Winter Fuel Payment

Like many people, I am struggling to understand why the new government chose Winter Fuel Payment as an issue to make a stand. The difficult headlines are enduring; opposition to the decision is coming in from the right (more pensioners vote - and more vote Conservative), other opposition parties, many Labour MPs, as well as those to the left. However, the contribution that cutting the fuel payment makes to the budget deficit is relatively small. It will be even smaller if all of the pensioners who are still eligible for it via pension credit actually get the applications in. Why risk it?

One explanation of this I have heard is that the government wants to convey to the financial markets at home and abroad that it is serious about keeping the finances under control and filling in the £22 billion shortfall, which many (but not all) analyses believe is there. The problem for Labour is that it looks like they are making vulnerable people pay rather than those with more capacity to do so.

The problem with universal benefits is obvious. The point about Mick Jagger (or insert the name of any millionaire over retirement age) getting a winter fuel payment is a fair one. There is a significant cohort of pensioners who have good workplace pensions, have paid off their mortgage, and have better disposable incomes than many younger people struggling to buy homes or pay their rent. It is a legitimate question as to whether it is the best use of money to give more affluent retired people a fuel payment at all.

The difficulty in solving this is that means-testing benefits is often complicated and costly, not always saving as much as is hoped. Furthermore, any system that requires an application to be made (and these are always now online) has a number of risks - awareness, a certain stigma attached to applying for help, and not all older people are very confident with online applications.

Here's a suggestion: replace the one-off universal payment with a £300 supplement to the state pension that is in addition to any inflation increases, making it taxable. It doesn't take away all of Mick's £300, but it would at least claw-back money from the better off who will be paying tax on it - and for some that will be at the higher rate. It also uses existing systems, rather than requiring an fresh application to be made. For those without additional means, I think the pension is still below the threshold for income tax, so those with the lowest incomes would continue to receive the full amount with no further paperwork to complete. 

There may be other unforeseen problems with that, but I can't help but feel that it would have been a better and much less unpopular method to transition away from the blanket payment.

Sermon for St James, 25 July 2024

Sermon for St James the Apostle, 25 July 2024               

Matthew 20.20–28

20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favour of him. ²¹And he said to her, ‘What do you want?’ She said to him, ‘Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ ²²But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?’ They said to him, ‘We are able.’ ²³He said to them, ‘You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’

24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. ²⁵But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. ²⁶It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, ²⁷and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; ²⁸just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’     [NRSV]

 

My first parish as a vicar was at a St James’ Church at Whitley in Coventry, so I always know when his day is coming round, and it is often when people have just gone on holiday! However, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The first question to ask is which James are we talking about? 

In the New Testament, there are several people called James:

• James the son of Alphaeus, mentioned in the lists of the 12 disciples (Mark 2:14)
• James, the father of the disciple Judas (not Iscariot). Many people think this Judas was also known as Thaddaeus who appears in other lists of the Twelve. (Luke 6:16, John 14:22)
• James ‘the Lord’s brother’ (Gal. 1:19)
• And the James who wrote the letter might be another one altogether!

But today we remember James the son of Zebedee, brother of John, who was called to follow Jesus at the start of his ministry (Mark 1:19).

He was martyred around 44ad in Jerusalem (Acts 12:2). Some stories about him say he got to Spain and that his remains are there. Many people walk a pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela – Santiago being derived from the Latin for St James. There is also a church marking the place where he is supposed to have been beheaded in Jerusalem. A lot of that is contested, so today we will stick with what we know of him in the gospels and Acts.

James was one of the 3 disciples who seemed to be a kind of inner circle, along with Peter and James’ brother John. They are with Jesus when he heals Simon Peter’s mother-in-law (Mk 1:29-31); only they go in when Jairus’ daughter is healed (Mk 5:37); only they are with him at what we call the Transfiguration (Mk 9:2) when they get a glimpse of Jesus true nature and glory; they have a private word with Jesus about signs of the end (Mk 13:3-4), and they are the ones who accompany Jesus into the Garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:33) as he wrestles in prayer, while they fall asleep.

And Jesus gives James and John a nickname – Boanerges – which is Aramaic, the language Jesus and his disciples spoke most of the time. We are told it means “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), which might be a reference to their temperament. For example, we know they wanted to call down fire from heaven on an inhospitable Samaritan village, which prompts Jesus to rebuke them for saying it (Luke 9:51-56).

