Secular culture tells us that today is Mother’s Day. Mother’s Day is an American day of thanksgiving for mothers that dates back a little over 100 years, to the early years of the 20^th Century.  The Church, on the other hand, says that today, the 4^th Sunday of Lent, is Mothering Sunday and that is a Christian celebration of motherhood which dates back to at least 1,200 years to the 8^th Century. So today, we in the Church, are not keeping Mother’s Day, but celebrating Mothering Sunday. So what’s the difference?

The origins of Mothering Sunday lie in the old lectionary texts for the day from Isaiah 66, Psalm 122 and Galatians 4. Those readings speak of Jerusalem as ‘mother’ and  of God comforting his people, “As a mother comforts her child…” In Medieval times it became a custom for people, inspired by the words of the psalm, “Let us go to the house of the Lord!” to go in procession to their ‘mother church’, which was usually the local cathedral. Later, in post-Reformation days in this country, the idea of ‘mother church’ was extended to include the parish church in which people had been baptised, and the much later custom of allowing domestic staff to have a day off on the 4^th Sunday of Lent wasn’t so much so that they could visit their biological mothers, although they did that too, but to allow them to visit their mother church. And the practice of doing that became known as ‘mothering’, hence the name given to the day, Mothering Day, and eventually, Mothering Sunday. So whilst these days Mothering Sunday and Mother’s Day mean the same thing for many people, in origin and intent, they’re very different celebrations.

But today, in the Church as well as in secular culture, we think about mothers and give thanks for our mothers. But as well as thinking about the Church as our mother today, it’s customary too to think about the Blessed Virgin Mary as our mother, and we do that in a few different ways. Primarily of course, we think Mary as the mother of our Lord but, through his incarnation, we think of Jesus as our brother and so by extension, we think of Mary as our mother too. We also think of Mary as our mother because in his words from the Cross when Jesus  gave her into the keeping of his beloved disciple as his mother and he into her keeping as her son, the Church has come to view Mary, again by extension, as the mother of all Christians. And as the mother of Jesus who is the head of the Church, we also think of Mary as the mother of the Church.

It’s often said, isn’t it, that there’s no love like a mother’s love? And that’s something that’s often applied to Mary as an exemplar of a mother’s love. We say this because of her ‘Yes’ to God in accepting her vocation to be the mother of his Son, and through her support of Jesus despite the sword, and probably many swords, which pierced her soul along the way.

It’s also said though, that Mary was enabled to do these things because she’d been specially prepared by God so that she could fulfil this particular vocation. And what’s meant by that isn’t that she was given the particular gifts that she needed in the way that we believe all Christians are, but that through a singular act of grace, God gave to Mary a gift unique to her. But therein lies a problem, two problems actually, both a real theological problem about the Incarnation, and a potential problem about Mary herself.

The theological problem concerns the humanity of Jesus. Both scripture and the Christian faith tell us that Jesus was fully human, and that it was essential that he was. He had to be just like every other human being in order to take our sins upon himself and remove them through his Passion and Cross. But  Jesus took his humanity from Mary and if her humanity was not the same as ours, neither was his. So whatever gifts Mary was given by God to enable her to fulfil her vocation to be the mother of his Son, they can’t have changed her humanity; Mary had to be just like us too. Otherwise we veer towards a belief that was once expressed to me by someone in the Church that Jesus was so much better than us because Mary was so different to us. That simply cannot be the case, the Christian faith as we know and understand it collapses if that is the case.

The other problem is that if we say Mary was so prepared by God that there was no question or doubt that she would say ‘Yes’ when she was told she’d  been chosen to be the mother of God’s Son, we can actually devalue her ‘Yes’ to God and render it meaningless because, to all intents and purposes, we’ve taken away Mary’s free will, and her ability to choose to say, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. We make Mary’s ‘Yes’ to God the pre-programmed function of an automaton. And if we do that then we can’t talk about Mary ‘Yes’ to God as being an act of love because without free will, without the ability and freedom to choose to love or not to love, there can be no love.

Let me put it this way. In the Gospels, Jesus says,

“Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.“ 

In the same way that Solomon was praised for his glory, we praise people for what we might see as theirs. So, for example, if we see someone who’s clearly made a great effort to look good, and smart, with nice clothes and hair, good make-up, nice smelling perfume or after shave, we might praise them for it. And we’d do that because that person had made a choice to spend time and effort on their appearance. But no matter how lovely a flower looks or smells, there’s no praise, no personal praise, due to that or any flower for looking and smelling so nice because there’s no choice, no free will involved. The flower hasn’t made any conscious effort to look and smell as it does, it looks and smells that way simply because it’s a flower and that’s how flowers look and smell.

