• Sermon for Epiphany 4

    If you look carefully at the video, you might spot the moment when I realised that I didn’t have all the pages of this sermon with me in the pulpit.

    Sermon preached on 1 February 2015 from Kelvin Holdsworth on Vimeo.

    Come out and shut up

    On Friday, we celebrated a commemoration in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Not one that matters to most people. Not one that is graded high enough to automatically merit a mass. Not indeed, one that most people will have thought much about at all.

    However, last Friday was the commemoration of Charles I – King and Martyr as some liturgical books in our tradition describe him.

    I don’t want particularly to preach a defence of Charles I here today. However, I do want to call him to mind as a jumping off point before we get into looking at the bible passages in the light of our own times. For those of you who don’t know the history of this country, Charles I was a King who ended up being beheaded. And all manner of trouble came to the Scottish Episcopal Church because it maintained its allegiance to the Stuart cause afterwards. Within 50 years various penal laws had been passed restricting the ability of Episcopalians in Scotland to worship freely. For a time, it was a crime for Episcopalians to baptise people or marry them. And for a time, it was illegal for a cleric to minister to more than 5 people at a time and the punishment, if you were caught doing so a couple of times, was transportation for life.

    We had a way round it in Glasgow – Episcopalians would gather in old rooming houses – primitive tenements if you like and groups of five would meet in each room and all leave the door open onto the stair. And the priest would stand on the landing and shout (or maybe yell) the service so that everyone in each of the rooms could hear it but he couldn’t be accused of speaking to anything more than 5 people.

    Occasionally I’ve thought of trying to recreate this scene in the tenement I now live in, particularly when I had downstairs neighbours who were fond of Saturday evening parties.

    There’s a certain romance about thinking about the people of the past getting around the penal laws in that way.

    However, the danger with looking back is that we see the past through rosy spectacles and forget reality. Episcopalians need to remember that we were capable of doling out persecution to others when we managed to get hold of the levers of power.

    In particular this year, we will be reminded of this as the Roman Catholic Church remembers the 400th anniversary of the martyrdom of St John Ogilvie. It is the case that the Episcopalian bishop of the time – one of Bishop Gregor’s predecessors in effect, had a direct part in Ogilvie’s capture, trial and death. Indeed John Ogilvie was keep imprisoned in the Bishop’s palace.

    Now, I’m remembering some of the religious conflicts of the past this morning not just because there’s an Old Firm game this afternoon but rather because I want to think about one of the big questions of the day in the light of our scripture readings. And in the light of the fact that our scripture readings this morning are not really much help.

    Over the last few weeks we’ve been forced into thinking about free speech. None of us saw it coming, but the murders of the cartoonists in Paris suddenly uncovered huge questions which I think we probably still have some way to go in trying to answer.

    Is free speech a right? Is it absolute? Are there limits?

    Cast your mind back to the first reading that we had this morning.

    Did it give you a sense of outrage to hear it read in church? Maybe it should do. Maybe that’s the point of reading it.

    The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet – But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.

    Free speech does not come naturally to us.

    And that should give us pause for thought.

    I was also struck by the gospel reading this morning. It comes at the start of the Gospel of Mark that we are reading this year. Presumably that story comes in the first chapter because it was thought to be important. It comes right after the call of the disciples.

    And the first thing that Jesus is presented as doing after gathering the disciples is telling someone in the synagogue very firmly to shut up.

    It is one of those times where Jesus doesn’t seem to be terribly nice. Not terribly Christian, in the way that people often presume Christian to mean.

    God wants to kill dissenting prophets. Jesus tells the first person he encounters outside his close group to shut up.

    There’s no free speech there.

    I wanted to highlight this because I think it is important sometimes to remember that Scripture isn’t helpful to us and we need to know where to turn when that is the case.

    In particular I think we need to remember that the Anglican tradition, which we belong to here, looks to other sources of authority as well as scripture – in particular, tradition and reason.

    And perhaps they are more help when we are trying to think about the free speech controversies of our day.

    The conflicts of the past that I’ve spoken of this morning remind us that we’ve been on both ends of religious persecution and attempts to silence people because of their faith. And maybe that gives us permission to try to work out what appropriate ethics of freedom of expression for our own times. Our own tradition here has been silenced. And our own tradition has done some of the silencing.