Here in today’s gospel, we see them getting it wrong again. They have mum with them to back them up according to Matthew (although Mark doesn’t mention her). Notice that she isn't named here - in the patriarchal culture of the day, she is identified as the "mother of the sons of Zebedee". Some suggest that she was Salome, who is there at the crucifixion and the discovery of the empty tomb in Mark, but we can’t be certain.

The request their mother puts forward is that James and John have a seat at either side of Jesus in his kingdom. It’s interesting that in response Jesus addresses James and John directly, rather than their mother, presumably seeing that getting her to do the asking was either cowardice or an attempt to sway Jesus. What Jesus says is revealing for understanding this exchange.

"Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" Jesus asks. The idea of a "cup" is significant in the Bible. In the Old Testament, drinking a cup is associated with judgment. For example:

Awake, awake!
    Rise up, Jerusalem,
you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord
    the cup of his wrath,
you who have drained to its dregs
    the goblet that makes people stagger.  (Isaiah 51:17)

Jesus seems to be alluding to the fact that he will drink the cup of judgment and condemnation through his death on the cross. It is one of the great reversals and inversions that we find in our faith, that this means that we may drink the cup of salvation of the new covenant, which we recall at the eucharist. Whether James and John understand the full implications of what he is saying or not, they say that they can also do this. Jesus then foretells that they will, as James will be martyred and John is believed to have been exiled.

Behind this conversation is a different understanding of power. Jesus is conveying to them that his kingdom, and the use of power within it, is fundamentally different to how it usually is with human beings. James and John are wanting preferential seats – close to Jesus, because they are still interpreting life as a competition. To get on, you need to get ahead, and that means making sure others are behind you and are lower in the pecking order. But, of course, that is a state of permanent anxiety, worrying that someone else might get Jesus’ ear first, or get ahead, and it means always looking over their shoulder at the competition.

Effectively Jesus says those are not the rules by which his kingdom works. Instead of a struggle for power, his kingdom is a way of service. It doesn’t see the value of someone else as a threat to one’s own value. It doesn’t see the success of another as somehow demeaning everyone else. It doesn’t see the need to put down others in order to achieve some security. Because if you place your trust in the trustworthy one, in whom there is genuine and ultimate security, then you cannot be threatened by anyone else.

Jesus models this himself. Here he talks about coming to serve. In John’s gospel (Jn 13:1-17) he famously washes his disciples’ feet, doing the work usually left to a servant or even a slave, despite being their rabbi, their leader, and their Lord. That is not the action of someone who believes in fighting their way to the top, elbowing others out of the way. But it is also not the action of someone who feels insecure or anxious about what others may think of them. Those who understand properly the true way of service of the kingdom don’t have the need to worry about those things.

More than that, Jesus is to give his life to set us free (Mt 20:28). A ransom was a payment to pay for a slave’s freedom. Apparently a few slaves would manage to get together the funds from tips, gifts, etc to meet the ransom price and buy themselves back. I have read that here are examples where a master would give a slave the money they needed, so they had the full amount to buy their freedom as a reward for years of loyal service. Their ransom was paid for them. However, for the vast majority of slaves this was unachievable.  

Jesus uses this image to convey what his death will mean for his followers. His life will "buy" freedom for all of us, enslaved to sin, guilt, shame and despair  – and to do so will be the ultimate act of service.

James must have learned his lesson well, as when the time came, he was not afraid to be identified with Jesus, the suffering servant. It seems that he didn’t seek self-preservation by fleeing. Herod was able to find him and execute him as he started persecuting the early Christians.

The death of James was a tragic loss - the first of the apostles to die - and many must have feared for what might follow. However, somehow Peter eluded capture by Herod, who later died. These events seem to have been the prompt for the mission of Paul and Barnabas to go out from Antioch across the Mediterranean, and the message spreading across the known world. James' faithfulness and willingness to follow his Lord in the way of service and self-sacrifice may well have given that early Christian community the spur and inspiration it needed to go out and change the world.

Election Reflections

The post-election analysis is now well underway by people better informed than me, but here are a few thoughts from an amateur observer about what we have just been through.

