Foot washing 2
Meditation and Reflection

Maundy Thursday foot-washing reminds power of its purpose

 

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you (Jn 13:1-15).

Most Christians remember the Last Supper if not day after day, certainly month by month all year round. But we focus on foot-washing only once a year, and rarely is it enacted. It has become more of a metaphorical memorial than a real presence. Perhaps we should precede every celebration of the Eucharist with foot-washing or a modern equivalent; a little induced humility to dispel superiority and confront our pride.

After all, we all need to wash our feet: having someone perform for us a necessary act of ablution without expectation of payment would be a manifestation of humility and service. And we all need to eat, but the bread and the wine are privileges. Only if we are humble can we dine with Him; only when everything else fades into oblivion can we feed on Him.

On the priestly washing of feet, Archbishop Rowan Williams observed a few years ago:

They didn’t all do it because they were lovely humble people – some were, and some definitely weren’t – but because they accepted one great truth that needed repeating over and over again, the one big thing that Christianity had brought into the world of human imagination.

And that was – and is – the truth that power constantly needs to be reminded of what it’s for. Power exists, in the Church or the state or anywhere else, so that ordinary people may be treasured and looked after, especially those who don’t have the resources to look after themselves. The Bible is crystal clear that this is the standard by which the gospel of Jesus judges the powerful of this world.

Power needs to be reminded of what it’s for. Mutual foot-washing helps to do that, especially when those feet belong not to your lovely and lovable family and friends – or to those who vote for you – but to people you despise, resent or loathe. Perhaps George Osborne might wash the feet of some disabled; or Nigel Farage might do the same for a few economic migrants; or Jeremy Corbyn for the editor of the Jewish Chronicle. Or is that to politicise a sacred ritual, and risk media flashpoints of ‘my foot-washing is more humble than yours’?

The Messiah washed the feet of Judas. The Lord served His disciples. When power is brought to the feet of its subjects, we reach the essence of the gospel of love. We’re all struggling to pass through this dying world. Some do it with love, grace and humility; others prefer to quibble over the customs of Israel in AD33. The sandals of doctrinal rectitude trump hospitality, charity and humility. Perhaps the Church might look to the example of St Benedict, who directed that foot-washing should be performed every Saturday for all the community, by the one acting as cook for that week. It was also directed that the Abbot and Brothers were to wash the feet of guests. These acts were accompanied by prayers and hymns.

We all possess power over someone or something. If it is not subordinate employees, it is younger family members. If not them, it is our troubled neighbours or anxious acquaintances. If not them, it is the dog, cat or hamster. It is good for the soul not only to read about humility, but to practise it. It may be humiliating, but if we do not feed on Him by faith, and pray as He did in the garden of Gethsemane with grief and tears of anguish, then our hour will never come: the cup of suffering passes us by, and believers will never be one.

  • len

    Jesus came to serve others, and washing the feet of His followers (possibly not very clean feet) is a mark of true humility.
    The King of the World came not in pomp and ceremony but as a servant to minister to all who would allow him..

  • IanCad

    Can a year have gone by already!?
    It was the Pope if I recall, then performing what should be an essential part of every communion service. We do it four times a year. Just about the right amount of time to be really needing it.

  • IanCad

    From some of the recent comments allow me to humbly suggest that several communicants need to wash the feet of Donald Trump.

    • Inspector General

      Agreed. Trump, in the Inspector’s unquestionable opinion is a good egg. Rather more than a hint of Churchill about him, don’t you think? One particularly rates his idea of a wall. Brilliant idea…We have the English Channel, the Americans should have a wall to be proud of…

      • carl jacobs

        Churchill? Churchill?? Trump is a narcissistic egomaniacal idiot who thinks he is fit to be President because he has money in the bank. The bureaucracy would eat him alive. He would make Jmmy Carter look like a wise and sagacious Chief Executive.

        • Inspector General

          Churchill was both narcissistic and egomaniacal. One rests his case…

          • carl jacobs

            Churchill saved Western civilization. Trump built a casino and starred in a reality show called the “The Apprentice” or something. Unlike Churchill, he hasn’t spent years in Gov’t learning the craft. Trump thinks he can be an effective President by making a speech and getting elected. He would blunder into Washington like a sheep for the slaughter. But his ego won’t let him see it.

            Besides. He can’t win. All he is doing is throwing the election to Clinton.

          • Inspector General

            The man has leadership properties, as had Churchill. Both were unpopular until their country needed them, and then they were embraced.

            You have a nerve to criticise the fellow after your 8 years of presidential whatever from the son of an eventually unstable native cook in the Kings African Rifles…

          • carl jacobs

            “Embraced”? When someone like me has to actively consider the possibility of voting for Clinton, you know he hasn’t been embraced.

          • Inspector General

            Take a leap of faith, Carl, while you WASPS still run the show over there…

          • Phil R

            Surely not Clinton over Trump.

            Clinton would be a disaster for the West.

            Trump just might be very good.

            Undoubtedly, we need a British Trump.

            He has succeeded in moving the argument even if he is not elected. That is already a good thing.

          • Ivan M

            As though Obummer and Iman Bush are in the class of JP Morgan.

          • IanCad

            r

        • IanCad

          “egomaniacal idiot”

          “Idiot:”
          In the nomenclature of retardation idiots were ranked dumber than imbeciles, who were in turn gauged dopier than morons.

          “Hyperbole:”
          Gross overstatement or exaggeration. Much indulged in by the verbally challenged and excitable British. Less so by the more confident and cautious Americans.

          • carl jacobs

            I don’t know about those classifications. I know that Trump as a political actor is dumber than a pile of rocks. If he wasn’t so narcissistic and ego-driven, he would realize that he is in waaaay over his head. His little ego trip is going to do great damage to the Republic.

          • IanCad

            I would love for you to name a politician who isn’t narcissistic and ego driven.
            Darned if I know of any in the presidential race.

        • Ivan M

          Jimmy Carter was wiser and more sagacious than all who came after him, which isn’t saying much but that is what the US slate is. The US of John Adams and DD Eisenhower is long gone.

