Maundy Thursday – 2026
Marian Free
In the name of God, who kneels at our feet. Amen.
In 1994 the movie, The Madness of King George III was released. I’m not sure how much of it is true, but I was particularly struck by the fact that, in the film, the King’s loyal servants – men who indulged him when his fits of madness struck – were dismissed from the court when the King became well. When the King was afflicted, these men had been the King’s constant companions, often woken in the middle of the night to romp in the gardens playing childish games with the king. They saw him at his weakest and yet continued to serve him. It seemed to me that the King might have rewarded their non-judgmental faithfulness and discretion. Instead, he effectively punished them. Having had his mind and his dignity restored, the King (or the King’s court) obviously felt that any reminder of his aberrant behaviour would reflect badly on him. The King could not afford to have daily reminders of his vulnerability and his incapacity, so his servants expelled from the court.
True or not, that is an extreme example of the delicate nature of human relationships, of the fine balance that is often held between those with wealth and authority and those without, those with influence and those without. The respective positions of each have to be appreciated not only to enable the smooth running of society, of a business or even of a family, but also to ensure that neither party be too familiar or, conversely, too disrespectful. Today’s society, especially that in Australia, is more egalitarian, but it is still possible to overstep the mark in certain situations or to cause offense. A CEO may be so relaxed with his or her staff that it becomes awkward if he/she needs to pull them into line if needed. Conversely, a staff member might become so familiar with the CEO that they run the risk of being disrespectful.
In the first century, as in some places today, roles were clearly defined and everyone knew their place and how to interact with diverse members of society. The culture of honour and shame ensured that every citizen knew just how far they could and could not go with another member of society – whether they ranked higher or lower than themselves.
This is what makes the story of the footwashing so confronting. As he has many times before, Jesus defied convention, and in so doing he risked causing discomfort and/or offense to everyone present. Everyone at the table knew that it was the role of a slave to perform the servile task of washing the feet of guests. No one thought twice about a slave demeaning himself to kneel at the feet of visitor and to wash the dirt from their feet and to dry them. However grateful and polite the recipient was, they would have understood that this was the role of the slave, and they would not have offered to swap roles, nor would they have insulted the slave by being effusively grateful. The last thing on their mind would have been to offer to wash the feet of the slave in return.
Jesus, who refused to be bound by social norms effectively does just that. To be sure his disciples are not his slaves but the disciples, by choosing to follow him, have accepted him as their leader, their master, as someone whose place on the social ladder was different from their own. So it is perhaps not surprising that Peter’s reaction is to refuse. Perhaps what is more surprising is that the other disciples do not refuse!
Over and over again, we have seen how Jesus confronts the norms of his society, how he overturns the expected roles and absolutely refuses to be bound be convention – and how that causes confusion and offense. We saw this when he insisted that John baptise him – “the one who is less powerful baptising the one who is more powerful” – a reversal of roles that Jesus does not properly explain. We saw this again when Jesus failed to castigate the woman who touched him in the crowd. We saw it yet again when he allowed a woman off the street (or Mary of Bethany) to anoint him with extravagant oil. And we see it one last time, when Jesus kneels and washes the feet of the disciples.
In a stratified and divided world, a world governed by conventions that confined and limited people of differing classes, occupations and genders. In a world in which power was protected by law and by force, Jesus demonstrated an entirely different way of being. Through his teaching and his actions, Jesus showed that vulnerability is not weakness, that one can give away one’s authority and yet not lose it, one can allow for expressions of intimacy and yet still hold the respect of one’s companions.
We may want an authoritarian, judgement, distant God, but what we have is a humble, vulnerable, intimate God who will not judge even those who betray him. That God kneels at our feet, are we willing to let him wash them?
Tags: Footwashing, honour/shame, intimacy, social norms
Swallowsrest 
Leave a comment