I guess for Ukrainians it had been happening for many years pretty continuously but for me and most of my neighbours it only burst into being when the Russians invaded it. Suddenly there it was with its splendid President, its effective army, its population of men, women and children made of vulnerable flesh like ours, its quite handsome cities and quaint villages, doomed to be pulped by the superior firepower of a force directed by a dull and brutal thug who began his career killing people on behalf of a dull and brutal government.

So yes, by all means praise the valour of the Ukrainians, their refusal to kow-tow to Putin and his vast army of well-deceived lunkheads, and their humanity never more evident than in face of the utter inhumanity of the invaders, but let’s note that none of these qualities persuaded our government to intervene on their behalf, a decision which has left us feeling obscurely guilty as an atrocity unfolds itself before our eyes.

Our and other governments took this decision because although they believe in the efficacy of force and have spent millions providing themselves with armaments and armies, they feared that intervention would lead to a war whose dangers were incalculable and whose benefits were doubtful. They saw indeed that in this instance, violence was not the way to peace or justice. It is also true that they were scared of a conflict they might lose and thought Ukraine an acceptable price to pay for peace.

I say that we feel guilty but we did not feel any guilt when the same Russians invaded Syria on behalf of a government even more loathsome that its own, murdering thousands of innocent people and destroying the means of life for thousands more. Somehow Syrians were not as photogenic as Ukrainians. Nor did we feel guilty when it became clear that the Chinese government was killing, torturing and re-educating millions of Uighurs in a remote area of their own country. In fact, we have worked hard at forgetting this fact while we continue to do civilised business and cultural exchanges with people who may yet invade Taiwan. Our horror, it seems, owes more to press coverage than we like to think.

It seems likely now that whether the fighting lasts shorter or longer, it will end with Ukraine having to accept some measure of Russian domination. As one who has argued the wisdom of Jesus’ non- violence, I take no pleasure now in pointing out that Ukraine could have obtained this same result without war, without the death and maiming of its soldiers, without the wholesale destruction of its cities and the lives of many of its civilians. Yes, they would have to have endured Russian domination, trying to protect themselves against the abuse of their democracy, but now, after all their courageous fighting, they will still have to do that.

The story of Jesus, we often forget, is set in an occupied nation, dominated by a world superpower, whose people ultimately took to armed rebellion against their overlords, and were viciously defeated and destroyed. The assemblies of followers of the non-violent Jesus, on the other hand, expanded throughout the empire by peaceful means and cunning. Ukraine may yet do the same, with the support of other nations.

That support, as the economic, commercial and cultural isolation of Russia, constituting a powerful persuasion against injustice, may yet do more to control Putin than any armed intervention. If so, it may reveal the efficacy of well-devised persuasion as an alternative to war. That in turn would suggest that what has been recognised as Jesus’ sacrificial ethic, is in fact a profound and practical wisdom.

Luke 6: 17-28

27 “But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.[e] Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful

37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.”

Well, this is the heart of Jesus’ teaching and acting: it’s how he lived and why he was so thoroughly disliked by many of his fellow Jews. For this is not the teaching of Moses and (most of) the prophets. For them, the enemy was to be smitten, by God if not by human beings. Given the amount of wrong and injustice borne by decent people, who wants to hear about the mercy of God? God’s not bearing this suffering, so who is he to expect us to love those who cause it? And as people who have borne a lot of suffering can tell you, love doesn’t work on evil people! Only threats of force and punishment have any effect. That’s right, isn’t it? OK Gandhi and Luther King were great people, but they were killed, and Nelson Mandela was engaged in armed struggle.

For Jesus, it comes back to God, the one he called Abba. He did not see God as separate from the life of the world. He numbers the hairs of our heads, he is involved in the fall of the sparrow, he clothes the flowers of the field. So, yes, God feels the suffering of his creatures but he does not remedy it by force majeure. No, rather he ceaselessly works to persuade his creatures that love is the way. Only human beings refuse to accept this wisdom: animals only kill for food or living space.