          • carl jacobs

            We’re you alive and living in the US during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter? Because I was. He never understood that he was elected to be President and not National Pastor. He was a dismal failure – virtually the archetype of a failed President. He couldn’t hold a candle to Ronald Reagan – who among other things won the Cold War.

          • Ivan M

            Raygun Ronnie ? Please. The man took advantage of the recovery put in place by Jimmah. The Volcker medicine was administered by Jimmy Carter to the detriment of his Presidency. And really what did you expect the Carter years to be? Paying down for the Vietnam War and successive oil shocks?

          • Ivan M

            I was around when the Georgian was President. He wasn’t a war nut but he did put into place the B1 and cruise missile systems. Colonel Beckwith had the bad luck to lose his way in the Iranian desert but this became part of the lore of “malaise* under Jimmah. They had just unseated the by now legendary Richard Nixon, and the US Congress had no stomach going after Communists but all this is Jimmy Carter’s fault.

          • carl jacobs

            The “malaise” legend comes from the famous “malaise” speech in which he blamed his dreadful economic failure on the American people. Besides that speech (and the numbers behind it), Carter is remembered for the hollowing out of the American Military, pardoning the draft dodgers, and his 444 days of captivity to Iran. And the rabbit. Don’t forget the fearsome rabbit. Or his rubber boots.

            There was a reason Reagan cleaned his clock.

          • Ivan M

            You can’t have guns and butter in the long run without increasing productivity. What President Carter said was plain common sense. Magick Reagan told them otherwise, he got elected, though I agree it was the embassy siege that pushed matters over the edge. ‘Morning Again in America’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ don’t sound all that different. I do respect President Reagan as he was in the last analysis a peacemaker, nonetheless he made a possibly irreversible mistake (I should have written blunder), with his Amnesty for Mexicans. Trump’s base supporters are trying to reverse it to retain their country.

          • carl jacobs

            Did you live in the US between 1977 and 1980? I didn’t think you were an American.

          • Anton

            More upticks than I have available, Carl.

          • len

            Peanuts!

          • Ivan M

            Maybe the last honest man they had for a President.

          • len

            I am rather inclined to think that American presidents(the ones that survive anyway) are mere figureheads for ‘shadow governments’…

            “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some
            of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and
            manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power
            somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so
            complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their
            breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913

          • Ivan M

            President Wilson should know. He promptly mortgaged American Democracy to the plutocrats through signing the Federal Reserve into existence.

  • Martin

    Jesus commanded the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, nowhere is foot washing commanded in the Bible. Indeed, I’d suggest it is an act of hubris to do so, we are not Christ.

    • IanCad

      Well Martin, you would have to be discounting the entire thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John.

      • Martin

        Ian

        This is where the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is commanded:

        And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
        (Luke 22:19-20 [ESV])

        Show me where foot washing is likewise commanded.

        • IanCad

          Martin,
          Because an act is not specifically enjoined it does not follow that such should be prohibited.
          Foot washing is a preparatory service. Christ is our pattern – are we not to follow Him?

          • sarky

            No disrespect, but where do you stop? Are you going to start nailing yourselves to crosses next?

          • IanCad

            Now Sarky, you are really being ridiculous. The first action is an easy copy, the second an anatomical impossibility.

          • sarky

            Alright then, how about a quick stroll across the channel.

          • IanCad

            Peter tried that. Matt. 14:30

          • Martin

            Ian

            Jesus is God, we cannot do as He did, He is not our pattern.

            Foot washing is a act of pride by those who do it.

  • len

    We have missed the point entirely if we turn ‘foot washing’ in to a religious act.Like so many things Jesus did it was the motive behind the action not necessarily the action itself which was the point.(sigh)
    How men can turn an act of love (foot washing of disciples ) into a religion tells us far more about men than God.

    • IanCad

      Len, It is a Preparation for a religious act.

    • Define “religious act”.

      • len

        Blimey you should know!.

        • Have you heard of the term liturgy, Len? Or do you recommend the approach adopted by Quakers?

          • len

            Is that the porridge people?

          • Uncle Brian

            Is that the porridge people?

            No, that’s Ronnie Barker and Fulton Mackay.

          • len

            Nice one brian

  • Inspector General

    Makes a fellow, wonder, you know. How the (completely unnecessary and unfathonable) concept of the Trinity ever got off the ground. Small g gods do NOT wash wretches feet, but an angelic presence, sent to us by a Creator to tell us we are not totally abandoned – that would be different…

    • Anton

      As a point of clarification – not condemnation – what do you currently believe?

      • Inspector General

        Not the concept of the Trinity, you might have noticed…

        • Anton

          But I asked – in courtesy – what you did believe, not what you didn’t.

          • Inspector General

            Not the time, Anton, but all will be revealed to you, slowly, in the future. But in the meantime, here’s a tip, it’s Christianity, not the mechanics behind it, and that includes analogies like Adam and Eve and the ridiculous Noah’s ark thing…

          • Anton

            Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is, as well as fully human, fully divine in the sense that the universal creator is? Notice, please, that I am not raising the word Trinity, nor disputing your freedom to believe what you choose. But “Christian” can only mean the answer Yes.

          • Inspector General

            My dear fellow, the Trinity is an IDEA put forward and adopted. Christ never spoke of it. As an IDEA it holds as much truth as that of priests not being able to be married. Worryingly, it also stinks of polytheism, such as the men who became Christians would have been all too happy to accept as former pagan Romans. It was also adopted at a time of general mystery about the way it is. For example, the elements were held to be earth, fire and water then. See, three again…

            Join the Inspector and seek out a new understanding of what is and ditch the centuries of mumbo jumbo the faith has allowed itself to be wrapped in…

            EDIT made. Pantheism replaced with polytheism

          • Anton

            Please stop banging on against the Trinity, which I am not discussing, and tell me whether or not you believe that the man Jesus of Nazareth is also divine in the sense of the Creator. For that is what a Christian is, and you say you are one. For the avoidance of misunderstanding, I don’t mind what you believe; my concern is to preserve the meaning of words, in this case “Christian”.

          • Inspector General

            Oh yes, Christ is as of God as any other archangel, one considers. As for Christian, then surely that is a follower of Christ. When you start to qualify what a Christian is down to your level of satisfaction, you are only mirroring the split as exists in Islam.