And so, if we’re going to praise and glorify Mary for her ‘Yes’ to God we must, always remember that it must have been her free choice; Mary must have been able to say ‘No’. And if that wasn’t the case then there was no love involved in Mary’s ‘Yes’ to God and no praise due to Mary for saying ‘Yes’ either. And it’s the same when we think about Jesus’ Passion and Cross.

In this morning’s Gospel, Jesus says,

“…as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵ that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

Jesus is the Messiah and what happened to him was what was scripture said would happen to him. But nevertheless, Jesus had a choice. His temptation in the wilderness tells us he had a choice. His decision to go to Gethsemane on the night of his arrest knowing that Judas knew he’d be there and would lead the authorities straight to him tells us he had a choice. His agony in the garden tells us he had a choice and also what a very difficult choice it was. His refusal to defend himself before Pilate when Pilate was looking for a reason to let Jesus go free tells us he had a choice. Jesus could have said ‘No’ to God so many times, but he didn’t, he freely chose to be lifted up on the Cross in love and obedience to God his Father and out of love for us.

We always have to remember that Mary had a choice and Jesus had a choice. They were both given a vocation by God and they both freely chose to say ‘Yes’ and accept their vocation. And we have exactly the same choice. Each and every one of us will have been called and will be called again by God to carry out some task for him, and when that call comes we have a choice; we can either say ‘Yes’ or we can say ‘No’. We can choose to take up our cross and follow Jesus or we can lay our cross down, or even refuse to pick it up in the first place and say ‘No’ to our invitation to follow Jesus. It’s our choice.

It is said that there’s no love like a mother’s love but actually there is. There’s a love that exceeds all others, the love of a God who sent his Son into the world to save a people who’d rejected his love time and time again, and to save us who still reject his love today. And there’s the love of God’s Son who freely chose to be lifted up on a Cross and die to save those people who rejected his love then and to save us who still reject his love today. On this Mothering Sunday when it’s become customary to respond to the love of our mothers for us by showing some token of appreciation for their love, we might spare some time to think about how we’re going to respond to the love of God and his Son for us. How are we going to show our appreciation of their love for us? Are we going to respond with love as Mary and Jesus did by doing what they ask of us, or are we going to spurn their love and turn away when they call us to do something for them? That’s the choice we’re all faced with, and it is our choice; it’s up to us how we respond. So when that call comes, are we going to say ‘Yes’ to God, or are we going to say ‘No’ to God?

Amen.

---

Propers for the 4th Sunday of Lent (Mothering Sunday) 10th March 2024

Entrance Antiphon
Rejoice, Jerusalem!
Be glad for her, you who love her;
rejoice with her, you who mourned for her,
and you will find contentment at her consoling breasts. 

The Collect
Merciful Lord,
absolve your people from their offences,
that through your bountiful goodness
we may all be delivered from the chains of those sins,
which by our frailty we have committed;
grant this, heavenly Father,
for Jesus Christ’s sake, our blessed Lord and Saviour,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Amen.

The Readings
Missal (St Mark’s)        
Chronicles 36:14-16, 19-23
Psalm 137:1-6
Ephesians 2:4-10
John 3:14-21

RCL (St Gabriel’s)          
Numbers 21:4-9
Psalm 107:1-3, 17-22
Ephesians 2:1-10
John 3:14-21

When we look at the history of the Church, there can’t any doubt that two of the landmark moments in that history both occurred in the 4^th Century. The first was the Edict of Milan in the year 313. This was actually an imperial order about general religious freedom but because the Emperor Constantine was a Christian, it gave Christianity a favoured status among the religions of the Empire, and as a Christian, Constantine actively promoted Christianity. The Edict of Milan though, didn’t make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. That didn’t happen until the year 380 when the Edict of Thessalonica not only made Christianity the state religion of the Empire but also established the Nicene Creed, the one we still use today and say each and every Sunday in church, as the official statement of orthodox Christian belief. It also authorised the punishment of heretics, anyone who didn’t conform to the official version of Christianity.