Calling a snap election was a disastrous decision for the Tories

I don't have any inside information on this, but it seems clear from multiple news sources that Rishi Sunak's decision to go for an election on July 4 took nearly everyone by surprise - including many of his own party. The only rationale that makes any sense is that he thought things might be even worse in the autumn, and he might take his opponents unawares. Unfortunately for him, it appears to have wrong-footed his own party at least as much as anyone else. 

Labour won decisively.

I have seen some rather grudging posts online about the votes cast for Labour - especially comparing to their performance under Jeremy Corbyn. Of course, the overall turnout was lower this time around so absolute vote numbers are likely to be down, and tactical voting certainly seems to have played a part.  However, we cannot ignore the fact that this time Labour managed to gain and/or retain votes where they needed to win new seats, rather than consolidating their core vote in safe Labour territory. Winning seats in Wales, despite being the party in power in the Welsh Assembly, and big gains in Scotland also played an important role.

UK general elections are decided by seats won, and recovering from a substantial defeat to an outright win in under 5 years has to be acknowledged as an extraordinary result, whatever our political persuasions. 

Speaking of Scotland

A big story north of the border will be the collapse of the SNP vote. It looks like many Scots were more keen to get rid of the UK Conservative government by voting Labour than voting SNP. Support for independence still seems quite strong, but the SNP can no longer rely on that being decisive in the way people vote for the Westminster government. Recent scandals and the fact the SNP have been in power in Holyrood for a long time probably also played into this. That result looks like putting any further moves to another independence referendum on hold for the foreseeable future.

Canny campaigning

The demise of the Conservative vote was not just down to Labour. The Liberal Democrats were careful in their campaigning to focus most of their resources on winnable seats - the majority of which were where they were polling second to a Conservative candidate. A result of 71 (and probably later today 72) seats must have seemed beyond their wildest dreams at the start of the campaign. Ed Davey's combination of comedy moments and very serious engagement with health and social care certainly seems to have struck a chord. 

On a smaller scale the Green Party succeeded in capturing all 4 seats they regarded as winnable and came second in quite a lot more. Small parties can struggle to depict themselves as electable, so this may help the Greens to establish a more significant presence in parliament

which brings us on to...

Reform and Farage

I am usually reluctant to discuss Farage - after all I believe Oscar Wilde said the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about. He certainly managed his public profile deftly - initially saying he wasn't standing, due to a more important election on the other side of the Atlantic, and then stepping in as candidate for Clacton and suddenly becoming leader of Reform. Presumably leadership elections aren't needed for Reform as a limited company. 

It is too simplistic to assume all Reform voters are ex-Tories (many seem to be white working class people who would have been expected to vote Labour at one time), but they clearly had an impact on the Conservative vote. 

Despite Reform candidates using racist and homophobic language and criticising Winston Churchill for fighting the Nazis, the campaign generated some momentum. There is a lot of heat in some part of the media that Reform only got 5 seats from their 4.1 million votes and came second in 98 seats. Will we now see the Daily Express suddenly acquiring an enthusiasm for a proportional voting system? 

It's probably worth noting that UKIP got 3.8 million votes, came second in 120 seats, and won 1 seat (ex-Tory Douglas Carswell in Clacton) in 2015. That would suggest that whilst there is a section of our society voting in that direction, the growth in the support is rather more limited than some headlines would imply. My own amateur hunch is that loss of trust in the system, and a feeling of being left behind or overlooked still motivates a lot of Reform votes.

With the majority they hold, I think Labour would be wise to get on with their agenda, trusting that if peoples lives improve their vote will consolidate. However, the Conservative Party might take a further lurch to the right in an attempt to woo Reform voters, which I suspect will simply deliver them into Farage's hands. That may not serve the long-term interest of democracy

What do we mean by stewardship?

I was going to write a new post on Christian stewardship, when I realised that a post I wrote about creation about 10 years ago covered some of the key points. You can read it here.

Jesus on Money and Possessions

Jesus: Money and Possessions

I have always found it a little bit difficult to say exactly when I became a Christian. There is no atheist phase of my life to report, but I know there was a short period in my life when I moved from going along to things by default to actively choosing to follow Jesus. Christ Church, Chilwell, my home parish, was a large and lively church with a big children’s work, and I had gone along with friends since about the age of 7. It was around the age of 14 or 15 that it moved from something I just did to something more. For me faith came before very much actual churchgoing, and it was the person of Jesus that captured my attention.