          • Anton

            History shows that your last assertion is inaccurate. Most of the Germanic tribes during the Dark Age had an ‘Arian’ (NB – not the same thing as ‘Aryan’) understanding of Jesus, meaning that they regarded him as a very high created order of being – but still created, and not divine in the sense of the Creator. Arians are not Christians, and the distinction was made clear in various 4th century church councils. A Christian regards Jesus as divine, meaning divine in the sense of the universal creator. Your reply seeks to have it both ways, answering Yes but then suggesting that Jesus is simply an embodied archangel. I object not to your holding the beliefs you do – which you have yet to state clearly, to my regret – but to your playing fast and loose with the dictionary. I am sure that you understand what I am saying.

          • Inspector General

            One realises what you are saying, alright. It’s just the jaw dropping observation that it is within your gift to decide upon the nature of the being of Christ, and your threat to throw dictionaries out the pram if you don’t get your own way…

          • Anton

            It is deceitful to knowingly use words in a different way from others, and “Christian” has meant one who believes the man Jesus of Nazareth is divine in the sense of the Creator from as soon as the question was raised by the appearance of the Arians many centuries ago. Feel free to be an Arian, but you are not free to rewrite the dictionary.

            I take my belief that Jesus is divine from the same source that you have heard of him, the Bible. There are many verses that hint it but some that are explicit, eg the prophecy of Isaiah (9:6), and Jesus’ acceptance of the phrase “My Lord and my God” on Thomas’ lips (John 20:28). In ancient Israel “God” meant exclusively the Creator, and if Jesus was not divine then, supposing he remained faithful, he would instantly have rebuked Thomas. You may reject these scriptures but then you have to explain why you reject them yet accept others about Jesus…

          • Inspector General

            Let’s see. What would an archangel with plenipotentiary powers refer to God as. Perhaps it might be “My father in heaven”. Must see if that phrase uttered by Christ occurs in the bible…

          • The stake and flame awaits, Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            Surely ‘steak’…

          • Well done …

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector has yet to decide what to have for dinner tonight. You may have decided the issue, and he’ll go out. Anyway, thanks for that Jack. You may go now…

          • Ivan M

            Do you recite the Creed at Mass IG? Belief in the Holy Trinity is not negotiable for a Catholic.

          • Inspector General

            If you must know, the Inspector lifts his head upwards and winks during the Creed…

          • Ivan M

            Well that’s that then….what further proof do we need! Proceeds to tear the Gandhi necktie.

          • Tell Jack, do you actually believe the bollocks you write or do you do it just for the attention?

          • Inspector General

            Gracious! Are YOU still here? Now, run along and make yourself useful. SOMEWHERE ELSE

          • Never. Jack has made it his mission to correct your errors and to rebuke you for them.

          • The Explorer

            It sounds like he’s read a Watchtower Tract and the Book of Mormon, and done his own blend of the two. Ask him if he thinks Christ was once the Angel Michael or is Lucifer’s brother.

          • len

            The Inspector has devised his own religious mix, a pretty potent one too by all accounts…. smoke is seen coming from his ears at times.

          • Best not encourage his speculation.

          • IanCad

            I’m not so sure that Michael and Christ are not one and the same. I seem to recall that Wesley and Spurgeon held that view.

          • Anton

            Wesley and Spurgeon? References please, otherwise a withdrawal would be appreciated.

          • IanCad

            Sure Anton,

            John Wesley “Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible” Daniel 10:13 “–Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ.–“

            Charles Spurgeon “Morning and Evening Daily Readings” p.556 “He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus!”

            Jonathan Edwards, Matthew Henry, John Calvin; all have made similar statements.

            This is not a salvific issue, but it is a subject on which it is perhaps best to keep an open mind.

          • The Explorer

            Calvin noted that Christ had been identified as Michael, without endorsing the view himself.

            If I note that Muslims think that Christ was not crucified, it means that I am aware of the opinion. It does not mean that I agree with it.

          • IanCad

            Explorer,

            Not so sure about that. At least not if looking at this statement of his:

            “–As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent Him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people –“

            Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 25: Daniel: Part 2: Chapter 12

          • The Explorer

            I think he is simply saying that Michael is a sort of precursor of Christ in his protective role: not that Michael IS Christ.

            As with Spurgeon, Calvin’s commentary on ‘Jude’ 9 identifies Michael as one of many angels, not as the pre-incarnate Son. Calvin’s commentary on ‘Hebrews’ shows his belief that Christ is “above the Angels”.

          • IanCad

            !’ll take it as it’s written. Seems plain enough to me.

          • Anton

            These seem to me to suppose that the being named the Archangel Michael is actually a pseudonym for Christ. I disagree, but the stuff in Genesis about the angel of the Lord can just about be used to argue such things. The point is that there is a world of difference between supposing that Michael is a pseudonym for Christ and supposing that Jesus Christ is a pseudonym for the created Archangel Michael. The latter view is absolutely and utterly untenable for the Christian, and I do not believe that Wesley or Spurgeon or those others held it.

          • IanCad

            Really Anton, you asked me to give you quotes or withdraw my assertion. I gave you the citations – and more – and now you are so discourteous as to continue without addressing the same except by doubting the very statements I supplied to you along with their respective sources.

          • Anton

            I think the Explorer is casting reasonable doubt on your view of what these men meant.

          • The Explorer

            Spurgeon’s and Calvin’s commentaries on Jude 9 show that they did not think Christ and Michael were the same.

          • The Explorer

            Spurgeon called Christ “the true Michael”, but was citing Christ’s martial qualities. His commentary on Jude 9 shows that he sees Christ and Michael as distinct.

            Wesley may have regarded OT references to “the Angel of the Lord” as references to the pre-incarnate Christ.

            ‘Daniel’ 10:13 describes Michael as “one of the chief princes”. If Michael is Christ, then there is more than one Christ: or, at least, other angels with equivalent status to Christ.

          • The Explorer

            Glad he’s one of yours.

          • If he holds these opinions, then he’s not.

          • The Explorer

            Quite true. But it’s like that old Northern–Irish response to one who tried to bypass sectarian dispute by declaring himself an atheist: “Ah, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?”

            Whatever the Inspector may be now, he got there via Catholic origins.

