• The University Sermon – University of Oxford – 23 February 2025

    I glanced up from my desk as I sat down to write this sermon and gazed at an icon that has been on my wall for the last 8 years. It is obviously an icon showing the garden of Eden. A green background. Two figures stand on either side of the tree of knowledge.

    Although just an icon, painted by someone I know, it is a piece of art which does what all great art does. It inspires some people. It infuriates others. It throws some people into a rage.

    And sometimes we must pay attention to rage and make up our minds what we make of it.

    The gospel reading that we have set for today seems on the surface to be all about a nature miracle. A storm at sea. A boat tossed about. A saviour who calms the tempest.

    In Glasgow, where I come from, we recently went through a big storm that pulled things from the ground and hurled them about.

    It was a day where few dared to venture from the safety of their homes for fear of being battered by the stuff flying about as the city was battered by high winds.

    But as I think about this gospel reading this morning, it is difficult for me to read it simply as a nature miracle. For the whole world seems to be beset by political storms this week. Even as we find ourselves here worshipping using familiar words and singing comforting hymns, the world feels changed. The ground is shifting beneath our feet. The advent of Strongman politics in the USA and with the apparent triumph of Trumpism has left many across the world breathless. And fearful. Things have changed this week. Old alliances feel as though they no longer hold true. The way the world was is gone. Security guarantees that seemed to be forever are no more.

    And who in public life in America and nearer to home will dare to venture from the safety of their political homes to stand in the way of the unfolding events for fear of being battered by the stuff flying about as the world is battered by storm after political storm?

    As I got this far in preparing this sermon, I looked up again at the icon above my desk. The garden of Eden. A dark background. Two figures stand on either side of the tree of knowledge. It is a familiar archetype yet there is something unfamiliar to this version of the icon of paradise. Something that draws the eyes. And then you notice the names above the figures.

    The icon depicts something that is behind the rage that has led to the new political world order that we are watching unfold before our eyes.

    It is a peaceful scene. And religious people tend to believe rather deeply that a world of peace and harmony is a godly world. We believe that a world put right is part of the mission of God in the world, a mission that we can be part of.

    A world where the hungry are fed, the violence stops, the tears are wiped from every eye and everyone gets to sit in security in the shade of their own tree. This is emblematic of the paradise that we find in scripture.

    Scripture begins and end with images of the peaceable kingdom being represented by all being well, in a garden.

    I glance up at the icon again and read the names of the two figures on either side of the tree of knowledge. And I smile at the sight of their names.

    Adam stands on one side. His name written above his head. And Steve stands on the other side of the tree. Also clearly named.

    It is an icon and Adam and Steve in the garden of Eden at peace in the cool of the day. Two men. Naked and delighting in the world that God has made.

    It is the kind of picture that raises cries of wokery from some and draws fascination from others.

    It is the kind of picture that infuriates those of a conservative mindset and delights those of a progressive one.

    I have little doubt that there would be some these days who would condemn it as degenerate art.

    The fury of some in the face of such art is but one of the many things that has led to the political reset that we are seeing unfold before our eyes each day.

    My icon says something to me. But what?

    And as I read the scriptures to prepare for this sermon that icon speaks to me.

    It says, read the chapter from Genesis again. Read it as though it is about more than the gender of the participants.

    And I do read the chapter again. And I realise that I delight in seeing that Adam represents all people. And Eve represents all people just as much.

    Adam represents the fact that we are all creatures – beloved creatures of a God who was always interested in our company. And Eve, the one created from Adam’s side represents the fact that we all need to be helpers.

    And my icon undermines so many theological and societal presumptions about men and women.

    As it happens, I was, I think, the first priest outside North America who was licensed to preside at the wedding of same-sex couples – an issue which still seems stormy in the Church of England.

    As all kinds of couples have prepared to be married in my office over the last 8 years, the icon of Adam and Steve has been present. It could just as easily have been an icon of Eva and Vera too.

    As I begin to draw the writing of this sermon to a close, I gaze up again at the icon before me. Two figures on either side of the tree of knowledge.

    They are at peace.

    And I believe that peace is our destiny.

    Each created. Each beautiful. Each loved by God.

    As we all are.

    Each dependant on the other. Each created to help another.

    As we all are.

    And as the storm rages. I hold onto the hope of Godly people through the ages. The hope of a world put right by good people inspired and aided by a loving God who aim to build the kingdom of peace on earth. Where the hungry are fed, the fearful find protection, the sorrowful are comforted. And all is right with the world again.

    And our true destiny, the peaceable kingdom of our loving God becomes our everlasting dwelling place.

    And I believe that our God will be with us if we can grasp this vision.

    For they went to him shouting, “Master, master, we are perishing.”

    And he woke up and rebuked the wind and the raging waves.; they ceased and there was calm.

    So may it be.

    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

  • Predictions for 2022

    Boris Johnson will be replaced with a Prime Minister who is more competent, more right wing and more difficult to beat. A good year for Michael Gove (who is almost invisible at the moment). Church of Scotland General Assembly votes to allow same-sex couples to be married in church. More significantly, almost no-one leaves in…

  • Predictions 2021 – How did I do?

    Time to see how I did with my predictions at the start of this year. Boris Johnson will achieve his longstanding ambition to become a former Prime Minister. Alas, Boris Johnson did not achieve this ambition this year. But we must award him 10/10 for trying. He’ll get there in the end. Prediction not accurate…

  • Christmas Sermon

    One of the odd features of coronavirus time for me has been vivid dreams and disturbed sleep. I know that I’m not alone in this, I’ve heard others speak about it too. Particularly during the various lockdown experiences I’ve found myself suddenly sitting bolt upright at 3 in the morning trying to sort out my…

  • Here Comes the Sun

    Rejoice, rejoice! The solstice is past. Here comes the sun.