The Revd Barry Hill's Thoughts: Baptism on the Feast of Christ the King

What does it mean to declare Christ as King?  In seeking to answer the question which Pilate and the Lord Jesus discuss in chapter eighteen of John's Gospel, we must take into account what it meant to be a king at that time and in that place.

Having taken the time to consider the nature of kingship in the ancient near east, we are then faced with the question - how does that relate to the Kingship ascribed to Christ?

Without many of the identifiers which young people last Sunday came up with (robes, golden crown, servants in a particular sense, worldly wealth and the like), what does it mean for Jesus to be King?  How do see His Kingship worked out?  What are the marks of this office?  How do we live them out in our lives?

As Emma and Kirsty were baptised, last Sunday we were reminded that this goes back to the decision at the heart of baptism.  To declare Jesus as King means to surrender power and authority to Him.  To seek His will and to enjoy all that it means to be a citizen of His Kingdom (He protects His citizens, He keeps them safe; His people can rely on Him to be just and fair; He provides for them and their needs and does the best for them).

How will we continually enthrone Jesus as King in our lives this week and how might we ensure we don't take for granted the great privilege which it is to be a citizen of the Kingdom of God...

Remembrance Sunday's Thought: Drones are the threat, but Christ is our reconciliation

http://www.paxchristi.net/international/eng/showsymbols.php?wat=showsym1

For all the talk about peacemaking in Afghanistan, we remain at war there, with a slower rate of attrition of our troops, but a perceptible loss all the same. As at 30 October 2012, a total of 437 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001. The figure of 400 deaths was passed in March this year, so the pace of the death toll can be judged from this: 37 or so in about 9 months.

         Since the civilian population in this country scarcely notices that we are at war because most people are unaffected by it – unless, critically, you have a family member serving in the armed forces – it is important to recall the dangers of the present situation of an impending withdrawal for forces by 2014 without any clear signs of peace in Afghanistan. There are dangers for our armed forces; for the troubled country of Afghanistan; and for peace in that region and also the world at large.

         Yet even when the troops have come home from Afghanistan, and assuming the best possible outcome (that the country holds together and does not implode) there remains the undeclared war run by the United States in Pakistan’s tribal region. This is not a war fought by conventional means but by a new weapon: unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or ‘drones’ in common parlance. This war receives a fair degree of support in the United States because it appears to be a war without victims among the armed forces: al-Qaida and AQ-affiliated groups are targeted, as are members of the Taliban. The weapons are supposed to be extremely accurate. Only those who have been signed off by the President of the USA and his legal advisers as ‘high value targets’ are killed in these ‘targeted killings’. Though the weapons are expensive, this form of warfare is sustainable in terms of costs, unlike the conventional force intervention in Afghanistan.

         Yet in reality, matters are far more complex than the proponents of drone warfare suggest. To begin with, no serious account is taken by the US military of the innocent victims of war. The number of civilians killed and injured by such weapons is certainly much higher than the US military has been prepared to concede. For these reasons, and because no opportunity for surrender is offered to the individual who is targeted remotely from bases in Afghanistan or in the USA, the use of drones almost certainly infringe the normal laws of warfare. Moreover, the sovereignty of the nation state, in this case Pakistan, is infringed each time a UAV is dispatched against a target: this is an infringement of international law. The UN special rapporteurs on counter-terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson and Christof Heyns, announced at the end of October that work will begin early next year by an investigation unit within the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council at Geneva to inquire into individual drone attacks, and other forms of targeted killing conducted in counter-terrorism operations, in which it is alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted, and to seek explanations from the States using this technology and the States on whose territory it is used. Some of the attacks, the UN rapporteur declared, may constitute war crimes.

         All these issues are serious enough; but what makes the development of targeted killing by drones so dangerous is the prospect of other states following the lead of the USA and Britain and using drones to kill nationals of other states without a declaration of war, and the unregulated proliferation of this type of weapon that will follow. To quote the words of the Drone Campaign Network Petition: ‘Although there is some public information about US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, there is almost no public information about drone strikes carried out by the UK in Afghanistan. There are serious ethical, moral and legal questions about the growing use of armed drones which need to be properly debated. However, it is impossible to have such a debate while information is being kept secret.’ Such is the lack of public awareness of the issue, the last time I consulted the petition, only 1,325 of the 8,675 signatories needed had signed up to the demand for a public debate on the matter and an end to government secrecy.