          • He’s a tribal Catholic, for sure, but there’s nothing Catholic about his ideas.

          • carl jacobs

            The Inspector is on the leading edge of the new Emerging Catholicism heralded by Pope Francis. Jack will get there eventually.

          • CliveM

            Now whose being bad?!

          • carl jacobs

            No, no! I am just bowing to the progress of history in the RCC. It’s just my objective analysis. Besides. Jack being bound by obedience to the Pope has to follow eventually. He’ll have no choice.

          • CliveM

            Methinks you doth protest too much…….

          • carl jacobs

            It’s just dispassionate analysis. I would have no motive to be “bad”.

          • CliveM

            Hmmmm…………..

          • William Lewis

            I hadn’t realised there was such a range of Catholic belief strung out across the arc of RC doctrinal progress.

          • Anton

            You are ducking the two scriptures that I chose.

          • Inspector General

            If you are looking for seniority of authority, it’s Christ’s words every time, isn’t it?

          • Anton

            Now you are ducking the fact that the same sources from which you get all of your information about Christ, namely the gospels, back me up about his divinity. By what criteria do you pick and choose which bits of the gospels to believe, and why those criteria?

          • pobjoy

            The person who was crucified was the same person as the creator; though not in the same ‘presence’ or persona.

            Only the supernal deity is perfect in righteousness; there is ‘none beside’ him. A Christian is one who is accounted as possessing the same holiness as that of the supernal deity, by faith in the perfected atonement of the person crucified. If that crucified one was imperfect, there can be no salvation.

  • sarky

    Read an article today about why men don’t go to church. It seems, that to women, things like foot washing are seen as appealingly feminine, but to men, appallingly effeminate.

    • Anton

      It’s because society has become feminised. As the church recruits from the culture at each time and place, the church has to be careful not to become polluted by the culture. In this case it has been.

      • sarky

        I don’t agree. If that was the case surely the church would be recruiting more men?
        Our institutions may have become feminised, but the typical ‘man’ on the street hasn’t. I think the church has become more feminised because it’s demographic is overwhelmingly more female and just doesn’t appeal to your typical man’s man. That isn’t a societal problem, just a recruitment problem.

        • Anton

          Of course the church in the West has become feminised. Male leadership is a biblical principle and we have women running some congregations nowadays. And just listen to the modern worship songs. No wonder real men get put off.

          • sarky

            Got to agree about worship songs. Truly nauseating.

          • Lienus

            Why do you seek masculinity? Do you find it attractive, mon Cherie? I will give you a sensual foot massage with my lavender oil and you will be potty in my ‘ands. Then we will unite to bring the church to its knees!

          • Catin.

    • preacher

      Sounds like a weak excuse to me mate, It reminds me of an old tract titled “Ten reasons why I never wash”.

      • sarky

        The figures would suggest otherwise.

        • preacher

          Speak as you find, – I find ” figures ” can be massaged or just plain wrong, personal experience is a better source.

          • sarky

            So do you have men flooding into your church?

          • preacher

            It’s not My Church brother & the true Church is comprised of people, not buildings. I would say that it takes a Real man ( Or woman ) to stand up for what he/she believes, even if others who claim to be Macho disagree & scoff. A real Christian will be prepared to stand alone when needed, even if it costs his or her life ( See the first disciples or Foxes book of Martyrs ).
            People will attend services but that does not necessarily mean they are Christian.
            People don’t flood into Church, but squaddies don’t Flood into the SAS.

          • sarky

            Are you a politician? You nicely avoided the question there.

          • preacher

            No need to insult me LOL . I merely tried to point out that first we need to establish what a real Christian is ! & what is the definition of a ” Man’s Man ” , There are actually many tough guys out there who are believers & many ” macho men ” Who melt away at the first challenge they meet. It’s all a matter of personal belief, choice & the strength to sustain the faith.
            The men ISIS murdered on a Libyan beach were stronger & tougher than most who claim to be ‘ Hard men ‘ they could have renounced their faith & walked away, but they didn’t, to all appearances they were ordinary men, but they were all extraordinarily strong men.

          • sarky

            I totally understand what your getting at, I’m just interested in how many men are actually coming to your church? My point was that the church has become effeminate and is not attracting men (macho or otherwise)

          • Anton

            Sarky, I agree that the church has become effeminate but when I said so to you below you replied “I don’t agree. If that was the case surely the church would be recruiting more men?” Are you saying incompatible things to different people here or did I have the privilege of changing your mind?

          • sarky

            No, you said ‘society’ was feminised and used that as the reason why the church had become so.

          • Anton

            Fair enough; it wasn’t clear below exactly what you weren’t agreeing with.

          • preacher

            So your real question is about quantity, not just in the Church as a whole but in one particular place. My response is that it’s quality that matters, not quantity. That’s why number crunching produces such poor results. The first ” Church ” only had a handful of members, but the quality of them made believers of thousands that led to millions, then billions.
            Only God knows the real believers from the ‘ attendees ‘ so numbers are of little or no importance. Sometimes there are more & other times less at particular services. Being a believer is IMO, a 24, 7, 365 thing. I don’t agree with the contemporary idea that bums on seats equals a good, strong, masculine Church, probably just good cheap entertainment for religiously inclined people.

          • sarky

            It’s not really about numbers, but a church that fails to attract men will die and evidence suggests that that is exactly what is happening.

            There seems to be quite a few heads in the sand round here.

          • preacher

            Well Bro’ I’m sure you’d be welcome, get stuck in, you might enjoy it & start to turn the tide. Judging by your postings here, you’re no shrinking Violet & could be a benefit, – giving as well as receiving.

        • Uncle Brian

          Sarky, I expect this is the survey you’re talking about, isn’t it?

          http://www.pewforum.org/files/2016/03/Religion-and-Gender-Full-Report.pdf

          It certainly looks interesting, but there’s a lot of detail to digest. Most comments seem to be focusing on the findings presented in the chart on p. 23, but I suspect that some of the Pew Center’s conclusions may turn out to be oversimplified.

          • sarky

            That’s the one!!!

    • Ivan M

      It only happens once a year. No church does this everyday. Where are these “men” on other days. The bums are probably working out their hangovers on Sunday.

