Today is Maundy Thursday, a day in church tradition when the heads of the church and 
heads of state would give money to the poor. It was done in the most humiliating way, though I’m not sure if those doing the deliberately thought of it that way. They would throw the money into the crowd and the people would then throw themselves on the coins and fight for it. Remember these people were starving and had no welfare system. But to those doing the giving it reinforced the idea of “the poor” being uncouth and unruly.
Now the Queen hands out “maundy money” in a calm and dignified way to a chosen few.
Now we don’t even let those who could do with a bit of extra cash even go through the humiliation of having money thrown at them. But I think that is because we hide the poor even more. It is harder to see who is on benefit and who isn’t, but the media makes sure it highlights those receiving state aid as undeserving, scroungers, uncouth and unruly!!
This week a might icon of history, religion, culture and tourism has fallen. There were 
some very brave fire-fighters who worked hard to save it. People have been donating thousands for its rebuild. This same week, if you listen hard enough, the flooded areas of Africa are in dire need of food and medical supplies but no one is donating thousands for them. In fact many parts of Africa, Asia, Central and Southern America, and even parts of Europe are having an on-going struggle with severe poverty issues, yet money for these is raised in dribs and drabs. Is it better to be an icon than a person in need?
I have been pondering all this wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan and it struck me that their wedding was not much different from weddings from Medieval times. Anyone who was anyone would be invited, which would include people famous in their field. Royalty liked to be with the movers and shakers unless they had been banished from court. So having actors and musicians turn up to Harry and Meghan’s wedding is no different from having Geoffrey Chaucer turn up. Actors were not seen in the same light back then but there would be more than just royalty.
these common people could then go and eat, drink and be merry. Very similar.
changes in lifestyle, our young royal family are actually doing very similar to their ancestors of old. William’s children won’t die of some unknown death because most of the things young princes use to die of back in the 14-16th Century can now be treated very easily with modern medicine. Harry does not need to give heirs to the throne in case his brother’s die out. Neither of our princes needs to keep the crown secure.
Oh my! How often have I heard that? I have studied Reformation History too so as well as hearing it in churches since I “became a Christian” 24 years ago I have also read it. I did get in to a bit of a discussion about it at a group we meet with on a Thursday evening. What I wanted was a “where does it say this so clearly?” I know I have been totally guilty of it. I still go in repentance to God regarding a relationship I had with a young man who had started seeing a girl. He was a Christian, she was seeking, he wanted to date her, I firmly told him know and clearly showed him passages in the Bible that made this relationship wrong. What happened? He stopped attending the group that I was a leader of. He did start dating the girl. And I do not know what happened from then because he moved away. I now feel that what I said was naive and not properly thought through.
away from being forced into an arranged marriage. As I have shown before I am very good at making presumptions so I had decided she was Muslim, etc. Oh No! She is a Christian. Her parents are Christians. In fact she said her father was a missionary. Her family are from Taiwan though she was brought up in Canada. For her parents the Bible clearly says that they are to choose a bride for their child. In fact she even saw this as correct and proper. What she was running away from was the fact that she did not want to get married to this man and so her family were trying to coerce her into the relationship. I am presuming they could clearly see that it was ok to coerce their daughter into marrying a man of their choosing. Maybe like many of the things I read in the times of the Reformation, they were doing it for what they saw as the right reasons. (And I googled “Christian arranged marriages” and there are a lot of sites out there who are very pro arranged marriage!!)
We need to beware when we say the Bible clearly says that in fact there are many things in there that it does not clearly say. Much of this is to do with us not have the original texts in front of us, and we never will. Some of it is because words change over time. And some of it, I think, is because God is a mystery, and wants to remain that way. I believe He is seeking relationship with us, which means we must converse with Him. Ok there are some people who have been married a long time who can say “my spouse would clearly say …” but even at times they can be taken by surprise!
Well when we had a Malaysian girl staying for a month and working at the local hospital I had decided she must be a nurse. No she was a trainee doctor and a fascinating person too. Just last week we had a French guy book in for him and his girlfriend so I just presumed they were both from France. No she was from Russia and he was studying in UK. Again a mistake made. Then our latest guest, I could not quite make out the name but for some reason had decided that we had a man staying. Imagine my surprise when I met this lovely woman.
then gives rise to presumptions. If Boris supports Leave then it will look like “x” but if Patrick Stewart supports Remain then it will look like “y”. Why do we think that? Because our preconceived ideas cannot cope with certain people being in certain camps and then us joining with them.
for when people stay so … But the point is we do not know where the prejudices from these hosts who have refused come from. Perhaps when they see that someone is of a different colour, race, religion, sexual orientation they have some presumption of the character of that person. Should legislation force them to have these people in their homes? I don’t think so. We cannot change people’s hearts by forcing them. I know if I was forced to have someone in my home I did not feel comfortable with for whatever reason I would not behave well. I have had one or two that I have wondered about beforehand but have let them stay and all has been fine. But that was my choice not a law telling me I had to.
my home, not let me speak to people in a supportive way, and I need to be aware of that. The only person I can really change is me but the only way I can do that is by being aware.
I have been reading lots of historic novels set in early Norman/Plantagenet times. This was a time when everyone believed God was sovereign and much of what went on was whether it was “God’s will” or not. But all the way through the characters will say things like “Christ’s teeth”, “Holy Mother of God” and other phrases that invoke God or Jesus in a way that would not be acceptable to many Christians now. In fact only the other day someone was saying to me that you could tell whether someone was really following God as to whether they “used God’s name in vain” was the phrase used.
reverence but were those Medieval characters doing that? I don’t think they were. In fact the Blasphemy Act of 1650 was only brought in to be used to persecute Catholics during the time of William of Orange and in fact for most of its time was only used to “keep Catholics in their place”. It had nothing to do with saying “Oh God” when either upset or happy about something. In fact this morning I was chatting with a fellow dog walker and he was using “Oh God” as a form of emphasising what he was saying. He wasn’t being disrespectful or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. He just wanted to make a point stronger.
Aspirational Adventures 