Sermon Preached on 9 October 2011


I wonder what is the first thought that comes into your head when you open an invitation and find yourself invited to a wedding.

Do you say a wee prayer of thanksgiving for the couple?

Maybe you do.

Do you rejoice that two people have discovered that they love one another and give thanks for the places in your own life where you have known love too?

Maybe you do.

Or, upon reading that invitation, is the first thought that comes into your mind, “Oh no! What on earth am I going to wear?”

It is as though we have a global, cosmic, universal, catholic fear of being the man in the parable that I’ve just read – the one who was caught out at a wedding wearing the wrong clothes and thrown out into outer darkness where there is “weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth”.

I’ve already preached on that phrase once this year. I really must learn my lesson and look up the readings before doing the clergy rota. This parable is so horrible that it is the kind of thing that should only be scheduled for a curate. Or maybe a passing bishop.

It’s not too bad for a while – the idea that at the great wedding banquet folk haven’t turned up and God sends for the riff raff to fill the spaces is something that I think we can relate to. I always used to want to be in charge of a church which welcomed the riff-raff of the world….well, you should be careful what you wish for!

It is that last nasty bit that sticks in my craw – the story of the person not being dressed for the wedding being flung out into the dark.

On everything connected with this congregation we put the words “Open, inclusive welcoming”. There is no dress code here. This is a place where you can come in from the highways and byways of the world and just be present with God. You won’t be flung out for not knowing the routine or not wearing the right robe. We even provide great big pillars for you to hide behind, for as long as you chose. And that’s OK here.

A parable with a story that ends like this pulls us up short. Can that really be in the gospel, we think. Can that really be what God is on about in the world today?

I want to suggest to you that the answer to that question might just be “no”. And I also want to bring this all up to date by talking in a moment about the big current question about marriage – after all – there are people who feel very much excluded by God or God’s representatives from the institution of marriage. This little parable might be all too contemporary.

I’ll come back to that in a minute, but first, what on earth did it ever mean that allowed its hearers to hear it as Gospel.

Well, in a few week’s time we will turn the page and start to read Mark’s gospel on Sundays. We’ve been reading Matthew since last Advent. This parable is part of the stark black and white tone that Matthew strikes. The parable of the wedding feast that we have today is part of the old sheep and the goats, the saved and the damned stuff that permeates this gospel. I struggle with it every time we go through it. I’m not the only one who does. Though it has to be acknowledged as we read it that it makes perfect sense to many a religious community who need high barriers to entry and participation and who have a desperate need to see themselves as living in opposition to the ways of the world.

The most sense I can make of this parable is to go back to the theory that Matthew’s people were frightened people. The remnant of people who collected this parable were the ones trying to live as Christians without abandoning too much of their Jewishness. Issues of identity and probably dress were absolutely crucial to them.

I was reminded this week of seeing persecuted Christians in Egypt showing tattoos on their wrists to doorkeepers of churches in order to gain entry. They have crosses tattooed on themselves – something that Muslims would never ever do. These marks act as essential symbols of who they are and the faith they profess. You show a tattoo to gain entry – to prove who you are.

Matthew’s people may have had their own religious code – their own religious dress, their own tight religious world to preserve. In that context a parable about throwing someone out for wearing the wrong thing makes all kinds of sense, even if we may not like it now.

And coming back to now, what does it mean today?

Well, as I alluded today we would do well to remember that there are those amongst us (including me) who are cut off from the institution of marriage. Not quite thrown into the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, but outside the fold of respectability. Gay folk can’t get married and the government are consulting about whether the time is right to change that. I think it is and it is a change that some of us from this church have been working towards for quite a while – quietly writing letters and gathering signatures and speaking to politicians.

I believe that religious people have as much right to influence politicians as anyone else. Heaven knows I try to do so often.

However, I think that there is a danger that the influence of goodhearted, godly people is being undermined by some within the Christian community.

It vexes me greatly to say so in public, but at such a time as this, there seems no alternative but to speak up. The behaviour of our brothers, the Roman Catholic Bishops in recent days, has been so unpleasant and so ill judged that it risks harming the good influence of the whole Christian community.

To behave as though bishops carry some kind of block vote to Holyrood, to threaten politicians and to decry those who want access to the dignity of marriage as unnatural…. to say these things seems to me to go too far.

Such comments from the leaders of the Roman Catholic church have left me feeling embarrassed as a Christian. There is a risk that all of the churches will appear to be out of touch, arrogant, conceited and rude. We don’t all have to agree but we are all called to behave charitably and there has been an absence of love in this relentlessly bitter campaign and it diminishes us all.

One of the great things about living in Glasgow is that you can find out fairly quickly that one’s Roman Catholic friends and neighbours don’t all share all the views of the hierarchy of that church. Indeed a good many share that sense of embarrasment.

I hope that you were embarrassed and outraged by the parable told in this morning’s gospel. If you were not – go and read it again until you are. It may well have made sense to the people amongst whom it was first told but we must be frank, we must be bold and we must be clear – it has very little in it to edify us now.