      • sarky

        And it’s these ‘bums’ who won’t even consider church because it’s seen as just a little bit girly.

        • Ivan M

          Post hoc excuse. There are plenty of “manly” churches around. The SSPX, Mel Gibson’s church for instance.

          • sarky

            Is that the misogynistic, anti-Semitic branch?

          • Ivan M

            Hey you wanted a non-girlie brand.

    • len

      If you take the path that led to the Cross Jesus Christ (who washed His disciples feet) was ‘a real man in every aspect’ of the Word.Jesus could have avoided the Cross many times.
      Jesus Christ was a real man the only’ real man’ who ever walked this Earth.

      • sarky

        So why does the church do its best to portray him as an effeminate hippy?

        • len

          No idea?

          • sarky

            How about this.

            Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin, now with the Family Research Council, wants to be like the Jesus who was a “man’s man,” who had “big, bulging biceps” and “smelled bad.” Nothing is stopping him, but he’s nevertheless concerned with the “feminized” way Jesus often gets portrayed. You know, without massive muscles. Not a tough guy. “But we feminize Jesus in the church,” he complains, “and men can’t identify with him anymore, not the kind of men I want to hang out with. They can’t identify with this effeminate Jesus that we’ve tried to portray.”

          • len

            Jesus was totally identified with ‘ordinary men; he was’ one of us,’ he suffered all we suffer ,which was part of His humanity.Yet remained God in the flesh…….

          • sarky

            Except that’s getting lost amongst all the girly stuff isn’t it?

          • len

            Yes.. The Church has separated Jesus the Jewish Messiah into some sort of anglicised blue eyed flaxen haired European.

            The church as some stage decided to move Jesus away from His Jewish roots which was a big mistake because Jesus without his Jewish heritage becomes a bit meaningless.

          • Ivan M

            You want Arnie at the pulpit now?

          • preacher

            Hey Bro’ that’s just his opinion. Perhaps he should get out more & reach these ‘ Tough guys ‘ himself, instead of moaning & whining about others.
            I don’t think big bulging biceps make a man & perhaps a bar of soap will take care of the pong !!!.
            ( ” Jerry ” Boykin sounds like General Patton ).

        • Inspector General

          Any more women bishops and you’ll have him as a ‘new man’ hippy type with a cat as companion…

          • sarky

            Hmm a metrosexual jesus. Except it’s hard to exfoliate when you have a beard.

          • The Explorer

            Nothing wrong with a cat as companion. Look at ‘Puss in Boots’ and DIck Whittington.

          • Inspector General

            How one wishes he could mark you down…

          • Lienus

            In France we have ‘Pussoire in Boots.’
            It is an excellent way of washing the feet.

          • Alouette, gentille alouette,
            Linus fera lécher vos pieds …

          • Allosexuel

            Ow affreux. Ow did yoo discoovor dis?

    • carl jacobs

      The way to stop seeing a feminized Christ is to stop going to a feminized church.

      • The Explorer

        Expel heretics from the church; but if the church itself is heretical, expel yourself from it instead.

        • Phil R

          When you find the perfect Church. Let me know. I will join and there will be two of us. Then soon we will no doubt find that one of us is a heretic.

          Running away is not the answer

          • The Explorer

            Just as the British Army should not have retreated from Dunkirk. It should have stayed and fought it out to the last man. Running away was not the answer.
            I take your point. Shakespeare’s Henry IV usurps the throne, and the rebels who helped him then rebel against him. Elizabeth Taylor was looking for the right man, the right man, the right man, the right man…
            Perfection this side of the Second Coming is not a realistic expectation. It’s best to try and make things work. On the other hand, Francis Schaeffer used to tell new converts that if they found themselves in a church where Christ was not preached, then leave it for a church where Christ was preached. That was what I had in mind. The churches of ‘Revelation’ have their flaws, but with six of them, remaining a member of the congregation would make sense. Laodicea is different.

          • Phil R

            I live in Wales

            The chapels found plenty to moan about. First with the established church then with each other. The chapels spilt and got smaller. The established church got more liberal.

            Nobody won. There was no perfect church. Despite years of splits anger and heartache.

            Why? Because the perfect church is is one that seems right to you. Because of that fact alone it is surely the wrong church for you.

            But they are liberal etc you say…..

            So what? Does that mean take the easy route and run?

            Or make the hard choice and stay?

            Which choice would you describe as foot washing?

      • Phil R

        Run away then?

        Are we men or not?

        • carl jacobs

          We are DEVO. D-E-V-O

          Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

        • carl jacobs

          If a church goes south, there often isn’t much to do but leave. You can only fight for so long.

          • Phil R

            We attended a church abroad that split over whether God created sin or not.

            To me it was not something I think about very often. It was thriving with great fellowship for all of my family and great children’s ministry.

            We were left with friends in both camps and two halves that really were not big enough to function properly.

            To me the real sin was the elders’ pride. Yes our family did suffer one half of the church that split eventually effectively died and some members drifted back but after the split it never regained it’s former vitality and size.

            Further more I still do not even know the answer to the question that drove the split in the first place and I don’t think anyone does.

  • preacher

    Rites, traditions & customs, however emotive or appealing can never save a soul. They can only point to a deeper meaning.
    If we continue believing that pointless ceremony will suffice & replace a needed change of heart & selfish direction, we are sadly deceived.

  • The Explorer

    As soon as we say something in the Bible was appropriate to its time and isn’t appropriate now, we are on dangerous ground. Thus, Foot washing was okay then, but isn’t appropriate now. Ergo, homosexuality and fornication were wrong then, but – being merely culturally determined – are okay now. That, certainly, is the line taken by some.

    Personally, though, I take from the example of foot washing the principle of service to others, but in ways appropriate to modern circumstances. I’ll give a neighbour a lift, but in a car. I don’t feel the need to resort to a donkey or a camel. I’m happy to use the internet to communicate; I don’t rely on a scroll and quill.

  • carl jacobs

    The presence of the camera would indicate this is all for show. Important men do things to be seen doing them. This would only be meaningful if we didn’t know it happened.

    • Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.

      It’s part of the liturgy for Holy Thursday and has been for centuries.