Jesus imagined that God was involved in his ministry. To trust in this sort of God is to believe that you are part of God’s evolution which leads to the “peaceable kingdom” envisaged by Isaiah, where “they shall not hurt or destroy for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea.” Those who are part of this evolution do not want to suffer, but they are ready to suffer, if their part demands it.

Will it work? Nobody knows, but those who trust in the way of Jesus are prepared to take the risk. So, followers of Jesus will not say that it doesn’t work; they want it to work, and hope that it will, like the sower of seed hopes for growth.

Luke 6:17-26
6:17 He came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon.

6:18 They had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases; and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured.

6:19 And all in the crowd were trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them.

6:20 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

6:21 “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

6:22 “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.

6:23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.

6:24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

6:25 “Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. “Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.

6:26 “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.”

Luke’s version of the so-called beatitudes is different from Matthew’s which is better known. Basically, in Luke, the blessings are for disciples, and there are only four categories of them: the poor, the hungry, the weeping, and the persecuted. In Matthew the blessings are for all who fit the categories. We can either say that Matthew spiritualised the categories of those blessed or that Luke materialised them. Matthew for example has “”the poor in spirit” while Luke has “you poor.” The temptation is to think, as did 19th century scholars, that there was a document containing sayings of Jesus, possessed by the two writers who then edited it in their gospels. I think this is unlikely, and that many other solutions are possible. Both writers imagine a “kingdom of God” which has material and spiritual dimensions. Luke includes a spiritual dimension here, by emphasising that Jesus was talking to committed disciples.

He is nevertheless concerned to depict Jesus as recognising the needs of the poor. The word used means “destitute”, “without resource“, as would have been the case with his companions in ministry. The coming of the kingdom is dependent on people who accept poverty for its sake, and not only poverty but hunger, sorrow and defamation. The kingdom will be “good fortune” for them, because it will supply all they have lacked.

It is notable that in Luke’s second volume, the book of The Acts, he shows the first Christian community as sharing all their resources with each other. Here indeed is God’s kingdom.

Luke saw the church as continuing the ministry of Jesus, as a sign of the viability of God’s kingdom in the world, a shared life rather than an impossible ideal. He saw this ministry as prophetic, pointing to what God will create. The blessings in Luke are not for societal groups of people but for people committed to God’s justice. In my sermon on this text I mentioned a residential care giver, doing the most important job in society for a minimum wage, out of commitment to needy people.

LUKE 5: 1-11

Once while Jesus[a] was standing beside the lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, 2 he saw two boats there at the shore of the lake; the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. 3 He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. 4 When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” 5 Simon answered, “Master, we have worked all night long but have caught nothing. Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.” 6 When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets were beginning to break. 7 So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both boats, so that they began to sink. 8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!” 9 For he and all who were with him were amazed at the catch of fish that they had taken; 10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Then Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.” 11 When they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him.

Mark, whose gospel was used by Luke as a source, has a simple story of Jesus calling his fishermen disciples, without any accompanying miracle. Matthew following Mark has a similar account. Luke has access to a fuller tradition, which may or may not have been associated with the call of the disciples before Luke. John knows the miracle story but places it after Jesus’ resurrection, which might be its original context. We can see that Luke, alone of the gospel writers, sees an important meaning of the story at this point in Jesus’ ministry.

Doubtless stories about unsuccessful fishing abounded in fishing communities then as now. There would be a sub -class where there was a surprising upturn of good fortune. In this case the upturn is due to Jesus, whose ability to direct the fishing is considered supernatural by Peter. The emphasis of the story is on a complete reversal of the failure which went before.

The action of Jesus does not make the long hard work in the darkness disappear, but it makes it worthwhile and joyful rather than simply negative. This prefigures the toil and darkness which is never far from Jesus ministry, culminating in the barren darkness of his death. But he is the bringer of life and abundance through his resurrection.

