a rather feminist outlook that I met in a parish I once served in, who told me that she didn’t like the disciples, and neither did Jesus, he preferred women to men. I asked her where she got that impression from and she said it was because all the disciples ran away when Jesus was arrested, and only the women stayed with him. When I pointed out that the Gospel says that Beloved Disciple was with Mary at the Cross, she said, ‘Oh. That’s in John isn’t it? Well I don’t take any notice of what John says, I don’t like him, I prefer Luke!’ Luke’s Gospel, by the way, is the one that gives the most prominence to women, as you would expect from someone who portrays Jesus as the Saviour of all people.

I’m sure many of you here will have heard Jesus referred to as a proto-Socialist, or the first Socialist because of his concern for the poor. That’s a view that was very common a few years ago, especially amongst more politically left-wing Christians. But then, on the other hand I remember once hearing during a TV interview, a very famous, world famous in fact, American evangelist saying that Jesus wasn’t a Socialist; that Jesus believed in business and free-enterprise; that Jesus believed in private property; that Jesus believed in the ‘American Way’.

Which I always thought was a bit of an anachronism, but the pronouncements of American Christians are often puzzling to more than me. As indeed is the C of E’s current preoccupation with money. I’m sure Jesus wouldn’t have objected to the Church collecting money to meet its needs, after all, St Matthew’s Gospel tells us that he paid the ‘Temple Tax’ but how they can justify hounding churches for money, and closing churches and cutting clergy numbers for financial reasons while the Church sits on over £8 billion, how they can square that with Jesus cleansing the temple when God’s house of prayer had been turned into a den of thieves, I don’t know.  

In fact they are, and have been during the Churches history, literally hundreds of different theologies and movements, based on partial and distorted versions of Jesus’ teachings. Some of them seem to have been based on nothing more than the personal views of those who’ve espoused them. Some of them, perhaps many of them, have highlighted neglected areas or unseen implications of Jesus’ teachings, but none of them are the whole picture and so, if they’re taken in isolation, they all give an incomplete and distorted image of Jesus and his teachings. They all give the wrong answer to the question, who is Jesus?

So who is Jesus? As St Peter said, Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of the living God. Jesus is the one who came to take away the guilt and punishment of our sins by carrying them on the Cross on our behalf. Jesus is the one who came to be our Saviour so that all people might have eternal life. Jesus is the one who said that all we need do is believe in him and in the words he spoke, which weren’t his words, but the words of our Father in heaven. And Jesus is the one who summed up those words very simply in the Great Commandment to love God and to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. And if we think about it, what else do we need to do, or say? What is it that isn’t covered in that Great Commandment? It might not be so easy to put into practice, but that’s our fault; it’s not a fault in Jesus, or an omission from his teachings that we have to put right. And we’ll only think that it is if our image of Jesus is wrong, if we don’t know him as his disciples should.

Amen.

---

You will find the Propers for the 21st Sunday (Trinity 11) here.