      • carl jacobs

        So? It’s still an act of faux-humility. Upon whom is the attention fixed?

        • That’s in the eye of the beholder.
          It’s part of a worship service remembering the Last Supper. As such, it reflects what we believe and how we view ourselves in relationship to God, one another and the world. By emulating Christ’s humility, the act reminds us that leadership in the Church is service.

          • carl jacobs

            It’s not in the eye of the beholder at all. It’s in the center of the camera. Who is the subject of attention in the picture at the top of this post?

          • It’s how you construe it. You’re focusing on the man and not the meaning of his actions.

          • carl jacobs

            No, Jack. The picture shows an important man washing feet. The observer must begin with “Look! An important man washing someone’s feet. How humble of him!” in order to get anywhere else. The focus must begin with the importance of the man or the image is meaningless.

          • Obviously. It’s a public act of humility and service where we remember Our Lord’s gesture and His example. The Lord of the Universe washing the feet of 12 ordinary men. However, this does not make it “an act of faux humility”.

          • Uncle Brian

            Of all the priests who will be performing this act today, what percentage do you suppose will be filmed or photographed doing it, let alone appear on television? One percent, maybe? Not as many as that, would be my guess.

          • carl jacobs

            I focused on the camera because of the picture, but the camera is not necessary. The event is still intended to be seen. The important are selected to publicly humble themselves so they can be seen being humble. No one saw the Lord Jesus but the disciples. That makes a huge difference.

          • Uncle Brian

            No one saw the Lord Jesus but the disciples.

            So each time he washed a disciple’s feet, there were eleven other people watching. By your logic Jesus himself was making a public display of his false humility.

          • carl jacobs

            It was a lesson the disciples. This act of Liturgy is nothing more than what I said. You cannot recreate that moment like this. You can’t artificially generate that spirit by turning the page in a Missal.

            It doesn’t emphasize the humility of he man doing the washing. It emphasizes his importance. That is why he is the one ritually washng feet. “Oh look! The Pope is washing someone’s feet. How humble of him.” Am I really supposed to take that seriously? He is only doing it because the liturgy specifies it.

          • How judgemental. You know what is in the heart and mind of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope (and other priests and bishops) when they perform this liturgical ritual? How? Because they are photographed?

            The act emphasises both the significance of the person doing the washing as well as being a demonstration of public humility.

          • len

            True humility cares not whether it is seen or not seen by others.
            False humility says “Look at me , look how humble I am.” This is the ‘humility’ of the Pharisees

          • IanCad

            Then you must consider the public act of adult Baptism in the same light.
            I think Christ would have an opinion on that.

          • len

            As I have said (several times) it is the motive behind the actions not the action itself.

          • len

            Jesus knows the motives of people, we can only guess. But if I take a camera and the press along with me to perform an act of’ humility’ I suppose my motives would be fairly apparent to everyone?

          • Uncle Brian

            A lesson, yes. And the same lesson is being repeated today in thousands of churches around the world.

          • len

            For what reason?. There must be many ways to express their humility?.

          • Uncle Brian

            For what reason are they passing on to their congregations the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels? Do you really need me to answer that question for you, Len? I don’t think so.

          • len

            Perhaps you should tell the Pope to ditch his golden throne then and to act a bit more humbly then Uncle Brian, that would be an important message ,perhaps you could make a ritual ‘throne ditching ritual’ to prove to all onlookers how humble the Pope can be?

          • carl jacobs

            The lesson cannot be recreated because the context which gave life to the lesson cannot be recreated by rote from Liturgy.

            I wonder if there isn’t some Alter Christus theology at work in this. If so, it would explain the divide.

          • Precisely …

          • carl jacobs

            I didn’t see that post until about ten minutes ago. Just getting around to the thread. Many times I respond direct from Disqus.

          • Jesus’ words and actions were passed on by word of mouth and then recorded in scripture. There were no cameras in His day. Jesus certainly meant His foot washing to be remembered and repeated.

          • len

            Jesus meant us to be humble not to make an exhibition of’ foot washing’.

          • Jesus said:
            “I have been setting you an example, which will teach you in your turn to do what I have done for you. Believe me, no slave can be greater than his master, no apostle greater than he by whom he was sent. Now that you know this, blessed are you if you perform it.”

          • len

            Act in humility not perform a foot washing ritual.

          • IanCad

            Too proud to wash another fellow’s feet Len?

          • len

            No , you want your feet washed then?.

          • len

            Religiously?

          • IanCad

            Are we opening windows into men’s souls here Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            No, I am saying that the ritualistic performance of humility is not humility, and can never be made into humility. No matter how hard people try. The lesson given by the Lord Jesus is not reproduced by the pantomime. In fact it stands the lesson on its head.

          • IanCad

            I don’t believe it is within your purview to judge what is ritualistic and what is considered by the participants as a weak imitation of the humility of Christ prior to the Last Supper.

          • carl jacobs

            There is no possibility of weak imitation, because imitation would require a recreation of the context in which the event occurred. Without that necessary context, this recreation becomes form without substance. Humility must be genuine. It cannot be produced on demand from a Liturgy.

            Humility is not demonstrated by the act washing feet. It proceeds from a heart that is willing to wash feet when doing so would be demeaning. Lining people up in front of a church for an annual foot-washing as specified by the church calendar does not meet that test. The self is not abnegated when the self is the focus of the event.

          • Pantomime? It’s a part of the Holy Thursday’s liturgy where the Church remembers the Last Supper. It has great symbolic depth and meaning.

            As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live.”

          • carl jacobs

            It isn’t real, Jack. That is my difficulty in one sentence. So if it isn’t real, what should I call it? It isn’t a re-enactment because the context is false. An act then? A play?

            It’s a stage-managed display that has been stripped of the setting that makes it meaningful. You might as well tie a man to a cross on Good Friday and call it a remembrance of great symbolic depth and meaning. You can’t just put up form and demand it be called substance.

            Spirit and truth. Not form and ritual.

          • The setting is the Holy Thursday Mass and the Gospel readings, Carl. Surely, as an ex-Lutheran, you know this? Have you ever attended a Catholic Holy Thursday service? Maybe you should before criticising it. If the liturgy is conducted correctly, there is no divide between spirit and truth and the service.