The words of Jesus to cling onto are the words which nourish and the words which heal. The stories that inspire, the sayings which embrace. Those ways of thinking which enfold the weary like that shepherd we sang about in the psalm – those are the elements of Gospel which the whole world craves.

As the apostle said, “So beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

And in the name of God, forget all the rest.

Comments

  1. Brother David says

    Admitted, it is a strange story, whether it does or does not have someone else’s ending tacked on. But I choose not to read this as a parable about Merciful God who throws Heaven’s banquet open to everyone. It is rather a story about a manipulative tyrant and the one who chose not to wear the provided and required garment as Jesus himself.

    Makes for a whole different perspective on what is happening here.

    PS – What happened to the Preview button?

    • The preview button may make a return – I’ve a problem with comments not showing on posts with very many comments and I had thought that disabling the preview button might sort it out. It hasn’t.

  2. agatha says

    I remember being told the same as Kenny – that everyone would have been given wedding clothes at the door so if he didn’t have any he must have ditched what he had been given.

    • It is a good interpretation.

      Anyone any source for it or evidence of such a wedding practise?

      • I found the practice from here that special wedding clothes may have been provided at the door by the host, free to all who came to the banquet:- http://www.schultze.org/316pdf.pdf

        However, it seemed to be a common theme in other places I was looking without the strength of quoting any NT Theology Big Hitters!

        I like the idea and it makes a bit more sense of the parable.

      • Main source I’m afraid:- http://bible.cc/matthew/22-11.htm

        • Thanks Kenny

          I’m still thinking about it, but I’m a little suspicious of an interpretation which fits so necessarily with one particular understanding of the atonement. Without that understanding of the atonement, it seems to me to struggle.

          Either way, it seems to make God a tyrant. You will wear what I want or go to hell = You will accept my salvation or go to hell. Neither represents a God I want to know.

          I’m interested and pleased that there is such interest in the interpretation of the parable from Sunday’s sermon, whilst attention elsewhere is being paid to a later passage in what I said. As one of my friends said on reading it, “Hmm, something for everyone. Quite dense really. Quite dense.”

      • Anyone who has suffered from the darkness of addiction will identify fully with the rejection of God’s grace leading them to outer darkness, where there are indeed bonds and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Teeth are even provided. Is this (second) parable from the Gospel particularly about the End Times, or does it pertain to the fact that the Kingdom can be ours today, if we so choose. Even in Deuteronomy we are given a choice, and encouraged to choose life!

      • Reference for the King who has wardrobes for all 2 Kings 10:22 — everyone who came into the King’s presence had wardrobe provided; at least this is what I was taught at university, and our professor was a Biblical scholar who could read the original Biblical languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (She is awesome.)

      • Hmm, that story is a very long way indeed from a wedding feast.

        The imagery of a king who demands conformity is still a pretty unattractive one to me. If that is what the parable refers to, I’m not convinced it makes God any the more attractive.

  3. Rosemary Hannah says

    The origin of the story of the clothes provided story is older than that – it is St Augustine. Which probably means that it does fit neatly to one theology, though Augustine is so much nearer to a near eastern world than us, it might, just possibly, represent a slightly better insight.

    But actually, to go as invited guest to a wedding dressed in totally wrong clothes, to go -not with say Princess Beatrice’s hat (or was it Eugene?) but with an old sun hat, deliberately, would that not be a calculated insult? And, really, is the behaviour of some allegedly Christian bishops, in going to the Feast, and refusing to dine with other Bishops, not an insult, in the same way? Isn’t it equally refusing to accept an invitation and laying down one’s own rules??

    I would like to do some of the late Matthew parables as puppet theatre as the parables of Mr Punch. Because they are both interesting and challenging and only to be taken seriously in certain ways. They are stories of a story-teller. Outrageous, and funny, and improbable (‘There was a royal wedding, and the Queen sent out invitations, but the Beckhams sent a refusal on the grounds Mrs was having a baby, and the Primus had a conference to attend, and… yes, like that is going to happen’). They are about unimaginable things. About going to a royal wedding and not begging, or borrowing, or buying second hand a decent pair of trousers and a polished pair of shoes. This parable is set in a culture of mutual support. Somebody, anybody, would have LENT an appropriate jacket – as to this day women who are a bit hard up lend bags, shoes, jackets for formal occasions. The guest could not be bothered, or was making a point.

    Try this ‘There was a Feast at the Cathedral, and all the clergy turned up. And one of them was wearing a pair of scruffy trainers, white, with dirty laces, and the Provost …’

    • Brilliant, Rosemary.

      But is God like a grumpy provost on a shoe crusade?

      That’s where it falls I think.

      • Rosemary Hannah says

        But why is the grumpy Provost really on a shoe crusade, I ask? Because he generally dislikes pink Docs? I think not. Because he feels, passionately, that the Feast is the most important thing that happens in the church week, and he does not want anybody to spoil it for anybody else, and because he does not want anybody in a place of authority to do anything which is intentionally (and I think intentionality is important here) disrespectful.

