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?â€
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 teethâ€.
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 welcomingâ€. 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 “noâ€. 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.â€
And in the name of God, forget all the rest.
I’m amazed that this parable is being discussed as if it’s a lesson about wearing the proper attire to a wedding or church service.
With all due respect, Kelvin, when you were studying to be a priest were you encouraged to be “embarassed and outraged” or even “forget” difficult passages of scripture, rather than look for deeper meaning?
There was almost no bible study (nor homilitics) on offer when I was training to be a priest.
However, when I was reading theology, I was encouraged to explore scripture in a number of ways – exegetical, liberationist/womanist, intertextual criticism, source criticism, form criticism and all the rest. A wonderfully rich tapestry.
what, no Zoomer Scriptura Proof-Texting!?
😉
I think, Ryan, that you and I both know that I’ve been around.
In exploring this passage of scripture in all these ways as you say above, did you find no way in which we could understand this parable except to see it at face value as a horrible story? In that case, why was Jesus said to have told this parable, given that, taken at face value, it contradicts His teachings on love, forgiveness, inclusion, etc.? Is it possible that Jesus contradicted Himself, or that passages like this were included in scripture by accident?
I’ve preached on this passage differently in the past and would expect to preach on it in different ways again in the future.
The gospels certainly contradict themselves sometimes. If Jesus was fully human, it seems unlikely to me that he didn’t contradict himself on occasion too. I know I do.
I marvel at your Anglo-Saxon cultures where you state With all due respect and then proceed to insult one another. It is a lie you know, there is no respect intended.
The Bible was written by frail humans Ann, countless numbers were involved. The canon was compiled by folks just as frail. The current text is assembled by scholars with just as many blemishes. In the 21st Century must we solely rely on the ancient past for our world view, our understanding of morals. Did the past have a corner on that market? Or can we not make decisions in those areas ourselves, and on occasion have to flat out remark, I think that the text is wrong here!
I have always been interested in this parable, its harshness and it’s apparent contradictions to Jesus’ other teachings. I felt that it might have some deeper spiritual significance than would appear. I was surprised that people seemed to be taking the story at face value and not delving deeper and trying to understand. No direspect intended, just a question and a challenge.
I think that it is a fair question, Ann. However there is more to preaching in St Mary’s (a very public pulpit) than simply theology, even though one must take theological study seriously.
Simply to read that parable in a busy cathedral church in modern day Glasgow is to invite rather a lot of people to think very directly about the story that is being told. There does have to be some engagement with it as it stands. That’s not, of course, the final word, but it does matter rather.
Perhaps the robes mentioned in the parable are consistent with the image of purity in many parts of Scripture: Our garment washed in the blood of Jesus. Is it that the one who was not dressed properly had denied this and was therefore still stained with sin?
If this is the case then Kelvin’s remarks are rather ironic. Where in the ‘sermon’ the outcast was to be pitied and needed acceptance, with the above interpretation the outcast has not repented and is full of sin – having refused God’s grace. Does the parable mean that those who do not repent do not recieve the gift of eternal life?
All were invited but only those who were clean and accepted the ‘dress code’ (God’s infallible law) were welcome at the feast. So it is with us. All are invited but we must repent and aspire to God’s perfect and glorious standard in order to be acceptable to Him.
We all fall short of God’s standard but, might it be that there are those in the church who advocate what the Bible explicitly describes as sin? This is what “embarrasses and outrages” me. Will their garments be white before the throne of judgment? Perhaps this parable is all too contemporary…
I don’t think any of those propositions seen terribly likely, Douglas but thank you for sharing them.
I liked the sermon, thanks. One of the manifold delights of being taught NT by Hugh Anderson and Douglas Templeton back in the day at New College was the way they handled shirty fundies. Cruel but fair I suppose you could call it, generally letting them dig themselves deeper into a cloaca of their own making. Some of them seem still to be with us, sadly.
Hi Kelvin,
I just wanted to say I – a Catholic – resent you saying Catholic commentry on gay marriage has left you feeling “embarrassed” as a Christian. Although I can empathise with the feeling of embarrassment, when I view various protestant groups, including your own.
