• David’s Lamentation – a sermon preached on 12 August 2024

    David the King, was grieved and moved
    He went to his chamber,
    his chamber and wept
    And as he wept, he wept and said…

    Oh, my son, oh, my son
    Would to God I had died
    Would to God I had died
    Would to God I had died
    For thee, oh Absalom, my son, my son

    Victory that day was turned into mourning
    When the people did see
    how the king grieved for his son
    He covered his face and in a loud voice cried…

    Did you ever meet someone who was better at something that you are and admire them just for that?

    Meet David King of Israel who is better at doing something than I am and I love him for it.

    We’ve been reading stories of David for the last couple of weeks and seen much that is unlovable. Much that we would turn our eyes from.

    Two weeks ago, we heard of him sending a man to certain death in battle so that he could make off with his wife.

    David’s behaviour in that reading is so outrageous that I had complaints from members of this congregation for allowing it to be read.

    I tend not to believe in providence but I do believe in comeuppance and last week we saw David being confronted with righteous anger by Nathan the Prophet pointing the finger at David for his wicked behaviour. And turning David into a snivelling wreck.

    David often isn’t a terribly attractive figure.

    And yet he can do something that makes me admire him 3000 years since he last drew breath.

    David could lament like no-one else. His cries of lament over Saul his mentor and David is lover and Absolom his son move me. Move me very deeply and make me love him despite all else we know of him.

    The version of David’s Lamentation that I just sang is just one of many settings of his words thoughout the ages. His sorrow is written in the history books of the scriptures and recorded in the Book of Psalms, the hymn book that Jesus sang from.

    And lament is important.

    It is sometimes said that we have forgotten how to lament. Maybe we have forgotten how to lament in public, but I know that this congregation is one where lament is seldom absent in private.

    Lament for the horror of wee girls killed at a dance class.

    Lament for the horror of fascists turning that into something to attack those who have come to this country seeing refuge and safety.

    Lament for those the stirring up of race riots online.

    And Lament for schools hit by missiles in Gaza.

    And people who are members of this country express lamentation for events that go back months and years as well as weeks.

    Lamenting over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Lamenting for the national boundaries that Britain left behind in Africa.

    Lamenting for a world being roasted by the sins of climate change denial and ignorance.

    And lament for ourselves and our own sins.

    For we like David have done things which we ought not to have done and no done things that we ought. And there is no help in us.

    And lament for our griefs for all of us bear them.

    David puts into verse his grief, He lets his troubled soul sing.

    And it makes me love him.

    It makes me love him because lamentation is the expression of the depth of our capacity to love. For grief is the name for love that is stronger than death.

    Lament is the song of the hopeless and the despairing. But it is an urge to give voice to the deep, deep knowledge that things should not be this way. Paradoxically it contains within it hope. Hope that it will not always feel like this.

    Deep in the pit, lament shines a little light on sadness and from that light, please God may seeds of hope be nourished. That knowledge that things should not be this way is the beginning, the fragile and tender beginning of doing something with the recognition that not only will all things pass but that all this could be different, better.

    The hope that justice may be known.

    The hope that righteousness may flourish.

    The hope that peace will prevail.

    The hope that the rawness of grief might change.

    These are the seeds nourished by lamentation.

    Christianity never denies death or grief or tragedy. Indeed, it says that all of these are all too real.

    However, it says that they will not win in the end. It says that resurrection isn’t just possible but inevitable. And it says that a world put right is not just something we are called to make real but that we are called to enjoy and delight in it forever.

    “Love wins” isn’t just a slogan that some of us carry about in rainbow colours at Pride. It is also the truth that those of us who bear the name Christian live by. It is our two word creed.

    In the gospel reading this morning, Jesus talks about eternal life being our destiny. I am the bread of life he says. And whoever eats of me will have eternal life.

    We eat of him week by week and are nourished by the comforts of the Eucharist at this table. And as we receive the bread each week we receive the challenge to make the world one in which everyone has enough to eat, people to love them and joy in great abundance.

    I believe that lamentation is important and needs to be part of our song. But I also believe that lament will not be the last song that we sing.

    There are alleluias to be had in putting the world to rights. There are hosannas to be sung in worship in sharing the business of a God who wills goodness and love for everyone who draws breath.

    I am aware of the deep despair that people have been feeling about the world recently.

    Lament and do it well. But lament and live.

    In this place, every week, before we eat of the bread of life, we hear the bidding, “Lift up your hearts!”

    As we hear that this week, let us hear it as a command.

    For God is good. And goodness will prevail. And love wins.

    Always and forever, love wins.

    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

  • Emerging glistening from the water – sermon preached on 7 July 2019

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. I emerged from the water, radiant and glistening in the sunlight and made my way up onto the beach. Not like Daniel Craig emerging from the sea in Casino Royale. Not even like Ursula Andress coming up out of…

  • Whose Spiritual Mantle Will You Inherit?

    Sermon preached on 30 June 2019 In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Just the other week I was chatting with someone who asked me where I had studied. I told them that I had read Divinity at the University of St Andrews. Straightaway, the question…

  • 50 Years of Protest and Change

    As day turns to evening on the 28 June 2019, it is difficult not to think of a couple of relatively small-scale riots that took place 50 years ago and murmur a quiet prayer of thanksgiving for the rioters. I have little doubt that there was no way they could foresee the movement which was…

  • Honorary Fellowship Citation

    This afternoon I was admitted as an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. I found myself in the most extraordinary company and still can’t believe that this happened to me. Below is the citation which was read as part of the ceremony by the Registrar of the College, Roddy…