        But the point is, it is a parable. It only works up to a point. God is like a grumpy Provost but only up to a point. God is not bound to act like Provosts, or like Kings, although seeing how Provosts and Kings might act, may well give you some insight into how one’s own behaviour is regarded by God. What happens is that individuals come to the Feast, like a wedding guest who has not taken the trouble to sort out the right clothes. It is disrespectful – and a King would at once have them thrown out. That is what the Kingdom is like. Supposing this IS an authentic parable, Jesus is saying ‘Watch it, sunshine. Actually, the Feast is here, and you expect to flout the King and insult him forever and get away with it? You do?’ And that I think, is an underlying thread in quite a lot of his teaching.

  4. Rosemary Hannah says

    p.s. I don’t take the hell bit seriously – it is a story-book place in a story-book world when used in this kind of way. The guest is dragged out by Mr Punch’s policeman, wailing. Moreover we do pretty much know the wailing and gnashing of teeth is a Matthew invention – and I am not actually sure that where ever he got it from meant it to do more than act as a signifier anyhow – it may always have been a high-coloured way of expressing disapprobation. Stories are stories.

  5. Steven says

    Kelvin,

    What an interesting debate your sermon has provoked!

    My two cents are as follows. I would question your approach which could by characterised as “ignore what offends and embrace what affirms” within scripture, although having listened to a good few of your sermons I know that this is not what you preach. What I am saying is that those who might seek to reject the substance of what you have said would find it easier to do so by the way in which you said it, in this instance.

    I am not sure whether or not we can simply reject such passages out of hand. Jesus (or Matthew or his community) clearly meant to offend by this passage, not only by the arbitrary inclusion of good and bad from the street (i.e., gentiles) but also by this random act of exclusion.

    One possible option might be to adopt the so-called “Evangelical Universalist” position (per Robin Parry aka “Gregory MacDonald” in his book of the same name) which argues that such parables do point to the reality of hell, as a terrible BUT temporary fate for those who reject the grace of God. However God will, according to Parry, act to restore all creation so that even hell will be redeemed. Obviously this chimes with the idea of purgatory and so is comprehensible within traditional RC theology.

    In addition it should be noted that in the parable the man cast out is left, not dead, but vulnerable (with hands and feet bound and cast into the night). There is nothing eternal about his fate in the darkness, again suggesting the temporary nature of this separation.

    How many of us need to be made vulnerable before we are willing to set aside our pride and accept the full implications of God’s love for us?

    God will be all in all, in the end.

    • Thanks Steven – that comment about the person being thrown into vulnerability is very interesting.

      As for Evangelical Purgatory – it is a tricky one to justify, and I’m fascinated by those who try. I think that there were those who tried to accuse John Stott of going down that line.

      If I want to go down the line of hell being real, I’m inclined myself to go with Mother Julian who asserted that hell was very real indeed. And empty.

  6. I’m really interested in it being Augustine that started the free clothing at weddings meme.

    I think that the argument that Augustine was closer to the social mores of the time than we are can work both ways.

    If he was so close to it, why would he need to explain it?

    Rather suggests that he is spinning the story to fit his theology, no?

  7. Steven says

    I admit to being totally lost on the issue of Augustine and wedding wear!

    I note your reference to those who would have accused John Stott of something akin to evangelical purgatory. What really interests me in this debate – in general – is the way in which people are so keen to avoid even the possibility or hope of universal salvation (by whatever means). If I was a conservative evangelical Christian I would like to think that I would want salvation for all to be true even if I didn’t believe it to be so. Some people seem to want hell to be true and eternal, even though many Christians have offered alternative visions over the years.

  8. Zebadee says

    Medieval theologians and others wasted vast amounts of their time debating about ‘How many angels could balence on the head of a pin’. Is it possible that many who have contibuted to this debate have missed the major thrust of the provosts sermon? Kelvin attacked the power complex of the RC Bishops in Scotland, correctly in my all too humble opinion. Why have there been no comments on this Matter? When looking at the ancients mentioned in the OT let us remember the context in which they lived and remind ourselves of the context in which we live now. Arrogant power attitudes need to be challenged no matter who utters them. In this regard the provost has done society a favour and needs support and backing now or are we going to carry on debating hypothetical utterances about what might be or might not ‘true’. I will be at St Marys this coming Sunday and would be happy to discuss this with any of you.

    • Agatha says

      Hello Zebadee, probably people didn’t think they had to express their agreement with Kelvin when he was stating the obvious, preferring to debate with him where they held a different point of view.

  9. Rosemary Hannah says

    Kelvin knows very well that I believe in marriage equality and will speak up for it in season and out – however, just as there are more interesting things about him than that he is gay, so there were other interesting things about his sermon. My opinion of the way the RC hierarchy can on occasion act was formed by working through the life of the 3rd Marquess of Bute to whom, although he was a rich and generous convert who gave as freely of his learning and his energy as he did his money, to whom they were horrid – I think top heavy, powerful institutions are liable to be corrupted by their nature. However the question of this parable remains interesting to me. And actually, so is ‘scholastic’ theology and philosophy.

Trackbacks

  1. This weekend, The Very Reverend Kelvin Holdsworth, the Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, has expressed his disagreement with the Roman Catholic bishops and I encourage you to take a look at the sermon he gave on Sunday. […]

Speak Your Mind

*