          • carl jacobs

            No, I don’t believe it would be right for me to attend a Catholic Mass. And my argument is from ontology. Attendance would not change it. My contention is that it is impossible for Liturgy to bridge the divide between ritual and truth in this matter.

            And of course the admission of Alter Christus makes it worse since that is a significant error of Rome.

          • An error of Rome? Hardly. An error of some Protestants. The ordaining bishop in the rite of ordination, says to the man to be ordained: ”Know what you are doing, imitate the mystery you celebrate: model your life on the mystery of the Lord’s cross.”
            Here’s a Catholic view of the priesthood:

            “Oh how great is the priest! . . . If he realized what he is, he would die . . . God obeys him: he utters a few words and the Lord descends from Heaven at his voice, to be contained within a small host. Without the sacrament of Holy Orders, we would not have the Lord. Who put him there in that tabernacle? The priest. Who welcomed your soul at the beginning of life? The priest. Who feeds your soul and gives it strength for the journey? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, bathing it one last time in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest — always the priest. And if the soul should happen to die (as a result of sin) who will raise it up, who will restore its calm and peace? Again the priest. After God, the priest is everything! Only in heaven will he fully realize what he is.”
            (St. John Vianney)

          • CliveM

            “”Oh how great is the priest! . . . If he realized what he is, he would die . . . God obeys him: he utters a few words and the Lord descends from Heaven at his voice, to be contained within a small host.”

            So the Holy, the most High God. The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth is at the beck and call of a Priest? Is that actually Catholic doctrine?

          • len

            The Catholic Priest has no place in the Body of Christ.
            Why quote Catholic dogma its meaningless

          • Anton

            In your own words, Jack, “do you actually believe the bollocks you write or do you do it just for the attention?”

          • preacher

            Please be kind enough to read Hebrews 9 : 23 to the end of the chapter. I think you’ll find it covers all the bases !.

          • len

            The RCC is not worshipping ‘ in Spirit and in Truth’ , so by your own admission those in the RCC are living a lie….

    • preacher

      Rather like the Pharisees ?

  • preacher

    Nah !!!

  • Inspector General

    Read somewhere the other day that some academic refutes the idea that Christ was crucified as there are ‘no trees in the area from which wood may be obtained so a cross may be constructed’ or words to that effect.

    A wasted life in study, what!

    {This is NOT one of the Inspector’s windups….}

    • The Explorer

      If there aren’t trees now, there may have been then. Even the Sahara once had trees, apparently.

      He’s probably being funded by the Saudis. Islam denies that Christ was crucified. Actually, though, it doesn’t deny that the crucifixion took place, as your chap does; it simply says someone else was crucified in Christ’s place.

      • preacher

        After the number of people the Romans crucified plus the timber that was needed for the ramp at Masada I’m not surprised that there’s none left !.

        • Inspector General

          The Romans were great traders. People tend to forget that. They would have imported the wood as military supplies. One sometimes is convinced that it is the Roman legacy that made great traders out of the English…

          • sarky

            Think you’ll find it was the vikings!!

          • Inspector General

            One recalls visiting a Dublin museum three decades ago. Two rooms full of Roman artefacts recovered from the country. And the Romans never even invaded the island, but trade, oh yes, they did that…

            The Vikings came later.

          • Anton

            I think the Romans maintained a trading post on the east coast of Ireland, a little north of today’s Dublin.

          • Inspector General

            Possibly Howth. A nearby peninsular. A grand place with a pleasant fishing port…

          • Anton
        • Uncle Brian

          There is now, and always has been, an abundant supply of timber in the Jerusalem area, including firewood, of course. How does the Inspector’s alleged “academic” imagine they kept the fire burning on the Temple altar day in and day out, year after year? Solomon imported cedar from Lebanon for building the Temple, but nobody would pay that kind of money for firewood. An oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia? Or maybe camels loaded with peat staggering all the way from the bogs of Hibernia?

          • Ivan M

            UC, Zaccaeus climbed a tree to catch a glimpse of Jesus. St Joseph was a carpenter. Jesus regularly rested under a tree to preach or take time time off. I guess you have to be an ‘Islamic academic’ to believe such nonsense as Jerusalem. with its Mount of Olives, could not support trees.

          • Uncle Brian

            Mount of Olives, right! The Inspector’s “academic” has yet to learn that olives grow on trees.

    • Uncle Brian

      Your “academic” evidently has a very hazy notion of the geography of the Middle East. Perhaps he thinks Jerusalem is the capital of Saudi Arabia.

    • Pubcrawler

      There is a Talmudic tradition that Jesus was stoned to death. Enoch Powell also espoused this view in one of his last works.

      • sarky

        I also heard jesus was stoned.

        • Pubcrawler

          Living down to expectations as usual…

      • IanCad

        Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all confess that Christ was crucified.
        The Gospel of Enoch comes along a couple of thousand years later and directly contradicts the canon of scripture.
        Powell was a very bright man; and, as so many with that gift, had a fevered imagination and not a lick of common sense.

        • Inspector General

          During the 39 45 war, Powell wrote to his parents telling them that he was certain he would be made a general. He came close, he reached the rank of brigadier…

          • IanCad

            Sounds about right; we all rise to our level of incompetence.

          • Inspector General

            Unfair. The man was a patriot. And much of want he predicted is coming true…

          • IanCad

            Fair enough! Patriotic and perceptive – but not so wise.

          • Inspector General

            If Churchill had been wise, we would have seen a German-British peace pact in 1940.

          • carl jacobs

            A peace between Germany and Britain in 1940 would have been tantamount to British surrender. Britain would today be a Nazified colony and the 1000 year Reich would yet remain.

            Refusing to make peace was how Churchill saved the West.

  • len

    I suppose what comes out of the comments so far regarding ‘foot washing’ is the motive behind the action.
    As far as I can see the’ religious act’ of foot washing is a ‘performance’ to impress upon others the humility of the act and the humility of the one performing it.

    With Jesus foot washing was’ a picture’ of Jesus`s concern for His disciples and the need to keep them uncontaminated by being ‘in the world’ but not ‘of the world.’ Feet on the dusty’ roads’ in the middle East soon became dirty and dusty.

