• Fill the hungry. Lift the lowly. Cast down the mighty. Send the rich away.

    A sermon for the Feast of the Assumption – 2020

    It was one of those things that appeared on the internet and all of a sudden it seemed like everyone I knew was retweeting it and sharing it.

    At first when you looked at it you might have thought it was quite an old image. There’s something about a woodcut that is rather nostalgic. But this was nostalgic and retro in a hipster kind of way and it was a newly created image.

    A familiar figure, but in a stance that I’ve never seen her depicted in before.

    Her head is covered in some kind of head-dress and there seems to be a halo of stars around her head, so there’s no doubt at all who she is. She’s very familiar to us.

    But here she’s standing in an unfamiliar pose.

    I say standing but she’s more active than that. She’s jigging about. Trampling on a snake and a skull. And she’s waving a clenched fist in the air.

    She looks for all the world as though she’s at a Black Lives Matter protest. Or a demo protesting against the government’s hostile environment policy that diminishes the lives of those seeking asylum. Or chanting about Climate Change. Or – well, so many things. So much that’s wrong. So much to put right. She looks like she could bring up a child who knew how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

    And around her in the woodcut there’s words. Her words: “Fill the hungry. Lift the lowly. Cast down the mighty. Send the rich away”.

    And it looks to me as though she’s chanting those slogans and punching her fist in the air in time with the chant.

    Benjamin Wildflower’s woodcut of the Blessed Virgin Mary is at once familiar and unfamiliar. We know instantly that it is her. And we know fine well what kind of values that she stood for. But it is a stance that is startling. Surprising. Slightly unsettling.

    And maybe that’s a better description of her than many – startling, surprising, slightly unsettling.

    It is difficult to think of another woman who has been more depicted than Mary. Yet most artists have played fairly safe. They’ve often produced images of astonishing beauty but often there can seem to be a passivity about the figure whom they depict. As though it was all God’s actions and she was just a recipient.

    Here at St Mary’s cathedral we tend to sit up and take notice when we encounter her in the scriptures. And she’s far from passive. Singing the Magnificat of justice even as she bore the child Jesus in the womb. Egging him on with the scandalous first miracle of turning water into wine. Turning up everywhere – when he was teaching. When he was dying. And being right at the centre of the circle of the disciples when they were set on fire at Pentecost to spread the news that we continue to spread today – that Jesus Christ, her son was raised from the dead. And death is not the end. And though there is much to weep over in this world, sadness is not our ultimate destination.

    The church has had plenty of trouble in passing on this message due to the fake news of a Gentle Jesus who was meek and mild. And it feels as though Mary has been packaged up in the same way as a passive young woman without much of a voice for herself.

    Not the Mary we know at all.

    Some of my favourite images of Mary are the ones that break with that tradition. The woodcut fist shaking Mary is just one of them.

    Elizabeth Frink’s Walking Madonna in the Close at Salisbury is another. A strong women. A woman striding very purposefully. A woman with things to do. And striding out from the church, not into it. She’s a Mary I feel I recognise from what I read in Scripture.

    Or another one that periodically does the rounds on the internet – a medieval manuscript Mary.

    It is from an age where it was very natural to depict the devil as a creature with horns.

    In the image I’m thinking of from 13th century England there’s just such a devil – a bit of a pantomime figure for our cynical modern eyes. And next to him there’s Mary all bedecked in draped clothing as usual. Her body hidden and her face rather beautiful. But this is another Mary’s who is using her fists. Not waving a fist in time to a protest song this time. But something a good deal more aggressive. She seems to be holding the devil with one hand at the back of his neck. With her other hand she’s bashing the devil in the nose with her fist.

    These images of Mary take us both to the scriptural Mary and the theological Mary.

    She’s not just a woman who once sat in a room whilst the Holy Spirit did all the work of the incarnation.

    She’s a collaborator with God’s work in the world. She’s in cahoots with all that is holy and true.

    We get chances in this life to be passive. There are times in our lives when we can choose to do nothing.

    We also get chances to shout out that the Mighty must be brought low. We get chances to stride out in power to do what needs to be done to put the world to rights. And we get chances to recognise the evil from the good and act on that knowledge. Every act a punch in the devil’s nose.

    Mary was one of us.

    She took her chances.

    Let us join her.

    And demand  that God remembers his promise of mercy. That the humble may be lifted up, the proud scattered in their conceit and the hungry filled with good things.

    She’ll be with us all the way.

    Amen

7 responses to “The BA Cross Story”

  1. Tim Avatar

    Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

    Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
    A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

    It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

  2. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

    It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

    When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

    Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

    Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

    Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

    All the very best,

    Clyde Lad

  4. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

    For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

  5. Ali Avatar
    Ali

    I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

    I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

  6. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    “A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

    I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

    This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

    But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

  7. Mysterious stranger Avatar
    Mysterious stranger

    I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

    Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Scottish Episcopal Church News for February 2015

    The following news can be reproduced on other websites and in church magazines. Sign up to have news like this delivered each month by email here: http://thurible.net/follow-blog/ Lent Appeals The Scottish Episcopal Church is having a co-ordinated Lent Appeal in each of its dioceses this year in aid of the Scottish Episcopal Institute. The Institute…

  • Charles, King and Martyr

    On this day, the Scottish Episcopal Church remembers Charles I – the king who was beheaded on this day in Whitehall in 1649. There’s always services organised in Scotland to remember Charles. The Scottish Episcopal Church was strongly aligned in the Jacobite cause in times gone by. I tend to remember this day not merely…

  • Sermon on BBC Radio 4

    It was great fun doing the BBC Radio 4 Sunday Worship live from St Mary’s today. There’s always a bit of an adrenalin rush about being involved with the production of 40 minutes of live radio. If you were one of the million or so who tuned in then you’ve already heard this sermon, but…

  • Response from the College of Bishops

    The following is the response from the College of Bishops to the group of more than 50 lay readers and clergy of the church who wrote expressing concern in unusually strong terms to a set of guidelines that the bishops introduced with no consultation last year. This has already been published online elsewhere and so…