The fishermen lived in an economy of scarcity and thrift. The story of the miraculous catch signals that Jesus brings plenty, although there will still be times of hard toil and darkness. Placed at the outset of discipleship it offers a wonderful promise and a sober warning.

Luke 4:21-30

Jesus began to speak in the synagogue at Nazareth: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” He said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’ And you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.'” And he said, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown. But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.” When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage. They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way.

Luke wastes no time in plunging his hero into opposition. The person of Jesus and the nature of his mission are depicted as challenging to his own people. He could, Luke thinks, have chosen to be a local hero, a wonder-working local holy man, but his sources tell him that Jesus refused to play that role.

In this incident it seems, Jesus almost provokes the rage that endangered his life. There is no need for him to meet local enthusiasm with such a brutal rebuttal. First he claims he has no acceptance in his hometown, although Luke records the approving words of the Nazarenes. Then he suggests by examples from the prophets that his true ministry may be to Gentiles.

It’s possible that Luke, knowing that his story of Jesus was going to lead to his rejection by Israel and his acceptance by Gentiles, fashioned this narrative as an indication to the reader that the mission to Gentiles was always the Lord’s intention. The opposition of the Nazarenes is recounted in Mark but without the mention of Gentiles and without the extreme violence depicted by Luke.

Luke, who presents Jesus as a prophet, takes care to link him with Elijah and Elisha. The tradition of Jewish prophecy was that it represented the strange will of God who refused to limit his love to his chosen people, and whose compassion could not be corralled by a religious establishment. Jesus, according to the gospels, did not want to be “the prophet from Galilee.” Just as he had no time for the religious leaders of his people, so neither did he want to be a favourite of the common people. He loved them and worked among them, but he was not their property.

The speed with which neighbours could become a bloodthirsty mob will not surprise anyone who has meditated on the Ruandan or Bosnian genocides, the latter especially showing how religious convictions can lead to murder. This dark note at the outset of the gospel, reminds the reader of the need for radical change in human lives.

Mark 1: 1-11 The Baptism of the Lord

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,

“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
who shall prepare thy way;
the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight—”

4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

The Baptism of Jesus

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

I reserved this passage for this week because we are baptising three baby boys, triplets, at our service on Sunday. In the present crisis of the Church of Scotland local churches are urged to use Baptism as an evangelical sacrament which helps the church to grow through the active discipleship of families, in the upbringing of children. In this regard it is important that Jesus was baptised.

It cannot have been comfortable for the first Christian believers, the memory that Jesus was baptised by John the Dipper, a great prophet of Jewish faith, who was followed even after his death by disciples who did not really know of Jesus, a fact that sheds doubt on the gospel depiction of Jesus as John’s approved successor. It’s entirely possible to see John’s quoted prophecy as applying to the Messiah-to-come rather than Jesus.

But the awkward fact from the viewpoint of Christian belief in Messiah Jesus, is that he was baptised by John, in his ministry directed to sinful Israelites needing baptism, like Gentiles who had to be baptised into Jewish faith. Surely such a ritual was utterly inappropriate for Jesus! The gospel writers deal with this issue in different ways. Mark, the first to tackle it, refuses to explain Jesus’ motivation, but makes it clear that he decided it would be right in humility at the start of his ministry; and that in it God confirmed to him his status as a beloved child. Ironically a Roman soldier repeats this confirmation after Jesus’ execution. Jesus, who for Mark is always the crucified and risen Son of God, identifies himself with sinful and struggling human beings at his baptism and throughout his ministry.

This identification is a theological choice of the author, not a personal historical choice of Jesus who doubtless never thought of himself as other than human. He may have been historically a disciple of. John.

Nevertheless it is the element in Mark’s story which allows the reader to identify with Jesus in receiving God’s acknowledgement, “You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased.” In the church’s baptism, the person baptised is identified with Jesus as the beloved child of God, sharing with him the delight of the father. This identification is on the other hand shared with all living beings, from elephant to virus, who are equally God’s children and the subject of his/her delight.