The Catholic Bishops comments have been to do with defending Christian teaching on marriage. Few so called “Christians” have had the courage to affirm and defend their faith, in a similar way. Jesus Christ himself spoke of marriage and repeatedly defined it as a covenant between a man and a woman. Nothing else. Perhaps, if you are embarrassed by the teachings of Christ, you might wish to consider how suited you are to your occupation.
Catholicism is both traditional and mainstream Christianity. The various protestant groups in the UK, most of whom are in terminal decline, are now little more than sunday morning coffee clubs. As evidenced by your sermon above. You do not talk about the parable of the wedding, you talk of “Gay marriage now” and deliver a (self-interested) homosexual propaganda talk, not any Christian teaching.
You are cheating the people who come to sit in your Chruch of a sunday. They probably think they are listening to Christian thought; in reality, they are listening to trendy, PC hokum.
The question about “gay marriage” is not one of discrimination or unfairness. The real question is “do you want the law to pretend that there is no difference between hetero- and homosexuality?”.
I dont think “pretending” is a good thing for the law to be doing, on any subject.
Homosexuality is a sexual deviation and is not representative of fundamental human nature. It represent some biological failure, not the fulfillment of the natural purpose written into the bodies of us all.
As a clergyman, your job should be to bring people to Christ, not to use them as a captive audience for airing your personal political bugbears.
Instead of fighting to achieve some faux notion of equality, via having the law officially repudiate basic human biology, should you not accept the cup the Father has given you?
Thank you for commenting, J Smith, bless you for doing so.
As for your comments, all I can say is that on the Sunday in question, my church was full, the worship was rich and though I can’t come near to knowing what everyone there thought, the support for my sermon both from long-standing Episcopalians and from ex-Roman Catholics was fulsome. The sermon was reported worldwide and led to more discussion of that parable than I’ve ever known.
I not only try to accept the cup the Father has given me, I share it weekly.
And the taste of justice is sweet indeed.
Your disdain for fundamentalist protestant sects (which, in many ways, one can share) is ironic, J Smith, since the Christian groups who agree with your hardline condemnation of homosexuality are the Brian Souter-esque cults. Is it not more than likely that your average Catholic-in-the-pews – long since accustomed to ignoring the no birth control teaching which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is also founded on the alleged intrinsic truth of human bodies – has the same attitude to the kind of demonisation of gay people and gay relationships that was divorced from reality even in the bad old Section 28 days?
Slightly naughty, but I always wondered how the Natural Law purist would explain the link between prostate stimulation (in, needless to say, the male) and superior orgasms. Surely a Design Fault? (Unless Satan was in charge of that bit, in the same way he’s prone to leave behind fossils that befuddle creationists so).
Unless Satan was in charge of that bit, in the same way he’s prone to leave behind fossils that befuddle creationists so.
Oh Ryan, I have met those people who believe that, they are widely prevalent in the US where they have such institutions as creationism museums, and they are fortunately not us.
I also know “Orthodox” Anglicans by way of the internet who will argue to the point of suffering a cranial/rectal inversion, that God actually created the universe about 6,000 years ago in a state of already being 13 billion years old. They believe that “He” did it, but have no explanation as to why “He” would do such a thing.
A week later Catriona preached a very interesting sermon at Hillhead Baptist Church about partnership. You can hear it at the Hillhead Baptist Church sermon site, which includes other extracts from that Sunday’s services. She also comments further in her own blog.
I commend both as they support the sermon that Kelvin preached, looking, as there do, at the whole situation of relationship commitment and how recent our current concept of marriage is.
@ Ryan,
Hi Ryan,
I had not meant to express “disdain” for anyone, I guess these days it is difficult to criticise anyone (bar Catholics!) without being cast as a bigot or ranter (a cheap tactic used frequently by liberals).
Regarding the stance of various Churches; Mainstream Christianity – that is, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy – has an objective view of homosexuality as a disorder. Mainstream Christianity will not shy away from stating this stance or defending it. I understand why some people might object to it, but I would still hope people can see that it is not at all an inflammatory or deliberately offensive stance. Rather, it is simply an accurate stance, drawn from logical conclusions about human biology. It certainly doesnt mean gay people as individuals are bad, inferior or to be avoided (or course not). It just means homosexuality is a deviation from fundemantal human sexuality.
I do not see that making logical conclusions about human sexuality is at all “hardline” as you put it. It just a fact, and facts are neither “hardline” nor “easy going”. They are just facts. Nor does logic constitute “demonisation” of anyone.
