Each day in Holy week Christians on social media are being encouraged to post under the tag #OURHOLYWEEK on a different subject each day.  So here goes!

What is your take on rage?  Is it something to be avoided at all costs or something to harness?  Perhaps it depends on your view of control and your definition of rage.  I suspect that if you grew up in a family where uncontrolled rage was a common experience you are not that keen on it.  But perhaps sometimes extreme anger is required.  Perhaps Jesus turning over the tables in the temple is an example (or perhaps not – although I find it difficult to imagine such behaviour without an element of anger); without it where does the energy to fight injustice come from?

What do you think?

On Palm Sunday the crowds welcome Jesus to Jerusalem as the Messiah; and yet, they seem to be expecting him to behave differently to the way that he does.  They were expecting someone who would “rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and World to come“, and at a time that Israel was ruled by the Romans this would require their overthrow.

Every Thursday local clergy discuss the following Sunday’s Gospel, and this week one of the discussion points was whether the crowd who welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem was the same one who cried out for his crucifixion a few days later.  The arguments centred on whether people would have changed their minds so quickly.  The choices were broadly: “no they wouldn’t” and “if they were disappointed by the failure to overthrow the Romans…”; no doubt there are others too.

It certainly looks as though they didn’t expect the kind of Messiah that Jesus was, ruling by influence rather than by power, indeed, refusing to use power when the opportunity arose, rather allowing himself to be put to death rather than invoking the power of God.  Indeed,

So my question is: “What kind of Messiah do you believe in?”.

Richard Rohr writes that:

Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity (it did not need changing)! Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God

Over the years many people have had a view of God as somewhat like a medieval King; someone who it made sense to be afraid of, and to try and keep on the right side of.  Jesus came to tell us that God love’s us, and that nothing that we do can stop him loving us.

Regardless of where we stand on Brexit, surely we can agree that there is a need to be civilised about the process?  Some of the leavers at present appear to think that threatening the EU will get them what they want.

It perhaps says something about British business; my (10 year old) experience was that what was increasingly valued was to decide what you wanted and to be as obnoxious as possible to get it, trusting that the other (weaker) party would give in, as something was better than nothing.  I suspect that this works for moderately large companies, so supermarkets can treat suppliers that way, but very few suppliers are big enough to treat supermarkets that way.

When it comes to Brexit, the question is which is the stronger party?  Those threatening the EU, or expecting them to change their mind at the last minute appear to think we are.

That said, I think the underlying assumption that we can bully our way into a good relationship is practically and morally wrong.

It is conceivable that I am speaking too soon, but it appears that yesterday we saw the possibility of compromise being considered by party leaders.

Whatever we may each think about the best approach for Brexit, I have a suspicion that politicians choosing a hard Brexit, or no Brexit will leave the country divided for a long time.  Given that that is the case, and that any compromise agreed will probably not be what either side in the referendum voted for, will it be the best way forwards?

Indeed, is Brexit one of those situations where a compromise does actually satisfy nobody?  As I understand it (and that means it may be wrong) in a much simplified fashion (and without going near the Good Friday Agreement) Brexiters want to regain the full sovereignty of Parliament and to make trade deals for the UK.  Remainers think that we would struggle to make advantageous trade deals, and would be better sharing sovereignty with a larger group of people.

As I understand it, all of the compromises remove the sovereignty of Parliament and the ability to make trade deals, but instead of sharing sovereignty give it away.

Which according to my analysis means that we have the choice between a compromise that gives no one what they want, or two options which are in danger of splitting the country further.

In the Church of England, major changes of policy require a 2/3 majority, hence the time it takes to vote through controversial (to some people) measures, like female bishops.  However, what this does mean is that when it happens, there has been much discussion about what the issues are, and compromises are found that mean that the 2/3 majority can be found.

Frustrated as I have been at times with the speed of progress in the Church of England, I do wonder whether taking the time to go through the process of trying to build a consensus wouldn’t be the best approach here, although it would obviously require a long extension.

The alternative appears to be politicians of all shades stating what the voters meant when they voted 52/48 without any evidence to support their position.

Aaaargh!