• Sermon preached for Epiphany 3

    In the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

    Sometimes you have to actually turn up and see things with your own eyes in order to understand what you think you’ve always known.

    I’ve read this section of the gospel plenty of times and it always seemed straightforward to me. Jesus reads to the congregation from the book of Isaiah by way of inaugurating his ministry. And something captivated them. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were upon him.

    I’ve preached on that phrase a few times when this gospel has come around. But not today. Today, I want to stick with the scroll.

    For I remember a couple of years ago getting an invitation to visit a synagogue for a Saturday morning service.

    Now, as it happens, I grew up worshipping in a building that had formerly been used as a synagogue in Leeds. It had been a community in which men worshipped downstairs and the women in an upstairs gallery designed so that the two sexes couldn’t see one another. That had the consequence in later years when it was used as a Christian place of worship that people sitting in the gallery couldn’t see much of what was going on at all.

    But, before anyone starts getting more progressive than thou, don’t forget in passing that there are congregations in Christianity where men and women still sit separately and will worship like that today.

    Any anyway the synagogue I got to visit in Glasgow wasn’t like that. Men and women worshipped together as one congregation, just like we do here.

    The thing that I remembered from my childhood was the shape of an arch that outlined where the ark would have been – the receptacle of the scrolls that are read in worship. It was somewhat grand.

    And when I went to be present at a Jewish morning service, I saw the reverence accorded to the religious text.

    For the opening of the ark was a big deal. It was a big moment. It was dramatic. It was clear that it mattered a huge amount.

    It took three people to get the largest of the scrolls from the ark and lay it out so that the reading for the day could be read.

    It was clearly an awkward thing to do and as they did so, one of the three stumbled and the scroll rocked from side to side.

    And you could feel the tension. Everyone leaned forward. There was a palpable sense of relief when the scroll was steadied. It didn’t fall to the floor but was cradled with great care and devotion.

    I later was told that had the scroll fallen then the whole community would have kept a 40 day period of fasting.

    Imagine that – if we were to have Lent every time anyone dropped a bible in church.

    It was clear that in that place there was much devotion and care. The Torah was treated with respect, love and kindness.

    And I particularly remember on this holocaust memorial day hearing stories there of scrolls and pieces of Torah scrolls that had survived Nazi persecution – when the physical artefacts of the Jewish people were trashed.

    And those fragments of scrolls were spoken of as survivors – using the same language as the language used to describe human beings who survived.

    The words of God had survived to be spoken anew.

    Such was the reverence of those texts in that place.

    And you had to be there to see it. You had to turn up in order to understand a scene that you’ve always thought you knew.

    I guess it was in such a scene as that, that Jesus found his place in the scroll and read the passage of Isaiah for the day.

    I remember 6 years ago on the first night of my sabbatical. I had arrived in Vancouver after a very long day. I was jetlagged and weary and desperately wanted to go to bed. And my hosts met me with the words – “Oh, there’s the installation of a priest this evening – we thought you should come too. Here’s a stole and an alb. You’re coming with us.

    It was one of those times when the joy of the Lord was difficult to find.

    And of course, when I got there I was introduced to the bishop conducting the ceremony as the honoured guest visiting from the Old Country. And so I was ushered to the very front row and sat there with the other bigwigs. On my mouth was a forced smile. In my head it was 5 am in the morning and I had not slept for 22 hours. And my eyes were closing with every verse of the opening hymn.

    And then something happened which made me wake up and realise I was in another country and that the trip was worth making.

    The gradual hymn was announced and we stood up to sing. And as we did so, one of the servers lifted the gospel book up with one hand. A young man with no guile – he made his way in the procession, with great dignity and yet with no inhibitions, dancing the gospel to the centre of the church. It was done with such sincerity and such joy. And the eyes of everyone in the assembly were upon him.

    It was as though all the uninhibited and simple joy of the new world was being expressed in one gesture. We don’t behave like that in this old country. And you know, I loved it.

    It made me realise that I was someplace new. And I was going to have my eyes opened and my ears unstopped every day. And as he danced the gospel into place, my heart began to dance. And I started to wake up in every way possible.

    And I had to have turned up and seen it with my own eyes in order to understand it.

    On some day, in some place, the people gather for morning worship.

    And a young teacher from the local country is  assigned to read the text for the day.

    And we think of his reading of that text as the public inauguration of his ministry.

    What does he start with?

    Does he teach them theology? Does he teach them spirituality? Does he teach them prayer? Does he teach them ethics?

    No – those will all come later in his own little stories and parables and table talk.

    No. He begins with Isaiah. And every word is about social justice and about building a society that is altogether new.

    Good news to the poor.

    Release to the captives

    Sight to those who don’t see.

    Freedom for all who are oppressed.

    And he rolls up the scroll and goes back to his place, and every eye is upon him.

    “Today,” he says,

    “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing”.

    On this day, can we still see him in our hearts and minds?

    Can we imagine him sitting amongst us?

    Can we work out from the clues that he gives us what the day of the Lord’s favour will look like today?

    Sometimes you have to actually turn up and see things with your own eyes in order to understand what you think you’ve always known.

    What was it you came here today to see?

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
    Amen.