Baptism is not only an evangelical sacrament, but also an ecological one, which celebrates God’s whole creation, rather than merely humanity, making it especially relevant to a time of ecological disaster. Parents are the bearers of this meaning to their baptised children, through the love they show to them and to the creatures of the earth. Part of this love is their raising their children in the faith and friendship of the church, the one body on earth which proclaims this truth. ???

PS That last sentence is a piece of nonsense, given that religious bodies like the Jains, along with some Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists have proclaimed it for a long time, and the bulk of the Christian church is still knee deep in the sort of humanism that pays no attention to animals. My only excuse is that the church is waking up to an ecological gospel, which will transform its thought and action.

I intend to present some thoughts on the Lectionary passage that I am using this week. As I have the sacrament of Baptism on the 23rd I will use the lectionary material for the Baptism of Jesus on that Sunday, and will therefore use the material for the second Sunday after Epiphany this week.

Before I do so, however, it’s fair to note that I wasn’t altogether convinced by my use of the Magi material yesterday. I think my emphasis on the journey of the Magi, that is, on the importance of searching, moving out of one’s comfort zone in matters of faith, was ok in itself, but needed more practical examples, to be convincing to the congregation. That was probably true also of my use of the “true king being found among the common people rather than the rich and powerful.” More time needed, more examples. It’s easier to explain a text than to “execute” it, as the German scholar Ebeling has put it.

The Cana wedding story, John 2:1-11, is a complex mix of a village wedding tale, a Jewish belief about the Messiah, and the lesson the gospel-writer wants to give.

1. The source is a tale passed down about Jesus saving a family from disgrace at their daughter’s wedding by supplying excellent extra wine when their own supply was running out. Where did he get it? Well, he may have known the local supplier and persuaded him or paid him to send over some of the best. Or he might have had some he’d bought as gifts for his best carpentry customers. Yes, the story we have says it was a miracle, but we don’t need to take that too seriously.

2. Jewish people talked about their Messiah as the bridegroom of Israel, and believed that his victorious rule would be celebrated in a great feast. At some stage the village story has been mingled with this belief in Jesus Messiah. The writer takes it for granted that Jesus has power to do something miraculous.

3 John the gospel writer adds the bit about the stone vessels used for Jewish rites of purification. He wants to tell us that the water of Jewish religion is turned into the wine of Jesus- faith: the ordinary becomes pleasurable, the routine becomes marvellous. God could have given the best religion first to Abraham and Moses, but he has kept it for now, to be offered through Jesus

The question is: what can this story mean for people now??

Well, the contrast between water and wine is still comprehensible. If people thought the church was offering wine, they might be more interested in it. So, can we say that what Jesus was offering was like wine rather than water? In fact the story of Jesus involves not only plenty water, but also another liquid, blood. He not only lived through ordinary tasks and events, but also through rejection and suffering. George Herbert a poet of the 17th century reflects on this in a couplet:

“Love is that liquor sweet and most divine

Which my God feels as blood, but I as wine.”

But actually anyone who loves knows that it’s not all wine : readiness to suffer with the loved one is a mark of true love. So,perhaps we should say that the water into wine story points to true love as the wine of life, which nevertheless includes suffering (blood) at times. The love does not reduce the suffering and the suffering does not destroy the love. In the Christian communion service the wine has the double meaning of love and suffering.

In the Cana wedding story the emphasis is on the wine: Love is the best wine. If wine is on offer who is going to want a watery religion? The vital thing is to link the love Jesus stands for with actual human love, the red-blooded relationship that is the wine of life.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus describes his ministry as new wine which requires new wineskins, meaning new ways of thinking and acting. Here he is contrasting new, fizzy wine with older, smoother stuff. There is a dangerous edge to his ministry.