There can’t be any doubt that these two edicts were very important in the history of the Church because they helped the Church to spread by giving protected status, and even imperial warrant to Christians to proclaim their faith, and that obviously helped to ensure the safety of Christian missionaries and evangelists throughout the Empire. But for some people, these edicts were landmarks in a very different sense because some people see these edicts as marking the end of true Christianity. Some people see these edicts as marking the points in time when the Church ceased to be a people who sought to ‘turn the world upside down’, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles  that St Paul and his companions were accused of doing, and became instead an organisation that had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

It must be said that there is some truth at least in the latter of those two strains of thought. If we look at the evangelisation of Britain in the post-Roman period for example, we can see that whether it was British missionaries evangelising in Ireland, Irish missionaries evangelising the Picts in what’s now Scotland or the Anglo Saxons in the North of England, or Roman missionaries evangelising in the South and Midlands of England, we see the same pattern. The missionaries looked first to speak to kings so that they could either convert them to Christianity which would give them royal warrant to proclaim the faith in a kingdom, or even if the king wasn’t for renouncing paganism, at he might allow the missionaries to proclaim their faith in his kingdom and give them some degree of royal protection. What often followed that were laws compelling the king’s subjects to adopt Christian practices. But of course all that would count for nothing if the Christian, or at least Church friendly king was deposed and replaced by a pagan king who was not so friendly to the Church. And so the Church did have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo where there was a ruler who was either a Christian himself or was at least friendly towards the Church.

But it wasn’t only in terms of enabling mission and evangelism that the Church had an interest in keeping things as they were. Regardless of the fact that they hold power, kings and ruling elites are sinners, just like everyone else. But  whereas ordinary people might have had to fast or do some other physically unpleasant penance to atone for their sins, ruling elites would pay for their sins by giving the Church money and land, so the Church grew very rich into the bargain. And of course that wealth would be under threat too if there was a change in the order of things. So the Church did have a vested interest in keeping things just as they were and had nothing to gain, at least in earthly terms, in seeing the world turned upside down.

In the Acts of the Apostles, when we read about St Paul and his companions having “turned the world upside down”, it’s in the context of people being won over to Christ through the power and persuasiveness of St Paul’s teaching. We’re told that “some” Jews, “a great many devout Greeks” (and what’s meant by ‘devout Greeks’ is God-fearing Greeks who attended the synagogue) and “not a few leading women” “joined Paul and Silas”. We’re told that because of this, “the Jews were jealous” no doubt because these conversions lessened their power and influence, and as a consequence, affected them financially too. And we read elsewhere in Acts that Paul and his companions were dragged before the authorities, beaten and imprisoned because their teaching and actions hit people where it hurts most – in the pocket.

In this morning’s Gospel we read the story of Jesus cleansing the temple, driving out,

‘…those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers…’ 

This was part of the business of the temple. People were expected to offer a sacrifice when they went to the temple. Many of them would have travelled a long way to visit Jerusalem for the Passover and to save them from having to take animals with them, they could buy animals when they got to the temple. But the sacrificial animals had to be pure and un-blemished and so those who sold them could charge whatever they wanted, and the people would have no choice except to pay up. And people couldn’t pay with their everyday money either. That would have been Roman coinage and that was considered impure so, to protect the purity of the temple people had to change their money into temple money, and the money-changers, cheated people on the exchange rate. So the animal sellers, the money changers and the temple too got rich at the expense of the poor people who were, to use a modern term, being ripped-off. It’s no wonder Jesus was so angry and drove them out. But I don’t think we get the full impact or meaning of Jesus’ words in the version of this story we read today.

In St John’s version, Jesus is angry because people have turned his Father’s house into “a market”. But in other versions of the story, Jesus refers to those responsible for this as “robbers”, and in St Mark’s version, Jesus says,

 “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 

I think this, the earliest version of the story, is perhaps the best version because it gives an added dimension to Jesus’ anger. This trading went on in the temple precinct, not in the temple itself. So all this buying and selling, this robbery, as Jesus called it would have been going on in the Court of the Gentiles, the place where God-fearing Gentiles would have gathered to worship God because they weren’t allowed into the temple proper. So what all this trading and cheating and profiteering was doing was preventing non-Jewish people from worshipping God: it was preventing the temple from being the house of prayer for all nations that it was supposed to be. And there is a great and much needed lesson in this for the Church today.

We know we live in difficult times for the Church, and that’s led to the Church to become very focussed on finance, on making money and saving money. In fact this has become such an issue for the Church that it’s now stopped claiming that what it does is “all about money” and now openly admits that much of what it does is about money. And yet the Church is not poor. The Church might cry poverty, but its accounts don’t reflect that, quite the opposite in fact, in terms of its assets the Church grows richer year after year. But people are not stupid, they can see this and how many people are being prevented from coming to Christ and to God because of what they see as the Church’s attitude towards money? Which, rightly or wrongly, many people do see as yet another example of the rich getting richer at the expense of ordinary people. How many people have we met, for example, who’ve said things like, “The Church is loaded but all they do is cry poverty to try and get more money out of people” or “I won’t go to church because all they want from you is money” or “I won’t go to church because all they want you for is to see how much they can get from you”?