10 responses to “The Tim Farron Question and the Archbishop of Canterbury”

  1. Bro David Avatar
    Bro David

    This brings up an interesting memory with the long-time leader of Changing Attitude England (CA). This leader was taken in by Andrew Marin, founder of the Marin Foundation (MF) when he visited the UK in conjunction with some big outdoor Christian festival you lot hold anually. Marin and his followers were attending Pride Marches/Parades around the US and getting their photos taken hunging GLBTQ folks in the marches. His foundation claims to be attempting to build a bridge between the LGBTQ community and conservative Christian communities.
    Marin was invited to comment on the CA blog. He spouted his pablum message of love for LGBTQ folks. Then, in a comment, I point blank asked Marin if he believed that we LGBTQ folks were sinners and needed to repent and become straight. He refused to answer the question. He said that I was asking the “wrong” question. Then he gave this answer verbatim from the Marin Foundation website;
    “We call these the “Big 5.” They are:
    Do you think that gays and lesbians are born that way?
    Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
    Can a LGBTQ person “change?”
    Do you think that someone can be gay and Christian?
    Are LGBTQ people going to hell?
    “The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the conservative or the LGBTQ community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.
    “Rather than answering close-ended questions, The Marin Foundation seeks to elevate the conversation and continual fruitful dialogue, as tense as that may be. This is a model taken from Jesus throughout the Gospels. Of the 25 times Jesus was asked close-ended questions, only three times did he respond with a yes or no. These three times were only after he was arrested and admitting he was the Messiah. Prior to this, Jesus never answered close-ended questions with a yes or a no. Instead, he elevated the conversation.”
    I spent the next three days searching the MF website and reading through articles and white papers. I realized that it was a ministry to the LGBTQ of wolves in sheep’s clothing. These people were trying to love vulnerable LGBTQ folks into their embrace, to slowly chip away at them until they had brought them to realize that their sexual/gender orientation was false, acting upon it was a sin and they needed to seek the help of Jesus to beome heterosexual and accept their gender assigned by birth.
    I posted my findings on the CA blog and was promply chastized and barred from further posts. In a personal email from the leader of CA I was ripped a new arsehole and declared anathema. Sadly, even LGBTQ folks in prominent positions are taken in by these folks. I think that we need to continually ask the Big 5, of everyone, epsecially those non-LGBTQ folks who profess to be our allies and supporters, secular or religious.

  2. Peter Davison Avatar

    Good column.
    So who is entitled to express opinions on ethical issues? I’ve long understood it’s the duty of all of us to have INFORMED consciences and to obey them. We may wish to consult people we believe to be more informed than we are, such as our presumed leaders, but in the end, when asked, we should at least be ready to state, however firmly or tentatively, where we stand. As for our leaders, they may or may not be better informed than we are; but we also know that ‘experts’ may be people who know more and more about less and less – and that politics often intrude into our public morality. Much of ethics is situational. That said, Jesus seems to have had much more compassion for alleged ‘sinners’ than for those who chose to label them as such. And much of our present troubles seem to stem from our desire to label and scapegoat people who appear to be different. What would happen if we simply accepted people for who they are and learned to accept that love is indeed ‘a many splendoured thing’?

  3. Graham Evans Avatar
    Graham Evans

    A very interesting new perspective and certainly a question that should be put to all the Anglican bishops who sit in the house of Lords.

  4. The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB Avatar
    The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB

    Absolutely spot on, Kelvin. The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer (whatever it may turn out to be) instead of the usual yards of ecclesiastical flannel.

    1. June B Butler Avatar
      June B Butler

      “The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer…”

      Justin Welby wails piteously: “I’m not the pope.”

  5. the Rev. Grant Barber Avatar
    the Rev. Grant Barber

    I always wondered how the preachers in Pepys’ diary could preach such long sermons. I think I understand better now. So glad we’ve already settled the matter in the Episcopal Church. (Oh, the answer can be a succinct “no, not sin just by its nature).

  6. Bernard Silverman Avatar
    Bernard Silverman

    if I asked an archbishop whether deliberately stamping on someone’s toe is a sin they would give a direct answer. So they should be asked the Farron question over and over again until they do similarly. If the Prime Minister can do that so can they. Indeed the question should be “the PM thinks that gay sex is not a sin. Was she right?”

  7. Kate Odling Avatar
    Kate Odling

    Very interesting. I always think that if someone does not give a clear answer to a question that they have something to hide or that their true belief/thought would be unpopular. I think the ABC has looked very uncomfortable when any direct questioning about LGBT issues are raised. So someone should ask & not accept anything but a straightforward answer. My final thought is that we are all qualified to have an opinion – what’s wrong with that?

  8. Bruce Gulland Avatar

    Whatever I think about the answer to the question, I did rather enjoy the style of your post – you had me on the edge of my seat!

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • We believe – a Christian LGBT creed

    Things are changing so fast – it became socially unacceptable some time ago in many circles to give voice to prejudice against LGBT people. It is becoming unacceptable to reject marriage for same-sex couples. And now it is becoming a religious act to oppose the criminalization of gay folk. Perhaps we need a short summary…

  • The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Pope

    There’s currently a petition doing the rounds demanding that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York make some kind of statement deploring the support the Church of Nigerian (Anglican Communion) has given to recent anti-gay laws. Similar calls have been made in regard to Uganda. I’m refusing to sign it. We should not…

  • Florence Li Tim-Oi – Celebrating 70 years since her ordination

    I’m just off to celebrate a Eucharist because it is a Feast Day – the Conversion of St Paul. The standard, if rather weak, in-joke is that one is going to pray for the Conversion of St Paul rather than simply remember the Conversion of St Paul – not least because Paul had things to…