    Our own tradition has been persecuted. Our own tradition has done the persecuting.

    People of our own traditions died. People of our own tradition caused others to die.

    And that experience should help us see modern controversies from both sides.

    And maybe that experience from our history can inform us in using reason as we try to work out what to say about free speech today.

    So I’ll tell you where I think the limits lie and you can tell me later or discuss online whether you think I’m anywhere near what’s reasonable. Because everything is a conversation these days. Or at least, everything should be.

    I think that freedom of speech is something that allows us to worship in this city, in this building, in this way, at this time.

    That experience makes me think that we’re onto something important in modern society in believing that free speech matters. And that should make us want to defend it strongly from our religious experience, if not from our scriptures and our history.

    However, as victims of hatred that led to persecution, we’ve also got something to say to those who would see themselves today as being victims of hate-speech.

    I think that freedom of speech is vital but has to be limited. And the line I would draw, and the line that I think the law tries to draw is, where speech becomes a weapon and is used to threaten others with harm.

    And because I’ve said that everything is a conversation these days, here are some questions that are worth thinking about this week.

    • Having heard today an argument from scripture against freedom of speech – can we think of things which would support it?
    • Having been both the persecuted and the persecutors in our own history, can we see things both from the point of view of those holding up their pencils and demanding a right to say anything and also from the point of view of those on the receiving end of a freedom being used to abuse and mock things others hold dear?
    • Lastly, as people who believe God to be good and loving, how can we convey that love to those whom we meet this week?

    For I think that the world needs that love right now.

    Can we commit ourselves in our minds this day to show forth God’s love wherever we go.

    Can you do that this week?

    I think that might be the gospel we are called to share this week.

    It might be worth remembering the saying purported to St Francis of Assisi. – “Preach the gospel. Use words… if you have to.”

8 responses to “Assisted Dying – Why I’ve changed my mind”

  1. BobS Avatar
    BobS

    You lucidly illustrated an example of a family seeking to pressurise someone to influence the process of death. But what was possibly missing was the voice of the person nearing death. Where was their perspective, their reasoning? Assisted Dying starts and driven by the person dying. They are the ones who, with mental capacity, take those steps, if necessary, to expedite death at that final stage. They, together with medical experts, make those decisions.
    The examples cited refer to a family desperate for a skiing holiday and your concern of funeral directors making money through direct cremations.
    I fully agree with your desire for a better palliative care system. Having witnessed their work it is amazing. But that is another argument. To conflate the two dismisses the voice of those seeking assisted dying.
    Your concern over assisted dying seems to be interwoven by a call for improved palliative care and a demise in direct cremations.

    1. Rev Owain Jones Avatar

      Respectfully, Bob S, I think you’re overlooking the one thing that struck me very forcefully from this incident. I’ve always felt profoundly uneasy at the likelihood – I’d say ‘moral certainty’ – that the voice of the dying will in some cases be influenced, even swayed, by the dying person’s assumptions, inferences or intuitions (correct or not) about the needs of those closest to them, and even their desires. These desires might not be articulated, or even correctly guessed – but they might, and as soon as the dying person is subject to them, they are, by definition, influenced in their decision. At that point, Assisted Dying can no longer be said “to start and driven by the person dying.” I’ve been there for a long time – but what I suddenly realized reading Kelvin Holdsworth’s post, was that there’s a much darker issue here, and it relates to a fundamental principle to which I’ve always adhered. Please bear with me, and entertain for a moment an analogy which you might consider to be extreme, and which I’d be appalled to hear deployed by the religiously fanatical opponents of Assisted Dying. It’s this. I have always been opposed to the death penalty for a number of reasons, but very prominent among them is that it takes to an extreme the testing of a fundamental principle of justice (which I know I’m modifyng here to make the analogy a better fit, and of course, you’re free to take issue with that): “It is better that a hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent person be punished unjustly.” I’m aware that there’s a very significant separation between that and this, but I don’t believe it amounts to ‘clear blue water’. Let me try and articulate my conviction in a reasonable way, for you to consider, even if you reject it. I think that there’s a huge danger inscribed in legislation which will, of a moral certainty, permit circumstances in which unwilling dying individuals give assent under pressure to the active premature termination of their lives. This holds true even if a hundred times as many individuals assent freely, and even actively seek, such termination. One of the things that always made me uneasy about the Vulcans was the assertion that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. There seems to me to be no way in any legislation to protect the needs and rights of the few in this issue. At the very least, I think that needs to be acknowledged openly by proponents of Assisted Dying. If we’re about to be taken across a Rubicon, I believe that everyone, on both sides of the decision, need to acknowledge that. (Incidentally, I completely agree with Kevin Holdsworth’s horror (I hope I’m expressing that fairly) at ‘Direct Cremations’ and the way they’re advertised. They seem to me to be open profiteering from the death-phobic culture in which we’re immersed. I fear that the impulses behind Assisted Dying as currently advocated may be a good-faith manifestation of the inability of society to look at the full actuality of human mortality and the relationship between life and death. I may be deluding myself, but I think I’d say that even if I were an atheist.