We know that one of the reasons for the growth of the early Church was that it was a religion that turned the world upside down. It was a religion that taught a slave was the equal of their master, in fact there’s an old tradition that bishop Onesimus of Ephesus whom St Ignatius of Antioch wrote of in the late 1^st Century, was one and the same as the slave Onesimus mentioned in St Paul’s Letter to Philemon. It was a religion that appealed to slaves, to women, to the poor, to the marginalised, to the weak, in fact to all those whom the world, if it regarded them at all, regarded as worthless. It was a religion that appealed to these people because it challenged that status quo, and it was made up of people who, far from seeking to ingratiate themselves to ruling elites in order to make the task of mission and evangelism easier, were prepared to challenge ruling elites and urge them to change their ways in accordance with the teachings of Christ. In a week when it was reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury has had to apologise to the pastor of a Palestinian Christian Church in Bethlehem for refusing to meet him because he’d been advised it may have caused problems, can we honestly say we belong to the same Church which once turned the world upside down?

Of course, we can’t turn the world upside down on our own, but we can turn, at least try to turn, our own little worlds upside down by trying to live in the way that those early Christians did and by trying to do the things they did. We can try to think less of our own comfort and more of those who have little or no comfort. We can try to be more courageous in proclaiming our faith and not worry so much about what people will think or say about us for doing that. And when we get the opportunity, we could remind our Church leaders that Christians are called to turn the world upside down and urge them to show less interest in maintaining the comfort of the status quo and more interest in bringing to Christ the multitudes of people who are downtrodden by the status quo.

Amen. 

---

Propers for Lent 3, 3rd March 2024

Entrance Antiphon
I will prove my holiness through you.
I will gather you from the ends of the earth;
I will pour clean water on you and wash away all your sins.
I will give you a new spirit within you, says the Lord.

The Collect
Almighty God,
whose most dear Son went not up to joy but first he suffered pain,
and entered not into glory before he was crucified:
mercifully grant that we, walking in the way of the cross,
may find it none other than the way of life and peace;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Amen.

The Readings
Missal (St Mark’s)        
Exodus 20:1-17
Psalm 19:8-11
1 Corinthians 1:22-25
John 2:13-25

RCL (St Gabriel’s)          
Exodus 20:1-17
Psalm 19
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
John 2:13-22

Our Gospel readings this morning are, once again, different in each church in the benefice. And because of the order we read them, this Sunday the readings are in the wrong chronological order. At St Mark’s this morning we read the story of Jesus’ Transfiguration, which we read at St Gabriel’s a couple of weeks ago, whilst at St Gabriel’s we read the story which comes immediately before the Transfiguration when, shortly after confessing that Jesus is “the Christ”, Peter rebukes Jesus for speaking about his death and resurrection and, in return Jesus rebukes Peter saying,

“Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Which leads to Jesus giving what must be one of his most well-known teachings,

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

When we read this story of Jesus’ rebuking Peter in this way, we have to understand that Jesus isn’t saying that Peter is the devil. We’re told that before he rebuked Peter, Jesus turned to the disciples, so this rebuke was probably intended for all of them. So there’s no sense that Peter himself is evil. It’s his thoughts and words that are evil, and not because they’re malicious, we’re given no indication that they were that, but simply because they’re contrary to God’s will.

I think it’s worth comparing this story about Peter with what we read about Judas Iscariot later in the Gospels. After Judas had argued with Jesus about allowing Mary to anoint his feet with expensive perfume, and had also been rebuked by Jesus, we read that,

‘…Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them.’

So unlike Peter, who argued with Jesus, was rebuked and then reconciled to Jesus, Judas argued, was rebuked but was not reconciled to Jesus. On the contrary, in response to disagreeing and arguing with Jesus, and being rebuked for it, he acted with malice aforethought to bring Jesus’ down. Again we’re not told that Judas himself was evil, but that Satan, evil thoughts had entered him. But unlike Peter, Judas allowed those thoughts to fester and grow so that they turned to evil action.