For a lot of people, the compelling aspects of Jesus’ story are in the tragedy and triumph of his passion, or in the compassion he shows to those in need of forgiveness, healing or deliverance from evil. Of course, those weren’t (and aren’t) unimportant to me, but they weren’t the hook that caught me.

I was attracted by the way that Jesus had a radically different set of values. He rejected materialism and greed, and he undermined those who misused and abused power. He championed the poor and was a constant reminder to the ‘haves’ about their responsibilities for the ‘have nots’. I have, of course, consistently failed to live up to his teachings on all of these questions, and yet that aspect of Jesus’ teaching continues to excite me and challenge me. He questions my spending, my saving, my giving, my consuming, my possessing and my attitude to the environment and the world around me. This aspect of Jesus has also been where I have derived some of my political instincts from (although others might arrive at different conclusions!)

It has never felt like Jesus is finger-pointing and condemning me, but he is always asking me what it means to be a Christian living in a world that is based on a very different set of ideals. How do I live in a world that is based on getting, consuming and never being content with what you have.

I want to take a look at few parts of Jesus’ story that have provided that challenge.

It was a revelation to me when I found out that Jesus had a lot more to say about money, wealth and possessions than he ever did about sex. The Gospels are littered with sayings, parables and conversations which are either directly about money and possessions, or use financial or economic images and ideas. It’s been estimated that about 1/3 of the teaching in Luke’s Gospel could be regarded in that way.

So, let’s go on a little tour of Luke to see what he records:

Setting the Scene

Even before Jesus is born, Mary is singing about the rich: “he has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he sent away empty.”  (Lk 1:53), which gives us a preview of what priorities and values are going to be the hallmark of this child’s life.

Once Jesus begins his ministry, he is challenged immediately in his temptation by the devil about his priorities (Luke 4:5-8) “if you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” Jesus rejects earthly power, wealth and status to be faithful to his calling. And when he gets to the synagogue, he makes it clear: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor..” (Luke 4:18) which is something he reiterates a little further on in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of  God.” (Luke 6:20). Jesus is already generating disapproval for what he is saying – he’s rejected in Nazareth, and when he calls a tax-collector to follow him, the Pharisees are grumbling (Luke 5:30).

So we can see that in Jesus’ early statements and actions, he is pointing to a new set of priorities.

Some examples of his teaching

1. The parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13-21)

OK. So you do well in this world, pile up your possessions and feel proud of yourself. Then what? In this passage, God calls a rich man who builds bigger barns a fool, as his stockpile will be worth nothing to him when he dies.

Jesus goes on to say that we should not be anxious about our material needs (12:22-31), but store up treasure in heaven (Luke 12:32-34) - in other words sharing the Gospel and putting his teaching into practise. As he says in a verse that sums up much of what we find in the rest of Luke's gospel, “for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

2. Money is like a rival God. (Luke 16:13)

When people talk about idols, they sometimes mean statues in temples. More often in our own culture, people are being referred to – ‘pop idol’ and ‘fashion icon’ are both examples of a religious word being used to describe someone in the public eye.

Of course, in the world we live in, virtually everything seems to be decided by money and many people see the acquisition of money as their only purpose in life. Election promises are usually couched in how much better-off we will be - meaning financially, not well-being or contentment. 

In contrast, Jesus is clear that the idol we should really be concerned about is in our pocket. This is summed up in Luke 16:13, where Jesus says “You cannot serve God and money”. It’s worth noting that the word “money” in many English translations of the Bible is actually a translation of the word “mammon” in the original.  It is thought that this actually means material possessions and wealth. Jesus asks his followers to choose which will be their master (Lord, kyrios) – God or wealth.

3) Jesus Wants To Set People Free From Mammon

It may seem a contradiction, but in a world so sold out to money, many people wish they could escape. Some have a hankering to leave what used to be called the rat race and do something else; some wish they could just drop out, whilst others want to find a way of being content. The problem is that people who don't know God have nothing else to trust but material possessions, yet Mammon is not a kind master.

Luke shows us examples of how people respond to the choice Jesus presents us with - whether God or Mammon will be their master.