      1. BobS Avatar
        BobS

        Rev Owain, thank you for your response. I fear your analogy was stretched to fit your argument, and, apologies if my education lacked in this quarter, where the reference to Vulcans was applicable.
        If we are concerned that a very small percentage will be wronged, then many practices today should be stopped. The statistical error you describe will always be possible, albeit minimised as much as possible.
        The proposed law tries to cater for such concerns. What appears to be the argument against assisted dying is that it is not error proof.
        If a person who is deemed to have mental capacity with less than six months to live, with suitable medical provision, seeks to alleviate their suffering, and is capable of themselves administering the medication to ultimately ease that pain, then their voice has been heard.
        I also would hope that palliative care continues to improve but that is a separate argument, as are direct cremations, and now the cost of the funeral to families. These arguments are all used to conflate the underlying issue of assisted dying.

    2. Val Dobson Avatar
      Val Dobson

      You are wrong to connect funeral companies’ promotion of Direct Cremation with the push for assisted dying. Nowadays, many families simply cannot afford a “proper” funeral / cremation, and funeral grants come nowhere to covering the the costs. The funeral companies are simply responding to customer needs.

      1. Kelvin Avatar

        I’m happy to speak out about funerals being too expensive. However, it is manifestly not the case taht funeral companies are simply responding to customer needs. If they did they would promote these as being about price. They don’t – they promote them as being about not causing a fuss, which is the point I’m making here.

  2. Nigel Kenny Avatar
    Nigel Kenny

    Thank you for your wise and persuasive words – may they influence MSPs to vote against the Bill.

  3. Chriatine McIntosh Avatar
    Chriatine McIntosh

    Thanks for this, Kelvin – I’ve been thinking more about this as contemporaries begin to vanish from this life.

  4. Helen Leslie Avatar
    Helen Leslie

    Thank you Kelvin. I am someone who has spent the majority of my working life caring for people at the end of their lives. You said exactly what I would want to.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • What to say to the Pope

    I’m not sure that folk in Scotland know quite what to say regarding the imminent arrival of the Holy Father. Bishop David has had a go, saying, “The Scottish Episcopal Church welcomes the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Scotland. His visit is a moment of great significance, not only for the clergy and people…

  • Carmen – Scottish Opera Review

    The following review should appear on the Opera Britannia website in due course. Rating: Citizens Theatre 7 September 2010 Carmen has been pared to the bone to provide a workaday touring production that will tour the highways and byways of Scotland. Scottish Opera have for many years toured miniature productions to unlikely places. This production…

  • Burning

    Oh, I can’t help but wish that the first reports in the press this week had headlined the outrage by Christians about the proposed Koran burning in the USA rather than supporting the erroneous view that this is what Christians do.

  • Jim Wynne-Evans RIP

    Just back from Edinburgh where I had been to a marvellous funeral service for the Rev Canon Jim Wynne-Evans. Old St Paul’s was packed to the gunnels to mourn Jim and celebrate him too. The kind of service where the Great & the Good and the Riff Raff were there in equal measure and some…