I think we also have to understand what Jesus might have meant when he used the name, or the word, ‘Satan’ when he rebuked Peter. We think of Satan as synonymous with the devil, perhaps a proper name for the devil, but that isn’t something we find in the Old Testament. In fact, most Jews don’t believe in the devil as an evil supernatural being. Satan, or ‘the satan’ to be precise, first appears in the Book of Genesis as someone akin to a prosecutor in a court case, someone who stands before God and accuses people of sin. And when they speak about Satan rather than the satan, different strands of Judaism interpret Satan as either a human adversary, an evil influence or, as in the Book of Job, an agent of God sent to test human beings so that he can then accuse them as the satan when he stands before God in the heavenly court. So when the Gospels speak of Satan, and especially when Jesus speaks about Satan, it’s almost certainly in one or a number of these ways.

If we read this Gospel story in this light, ‘Satan’ perhaps refers both to the tempter, who’d failed to turn Jesus from God in the wilderness and who’d now become an evil influence on Peter and the other disciples in an attempt to turn them into human adversaries of Jesus, and to Peter and the disciples who were, at that moment, acting as Jesus’ human adversaries by being an evil influence on him and themselves trying to turn him from obeying God’s will.  And if we look at ‘Satan’ in those terms we can perhaps say that Judas was the most susceptible to this kind of testing and evil influence because he was the one who, in the end, conspired with Jesus’ human adversaries to plot his downfall.

And if Satan can be a human adversary who tries to turn us from obeying God’s will then, just as Satan entered Peter and Judas and turned them into Satan, Satan can enter us too, and in the same ways that Satan entered them.

Satan enters us when we argue with Jesus. We might not think we do argue with Jesus or even wonder how we can because Jesus isn’t physically with us to argue with. But we do argue with him. We argue with Jesus every time we question his teaching, or disagree with his teaching, and we do these things in many ways. We question his teaching when we try to interpret it in ways that allow us to act as we want to act rather than acting as he commanded us to. And we all do that because how often do we sin and then try to excuse what we’ve done by thinking and even saying that what we’ve done isn’t so bad, nowhere near as bad as the things other people do? Or try to excuse our sins by trying to argue that, if we interpret Jesus’ words in a certain way, what we’ve done isn’t a sin at all really? And when we sin and try to excuse what we’ve done, or worse, say we haven’t sinned at all, aren’t we really saying that Jesus is wrong? And isn’t that what Peter was doing when he argued with Jesus about his death and resurrection? And what Judas was doing when he argued with Jesus about allowing Mary to anoint his feet with expensive perfume, and when he plotted with the authorities to betray Jesus?

Some people argue that Judas has got a ‘bad rap’ because, after all, he brought about Jesus’ death through which our sins are forgiven, and we’re saved. They argue that Judas played a vital role in our salvation and so he should be, if not praised, then at least more pitied than vilified. But that doesn’t seem to be the way Jesus himself viewed Judas and his actions because he said,

“The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” 

Reading that, I’m sure none of us would like to be in Judas’ shoes. But when we acclaim Jesus as Christ, and as our Lord and Saviour, and then argue with him and live our lives as though we think he was wrong, aren’t we allowing Satan to lead us into betraying him too? Aren’t we at least inviting Jesus to rebuke us by saying,

“Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”?

Scripture tells us that Satan can enter all of us, either as a supernatural or human agent, and influence us towards evil, and because of that we can all be Satan by becoming an evil influence on others. What we have to do is to be able to recognise when Satan has or is trying to enter us and deciding whether we are going to respond as Peter did, or in the way that Judas did. If evil thoughts enter our minds, are we going to allow those thoughts to fester and grow until they lead us away from following God and Christ and into evil actions, or are we going to be resist the tempter and be reconciled to Christ so that we can stay on the right path? And if we’re going to respond in the latter way, as Peter did and we should, then we have to turn a deaf ear to whatever Satan is telling us, whoever that Satan might be, and listen to what Jesus is telling us. That is the right thing to do because it’s what the Father himself tells us to do. As we read in the story of Jesus’ Transfiguration,

“This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” 

So let’s listen to Jesus and follow him so that we can resist Satan and the satan can’t stand before God and accuse us.

Amen.

---

Propers for Lent, 25th February 2024

Entrance Antiphon
Remember you mercies, Lord, your tenderness from ages past.
Do not let our enemies triumph over us;
O God, deliver Israel from all her distress.

The Collect
Almighty God,
you show to those who are in error the light of your truth,
that they may return to the way of righteousness:
grant to all those who are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion,
that they may reject those things that are contrary to their profession,
and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same;
through our Lord Jesus Christ,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Amen.

The Readings
Missal (St Mark’s)
Genesis 22:1-2, 9-13, 15-18
Psalm 116:10, 15-19
Romans 8:31-34
Mark 9:2-10

RCL (St Gabriel’s)          
Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16
Psalm 22:23-31
Romans 4:13-25
Mark 8:31-38