First, the rich young man (Luke 18:18-30). He obviously has a hunger for something else. “good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”. He is clearly very devout and religious, even by the standards of his day – keeping the commandments. But when Jesus asks him to sell all he has, give it to the poor and follow him, he couldn't let go of his possessions. Although it offered treasure in heaven and the freedom of knowing Jesus, he turned away, sad. Mammon had too tight a grip.

We can contrast this with the encounter Jesus has with Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10). He’s not just any old tax-collector, he’s a chief tax-collector. Tax collectors had a reputation for extortion. They took the money the Romans demanded, and also took a cut for themselves. John the Baptist hints at that back in chapter 3 when tax collectors come to be baptised. “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them “Collect no more than you are authorised to do.” (Luke 3:12-13). Here, Jesus breaks into Zacchaeus’ life by inviting himself round. He accepts his hospitality and takes him seriously. The greedy tax-collector sees a new chance in Jesus, and his attitude to money (mammon) is transformed.

Finally, the story of the poor widow's offering (Lk 21:1-4). It’s important to remember, this woman would almost certainly have already given her tithe. This is a freewill offering. But the point is that out of her devotion and commitment to God, she freely gives all she has. Jesus points to the value of that, over and above those who can comfortably give much bigger sums, without making the same personal sacrifice. He can see that she has not chosen Mammon.

Out of all the gospels, Luke particularly highlights these issues. Following Jesus is not just a theoretical exercise, or just about whether we turn up for certain religious rituals. It’s about a change of priorities. The Bible is clear that we are stewards, not owners of this world. We are accountable for how we use the resources at our disposal. We have received much from our generous God, and that comes to fruition when it inspires us to generosity too.

 

Uniforms and Dressing Up

Anyone who knows me at all will be well aware that I have never been a great fan of dressing up. I never feel very comfortable wearing a suit, which may be due to me having to wear school uniform throughout my time at secondary school. Back then in the 70s, all my friends at the local school were free from such dress codes! That's why I have always found it rather ironic that I ended up with a calling and a role that required me to wear various ecclesiastical garments in order to officiate at public services of worship in the Church of England.

Since theological college days, I have frequently met people who got very excited about the designs of their stoles, cottas, chasubles and such like - terminology that I am sure mystifies anyone outside the church community (and many within it!) My own attitude has always been that the uniform comes with the role, and therefore being ordained in the C of E carries with it an expectation to wear it (there is some flexibility these days) In a previous role I visited a lot of churches, and it only seemed courteous to wear whatever they expected me to wear.

There is, however, one exception to this rule, and here it is:

Last Sunday was Pentecost Sunday, when churches that use colours wear red. Each year since Debbie died, it has given me an opportunity to wear one her stoles that I kept. My first Sunday back after her funeral was Pentecost, and I chose to wear it then, and I have done on that day ever since. It was made for Debbie and given to her just before she was ordained deacon in 1990, and it became more significant when she wore it 30 years ago when she was in the first cohort of women to be ordained priest. We had moved from Southwell Diocese just after Easter that year, so she missed the big ordination of women candidates in April 94 in Coventry Cathedral. However, an extra service was arranged for her on June 11 at All Saints' Church, Leamington Spa, along with another colleague who had also missed out . Far from being a disappointment, I know Debs found it a very special moment. With the 30th anniversary of the first ordinations of women being marked this year, I was always going to wear it on Sunday.

Debbie in 1994 - with baby due in about 2 months!

Howay The Lasses, Saturday 7 October at 7.30pm

 

Next up at St Nicholas' are Howay The Lasses on Saturday 7 October at 7.30pm. Telling and celebrating the achievements of amazing women of the North East of England in song, this talented group will give us a musical treat of an evening.

Tickets are £15 using the link below.