         ‘Blessed are the peacemakers.’ No doubt those who support this new form of warfare by means of targeted killing would assert that they are the ones who truly want peace, but that they are realistic about the chances of achieving this without having permanent surveillance over lawless areas and the targeting of individuals according to perceived patterns of behaviour that look suspicious from aerial surveillance, rather than relying on intelligence about specific al-Qaida activists.

Christian peace movements such as Pax Christi International form part of the Drone Campaign Network. The icon for Pax Christi International, painted in the monastery of St John in the Desert, near Jerusalem, was dedicated to the movement on 1 July 1999 in the holy city of Jerusalem. At present it is displayed at the International Secretariat in Brussels, Belgium. The icon depicts Christ as the source of reconciliation, the source of liberation and peace. It is an icon symbolising in itself the living connection between Eastern and Western traditions in expressing the peace of Christ. Brother Roger of Taizé has penned a marvellous prayer to accompany the icon:

O Risen Christ,

You breathe your Holy Spirit on us

and you tell us: ‘Peace be yours’.

Opening ourselves to your peace –

letting it penetrate the harsh and

rocky ground of our hearts –

means preparing ourselves to be

bearers of reconciliation

wherever you may place us.

But you know that at times

we are at a loss.

So come and lead us

to wait in silence,

to let a ray of hope shine forth

in our world. Amen

Last Sunday's Thought: Love Rules, or Living the Great Commandment

http://bahaiforums.com/pictures/2248-golden-rule-poster-golden-rule-quoted-different-religions.html

The poster from members of the Baha’i community reproduced above reminds us that, while in detail there may be many differences between the world’s main religions, in the central ethic for how human beings conduct their lives there is a surprising degree of similarity. The ‘Golden Rule’ is the rule of love for one’s neighbour (as Jesus expresses it) or at the very least the avoidance of any harm or damage to that person. 

As a Jew who knew his Torah better than others, Jesus was able to convince trained theologians whom he met as to which were the central tenets of their faith. Jesus’ selection of just two rules from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 as the so-called ‘Great Commandment’ is reported in three of the gospels (Mark 12:28-34; Matthew 22:34-40; and Luke 10:25-28) with slight differences. Instead of remembering lots of separate rules to govern our conduct, Jesus proposes loving others as ourselves as the guiding principle (Romans 13:9) which sums up the whole of the law or Torah (Galatians 5:14). That love should be in charge overall is more important than a detailed list of rules concerning how we should love others and live our lives.

         

By making our neighbour rather than ourselves the central preoccupation, Jesus effectively transplants his own (‘Kingdom’) values upon our egocentric and self-preoccupied lives. We are challenged to do better than we ourselves can easily imagine for ourselves, as suggested by the contrasts in the table below. We may fall short, but if we attempt to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and love our neighbour as ourselves then we have the certainty of at least are making a significant step towards bringing about Jesus’ Kingdom values in our selfish and materialistic world. 

 

Living the Kingdom way of Life

Self-Image Agenda	The Kingdom calls us to
1. Love Yourself	Love God and others (Matthew 22:37)
2. Build your self-esteem	Build up others (Hebrews 10:24-25)
3. You are good	None are righteous (Romans 3:23)
4. Believe in yourself	Distrust your heart (Jeremiah 17:9)
5. Put yourself first	Put others first (Philippians 2:1-4)
6. Think highly of yourself	Be humble (Romans 12:3)
7. You are of great value	We are sinners (Romans 3:10-11)
8. Do what you want to do	Walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16)
9. Find yourself	Deny yourself (Matthew 16:24-26)
10. Have self-confidence	Put confidence in God (Philippians 4:13)

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/love-your-neighbor-and-yourself/