The image of wine is used by the gospel writers to suggest a celebratory and unruly aspect to Jesus’ life which was a challenge to his contemporaries, and should be to his followers today.


He was digging the sand on the beach where I like to run

And I paused to watch his blade flash in the winter sun-

Shine. “Fine morning,” he greeted me, delivering a spadeful

Into his yellow plastic bucket. “I know I’m being stupid, you’ll

Forgive me, but what exactly are you doing?” I asked.

“I’m getting worms for bait,” he said, “but they don’t bask

In the sun, unfortunately, so I have to come and dig them out.”

Now I could see his bucket filled not just with sand but with stout,

Red, hairy, wriggling worms.”These,” he told me proudly,”are King

Rag-worms, the best, which can grow to maybe fifty inches, feeding

Under the surface of the sand. They eat plankton and detritus

But have jaws to seize soft-bodied creatures. They don’t fight us

But they can give you a wee nip you can feel.” He demonstrated

By lifting one which clung to his finger. “When used as bait, it

Still wriggles, making a tasty live attraction for a fish.” He

Delicately put it back. “I’m wasting your time with all this,” I

Said, “But are they good for many fish or one fish only?” “Wrasse,”

He answered,”Pollack, Whiting, Saithe, and Cod and Sea Bass,

These are my favourites anyway. I have a boat across the water.”

He had a kind of easy competence about him. “I really ought to

Stop, but maybe a last question, how do you use the worms?”

“You stick the hook right through its head or feed it by turns

From its other end onto a spike that lets you slip its body

Over the hook. It can end up looking rather bloody

But as long as it wriggles it’s irresistible to fish.” When he was done

I thanked and left him with his worms , glad I was not one.

On a bright cold lovely winter day in Monifieth, which has ended in a splendid sunset, I look at a luminous orange sky, and decide to begin a new series of blogs based on the Gospel passages in the revised lectionary. My focus will be whatever benefit may be found in living with a particular gospel passage for a week. On the Sunday of the week I will preach on the passage, but that is not the end of the study, for often the real meaning of a passage comes to me only after I’ve preached. So, I will note three stages of study: firstly, my initial survey of the passage; then the message prepared for the sermon; and finally my reconsideration after the Sunday.


Matthew wrote this Gospel around 85 CE, some 50 years after the ministry of Jesus. He used a number of written sources, namely the Gospel of Mark and a collection of Jesus’ Teaching also used by Luke. He also had some other sources, either written or oral, to do with Jesus’ birth and early years, and his resurrection. We can see from the way he handled Mark, that he used these sources with some freedom. I assume he had a source or sources for his story of the Magi, although it’s possible he built the story on the prophecy in Isaiah 60, “Gentiles shall come to your light and kings to the brightness of your rising”

I think it is clear from the text that Matthew was not writing factual history, but rather a presentation of Jesus as Jewish Messiah and Son of God. There are factual elements in this presentation, along with poetry, imagination, theological narrative and prophecy. This passage is not factual, but rather imaginative theology designed to connect with spread of Christian faith amongst non-Jews of the time. By the time of the Gospel, the Jewish war with the Romans had ended, the population dispersed, the temple destroyed, and Christianity had become a gentile religion.

This passage is concerned to show that the spread of Jesus’ faith to Gentiles was not a kind of divine Plan B, but part of God’s intention for his Messiah from the start.

1. The Magi expect to find a, doubtless special, royal child, a political ruler to be. The prophecies in Jewish scripture were of a divinely appointed and inspired King. The Magi are not kings as subsequent tradition has it, but astrologers with scientific knowledge wedded to less scientific skills of prognostication. In pursuit of more direct knowledge, they make a serious journey to a foreign country. Matthew does not give reasons for this huge commitment, other than that they are guided by God. What they are seeking cannot be found by sitting still.