Parables Are Fiction

OK - I deliberately put it that way in a recent sermon to get people's attention. We have been looking at parables recently, which are often misunderstood - especially when the parable itself is expressed in a way that was designed to be provocative. So it is worthwhile reviewing what a parable actually is:

1. They are fiction, or perhaps less provocatively, they are a construct. When Jesus tells a parable, he isn’t reporting an event; he is telling a story. The characters and situations he describes may well have rung very true with his listeners – as they do today. People may recognise the type of person he’s depicting, but the form of parable we have is a construct. 
2. Jesus uses items and situations that are familiar to his audience – agriculture, keeping flocks, family disputes, a mugging. He features characters such as tax collectors, shepherds and farmers – to convey his point. He may well be drawing on actual events and encounters (what good author doesn't?), but the parable as delivered is not intended to be received as a report.
3. We have little or no back story, and we don't find out what happened next. We are not told whether the jealous brother joined the party at the end of the Prodigal Son account, because the parable is designed to leave the hearer with questions to reflect on.
4. Parables are not intended to be taking literally –  financial debt is used as a way of picturing forgiveness of sins, for example.
5. They often have a sting in the tail designed to leave the audience with something to think about: The parable of the good Samaritan ends with a question as to which person showed the true qualities of a neighbour. Jesus asks this fully aware of the hostility and suspicion between Jews and Samaritans, which is reported elsewhere. It forces a reply “…the one who showed him kindness” which suggests that even saying "the Samaritan" was a bit too much for the respondent. Likewise in the Parable of the Talents, we want to be with the underdog, but it's the man with 1 talent who gets the hard time! It forces us to ask questions as to what is going on and what does it mean.
6. Parables are reported as being delivered in a specific context (although Jesus probably reused material numerous times as he travelled around). There is sometimes a question that leads in, such as who is my neighbour? Sometimes Jesus has an audience in mind, such as the elite turning up their noses at him spending time with people seen as sinners and outcasts.

With all parables, Jesus is not directly reporting an actual event; he is inviting us to imagine a situation, be challenged by it, and let it evoke a response. It is a much more creative method of teaching than we sometimes appreciate, and parables are designed to leave us with more thinking and imagining to do. The real question is how does the telling and hearing of them change us - that is what they were designed for.

Rob Halligan. 29 Sep at 7-30pm, St Nicholas' Beverley.

 

We welcome back singer-songwriter Rob Halligan to St Nicholas', Beverley on Friday 29 September. Rob is touring again, playing a mix of new and established material, and sharing some of the stories that lie behind the songs. All that plus a warm St Nicholas' welcome, licensed bar, merch table and a great night out.

We'll be in for a great evening of music, which will no doubt include a lot of humour - as well as some serious and poignant moments. 

You can read more about Rob here Bio – Rob Halligan

Today is Ash Wednesday, which marks the start of the season of Lent for Christians. At some point today, many Christians will be going to their churches to share in a service of Holy Communion and to receive a symbolic cross made with ash on their forehead.

What a lot of people might not realise is that there was no official form of words for such a service in the Church of England until 1986 when Lent, Holy Week, Easter Services and Prayers was published. Until then all we had for Ash Wednesday was a normal communion service with collects and readings for that day. Of course, there were churches borrowing material from elsewhere for their services.

The result of this was that a lot of faithful Anglicans had no experience of the "Imposition of Ashes" in their churches until this new book became established. When I started training for the ministry in 1987 I had never witnessed it, despite attending C of E churches since I was 7. Initially I must admit to being a bit reluctant to take part, but it has come to have significance, reminding me of my mortality, my shortcomings and my dependence on God.

However, there is one thing that has always bothered me about the Ash Wednesday service, and it is this. One of the set readings for today is a section from Matthew 6 (the Sermon on the Mount) including these words

16 ‘And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.  (Mt 6:16-18 NRSV)

and I have always felt a discomfort about that. We walk out of the service with a very visible and obvious sign on our heads that we have just been there. Surely the text is suggesting we should be more discreet. I have quietly solved this dilemma by removing the cross quickly afterwards, but it doesn't quite seem in the spirit of things.

I was, therefore, very interested to come across this from Rev Bosco Peters, a priest in New Zealand, which echoed my own reservations. 

"There is an Ash Wednesday tradition quite different to the conspicuous cross of ash on the forehead – it is sprinkling ash on top of the head. Read more: https://t.co/OE1QwJmf6R "

Apparently it's good enough for Pope Francis, However, it will require a rethink. A lot of people mix oil with their ash to make a nice gloopy smear.

Whatever you decide to do today, I hope that you find space over the next few weeks of Lent to reflect on what you believe, your priorities, and perhaps to take some action or some steps to make a change you feel is needed in your life. You don't need ash to do that, although it can help to mark a boundary and a beginning.

Have a fruitful Lent.