    So as with most things in religion it is ‘motive’ that is the crucial factor.
    Religion puffs one up , relationship with Christ can only come about through true humility.

    • Inspector General

      Be humble Uri, er Len. There is much to be said about being humble and prostrating yourself before other humanity…my arse…You and others wash your own feet. And the Inspector will see to his…

      • len

        As I said above why would anyone take advice from someone who doesn`t even understand his own religion let alone others?.

    • “As far as I can see the’ religious act’ of foot washing is a ‘performance’ to impress upon others the humility of the act and the humility of the one performing it.”

      You don’t ‘see’ very far then, do you. The ritual is a sacramental reminder of Jesus actions at the Last Supper and the Minister “performing” it is acting in persona Christi.

      • len

        Jack, you can see no further than the RCC tells you to see.

  • chiefofsinners

    Christians can very easily forget that we are sent in humility to love and serve our enemies. As tomorrow’s collect says:

    O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live: Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock.

  • In the Royal Navy the Captain and senior officers serve the ship’s crew Christmas dinner and wait on them during the meal.

    • len

      So the church takes its lead from the Royal Navy?
      perhaps a tot of rum before the service?

      • Anton

        Plenty of yobbos take their lead from the church roof…

    • preacher

      Tradition & ritual can be like that Jack. If not at first. it can lose its significance & become empty over time.

  • Inspector General

    Nobody knows why Christ washed the feet of his comrades. He didn’t wash the feet of anyone else, right ? So, if we are to speculate, let’s do so intelligently. Time was short – he must have known his men (not women) would soon go out beyond their country to spread the word. They would ALL meet untimely death. You don’t have to be a scholar to realise that. It was bonding with them, a final thank you, was it not ?

    So, feel free to ignore the sanctimonious crap you’ll see on Cranmer on this subject, especially from so called Christ ‘experts’ like Len. It happened. Let’s leave it at that…

    • You know, Inspector, one has concluded there is a cold, harsh streak in Protestantism that rejects the beauty and symbolism of liturgy and insists on focussing on the doom and gloom of this “veil of tears”, overlooking the abundant mercy and love of God and all that is good in creation.

      Thank God for a Catholic formation and upbringing (even if you and Jack give our guardian angels a tough time every now and again).

      • carl jacobs

        The Inspector? Catholic formation? Haven’t you changed your tune in the time span of just a few hours.

        We know why Jesus washed the feet of His disciples. He specifically answers the question in John 13. This is yet one more theologically illiterate post by the Inspector. You know this and yet you did not correct him. You who not six hours ago said “He’s not one of ours ” and that your mission is to correct him.

        There is nothing cold and harsh about my position. I simply dislike pretense. And this little display of feet-washing can never be anything but pretense.

        • You may have noticed, Jack deliberately avoided theological content in his post. You may also have missed the meaning of the reference to guardian angels.

          Jack was referring to a meanness of spirit in Protestantism, reflected in a barrenness of liturgy and worship in some of its churches, as compared to Catholicism. And yes, Jack had Anton, Len and you in mind.

          Sacred liturgy is not pretence.

          • len

            ‘All the worlds a stage’ and the RCC takes the centre and has murdered countless thousands to remain there.

          • CliveM

            Bit hyperbolic there Len.

          • len

            But?

          • CliveM

            Already amended! You were quick.

          • len

            That`s me ;0

          • Anton

            And blessings to you too on this good Friday, Jack.

      • len

        I do not focus on doom, I do not focus on ‘the liturgy’, I do not focus on my denomination, I focus on Christ.
        There is a smugness about putting on a religious show which reeks of ‘Phariseeism’.

      • len

        The Protestants sought Gods Truth above religious ritual and the RCC did all they could to destroy Gods Truth.

        God needs to be worshipped in Spirit and in truth not in religious liturgies.

        God demands Truth and the RCC falls far short on that !.

        This is what God said to Israel when it was ruled by the Pharisees (much like the RCC)

        “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
        your assemblies are a stench to me.
        22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
        I will not accept them.
        Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
        I will have no regard for them.
        23 Away with the noise of your songs!
        I will not listen to the music of your harps.
        24 But let justice roll on like a river,
        righteousness like a never-failing stream!

      • preacher

        O.K Jack, so you prefer smells & bells & view the World through Rose tinted glasses, well that’s your choice, God is gracious & gives us all freedom of choice.
        However, some of us weep with those that weep as well as rejoicing with those that rejoice. Like the Lord, we live in the reality of a fallen lost, sinful world & attempt to sympathise, help & reach, even the worst souls to bring them to salvation.
        Jesus Christ died outside the city, not in the beauty, symbolism & ritual of the temple passover celebration. Personally I choose to focus on those that weep for their loved ones, killed by the lost who think they are doing the will of God – & yes to pray for those that mourn & even those that carried out the murders, that they may repent & find Mercy through that brutal, painful sacrifice on a barren hill outside of the City & the Temple.
        Blessings & Happy Easter Jack. May the next year be better than the last for you & yours. P.

      • IanCad

        I’m fast coming to the conclusion that Catholics make for better company than Protestants.
        On that note, Sabbath blessings to all.

        • len

          Protestants do exactly that’ protest’ when the church of Rome attempts to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

          • IanCad

            Oh Yes!! But we must remember the wool that has already been pulled over our eyes. The Reformation did not fix all.

        • Uncle Brian

          What took you so long, Ian?

          • IanCad

            It’s been festering for a while.

        • Ivan M

          Generally Catholics are better drinkers.

          • Pubcrawler

            Hmmm. This Anglican is up for a challenge.

          • Ivan M

            Anglicans are a kind of Catholic, sir.

    • len

      Why would anyone take advice from someone who doesn`t even understand the religion he says he has signed up to?

  • Inspector General

    Christ washed his disciples feet. No one else’s feet. Would anyone disagree that this was likely an indication of the great distances these men would shortly go? Instead, we get a conspiracy of two thousand years of Christ’s ‘humility’ of all things. Humility from a being far superior to humanity? It just doesn’t add up, does it…

    • Anton

      Thank God it does.

      I believe it because it is impossible – Tertullian.

    • Pubcrawler

      When do feet need washing more: before or after travelling?