2. They naturally go to the capital city, asking their troublesome question, which gets them an interview in the place of power with the King, Herod. He was the puppet of the Roman Empire, but a considerable figure in his own right. The arrival of the visitors allowed him to discover the birth -place of the Messiah, and to seek co-operation with the Magi. This throws their expectation into confusion: there is no future king in the place of corrupt power and wealth.

3. They are guided on the pilgrimage by the star, that is by God, to find the child in an ordinary house in a poor village. (Matthew has nothing about a stable, shepherds, angels) The mother’s name is Mary which means “rebel”. Here is divine presence without power, wealth or religious prestige. Has their journey ended in failure or in the discovery of a profound mystery? They decide the latter, offer their gifts and depart, taking a shrewd political decision not to betray the child to Herod: they have taken sides. They are the ancestors of those gentiles who will “make their journey” to Jesus the Jewish Messiah rejected by his own people but received by ordinary people across the world.


Assuming for the moment that my first look at the passage is right, the next issue is to ask how it connects with life in Scotland today or as traditional language would put it, with the souls of the congregation.

1,. For a start it may be good to remember the fact that we are the inheritors of a initially Jewish faith. There were a few gentiles reported in the gospels but the most significant were those who killed him. The first disciples, believers and missionaries were all Jewish. So it’s only due to the courage of Paul and Barnabas, the first to take the gospel of Jesus to Gentiles, that Christianity became a world faith, and we North Britons became Christian. The determination of people to share the joyful news beyond racial and cultural boundaries is of the essence of our faith. At times in the past we may have shared it arrogantly, for which we should be sorry, but a happy and humble sharing remains important.

2. The passage is about how God is to be found and where: not amongst the political or religious elite, but amongst ordinary poor vulnerable people anywhere, and only by those who make a journey to find the True Ruler.

3. There is an interesting parallel between Scotland and the Israel of Jesus’ time: both have their own government under the permission of a larger state, and both, perhaps, long for independence. Will the True Ruler be found amongst our Scottish political elite? Of course the future prime minister of the nation may be found there, but the one who demonstrates what true care and justice look like, the one who rules our souls and helps us hold our politicians to account, will not be amongst the elite. Jesus as always will be amongst the common people. If we seek him there, we will find him in them, as Martin Luther King did, as Desmond Tutu did, a great and effective mystery.

4. But we have to search. Just waiting in pious patience will not cut the mustard. We need not all make physical journeys, but even just sometimes being in places very near that we do not know well, may be what is asked of us. In any case the passage suggests that we need to move from our own comfort zone into new experiences as the small groups of Gentiles did in the first Christian assemblies. That does not mean that all churches should be centres of social activism. We are called to rediscover Jesus amongst ordinary people and to stand with him and them. The beginning of this wisdom is the desire for truth.




From somewhere off the northern coast of Norway where

The sea is deep enough for giant squid, his favourite fare,

He, a thirty five foot adolescent male, thrashed south

Towards the breeding grounds off Africa, his scented spout

Marking his direction. His satnav should have directed him

To make a right- turn west, say between Shetland and the dim

Silhouette of Orkney, to gain the depths of the Atlantic;

But he continued into the shallow North Sea. Now frantic

For food, and sensing his true direction, he bore west when

He saw a gap in the Scottish coast, and found himself penned

In the Firth of Tay. Exhausted, foodless, and without a map

He did not trust the water but made a lumbering last lap

East and beached himself near Barry Buddon, where he died.

Videos show the array of industrial machinery that plied

The sands to bury him, underestimating perhaps the pull

Of winds and tides.Now notices warn you and the full

Guff of his remains drives dogs daft and offends genteel

Nostrils, but it is a smell of energy, firstly of the gross meal

Made of him by thousands of tiny creatures, but more

Of the huge flesh now exanimate: the world’s largest

Brain, four stomachs, spermaceti, ambergris, the zest

That powered his half-mile dives into the briny ooze

Of the ocean bed. The stink of death here brings me news

Of life, its process terrible, its scaled invention never shoddy.

I’d like to see the resurrection of this body.