British protestantism agrees about homosexuality, but for different reasons. They object “because it says so in the Bible”. Ultimately fair enough, they are arriving at the same conclusion by different (though less credible and convincing, for many) means.
However, they mostly seem to lack the courage to defend their thoughts, or even contribute to the debate.
For me, Churches who continue to abandon Christian orthodoxy in favour of trendy modern fashions will continue to decline. The CoS is a great example – their demise is a great example of a cultural collapse, I am sure it will be studied in future. They have what, maybe 20 – 30 years left in them, at best? (Perhas less, depending on how badly this Scott Rennie business finally affects them). They have gone from being a dominant and powerful institution in Scotland, to being a hollow shell, creaking under financial problems, internal discord and an utter lack of interest from the public.
Catholicism is again the largest religious denomination in the UK, (based on actual attendence), while the national Churches flounder. I think this is because the National Churches / protestantism does not offer people anything. Anything they do or believe, can be equally had in secular society. Furthermore, the people who go to these Churches, do not seem to care to learn anything, or have their lives challenged at all. Anything sounding like a teaching or principle is cast as old-fashioned, bigoted or worse. (See Kelvin’s constant reference to “the old” sheep and the goats in his sermon).
I think the relative success or appeal of Churches in various societies is a good barometer as to how close to Christ they are. The Scottish Episcopal Church has what? 30,000 members is it? The attendance of a football match.
Once, the topic of “prostrate stimulation” being raised in a discussion on Christianity would have surprised/baffled me, but no longer (not among protestants anyway!). In any case, your example is a red herring. Natural law is the concept ‘physical structure/features indicates purpose’. In this way, the structure and features of (eg) the human eye, the hand and, indeed, human genitalia, clearly allude to their natural purpose. Your example concerns neither the physical structure nor biological purpose of the prostrate gland, just the fact that some people like sticking things up their bottoms!
I am sure the various denominations will take their own stance on “gay marriage”, as is likely fair enough in a democracy (what isnt fair is demonising or marginalising those who think differently, as per Kelvin’s comments on the Catholic Bishops).
But how can any Church marry (eg) two men and still credibly claim to be Christian? What readings would they have? Jesus’ own reference to “Male and Female, he created them”? How long do you think till various protestant denoms start editing the Bible for their own ends, to avoid such embarassing situations?
Cheers.
Bless you, J Smith and thank you for your comments.
@ Kelvin,
Hi there,
Thanks for your response. Apologies if I came across as rather combatative in my original post, but I did think it unfair of you to marginalise our Bishops for defending orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Chrisitianity clearly doesnt suit you personally, which is entirely your perogative, but its unfair of you to slate (however gently) people who think differently.
I agree it is a good thing if sermons get people talking. But surely it would be better if they were discussing the parable for its actual message, and not because it has been used as a vehicle to promote gay marriage?
Might not the parable be a good fit for much of modern British protestantism, those who profess Christianity and a love of God, (ie they have a wedding invite), but when it comes to the crunch, somehow fall away? (ie they do not show up at the wedding).
Ultimately, my – and I think the Catholic Bishops – objection to the law equating hetero- and homosexuality is not to do with how gay people perceive their own relationships, (which is a matter for no-one but themselves), but rather that such a pretence under law must, clearly, repudiate biology. I do not think that – i.e distorting reality to suit ourselves – is progressive, nor enlightened.
If society has no clear idea of what fundamental human sexuality or relationships are – instead falsely placing them all on a par, to avoid offending anyone – then who could criticise (e.g.) polygamy?
All the best,
Cheers.
“How long do you think till various protestant denoms start editing the Bible for their own ends, to avoid such embarassing situations?”
Sadly not very long – for some the editing process has already reached the status of a revised edition – even when it is claimed that they take the original edition seriously!
I have little interest in protestantism, but a great interest in the Bible.
I also have little interest in these petty slurs.
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not a protestant denomination nor is it engaged in any revision of the Bibile. So far as I know, in modern times, it never has.
The Bible translation we use in St Mary’s is the New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. We use an anglicised text. There is no prospect of that changing in the near future. It has been around for years. It has been used for years in St Mary’s. It is in widespread use in many denominations.
Such Bibles are also available for sale from the Cathedral Office at £15 per copy.