What is in Kelvin's Head?

Generous Episcopacy: The Rt Rev Michael Hare Duke RIP

16/12/2014
I gather from a twitter correspondent that the Rt Rev Michael Hare Duke has died. Bishop Michael was the bishop with whom I first tested my vocation. Having been a bishop since 1969, he saw and influenced the entire modern story of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Where to begin with memories?
- The time I sat in his study as he asked me about my vocation whilst his beloved dog, Tobermory pushed twelve full bottles of whisky from one side of the room to the other and back again. And again. And again.
- The time he was in hospital and Baa, to whom he was married, turned up on my doorstep late at night announcing a full scale emergency. It turned out that the emergency was not his health but that he was dictating faxes from his hospital bed and Baa was struggling to send a message to the Crown Prince of Jordan.
- The time and time again when he penned articles for newspapers in absolute certainty that mission in his diocese depended on people like him offering leadership, inspiration and puckish humour to the whole of society not just the people of the pews.
- The time and time again his words have brought people to God and God to the people, as he was one of the triumvirate of poet-priests who wrote the bulk of the modern Scottish Eucharistic rite.
- The extraordinary influence in the world of mental health that Michael had.
- The gay couples he was blessing 40 years ago.
- The unpredictable, chaotic, sometimes infuriating but human and humane episcopacy that he inhabited and made his own, which must today remind so many in the Scottish Episcopal Church of more generous times.
Here he is in his own words in 2003:

If sex has been one of the flash points over the last 50 years, the painful changes have also given me the joy of helping people to discover that the church does not condemn them, as they had expected, but accepts their integrity without imposing oppressive orthodoxy.

I’ve no idea how they are going to celebrate Bishop Michael at his funeral next Tuesday 23 December 2014, which will be in St Ninian’s Cathedral at 10 am. At one point the then cathedral organist kept the Fauré requiem in the repertoire specifically so it would be ready for Bishop Michael’s funeral. (A fact that led one of my predecessors as Precentor there to remark that a few choruses of Hooray and Up She Rises might well be just as appropriate).

I have a particularly strong memory of him over-consecrating vastly one Maundy Thursday. Whole chalices of consecrated wine were left over.

Not a bad way to remember him.

The world was richer for him and poorer at his passing.

Heaven seems a deliciously more giddy prospect.

7 responses to “Sermon – 1 June 2008”

Di

01/06/2008

It seems to me more and more important for us to rediscover the idea of the divine inspiration of the reader of scripture as well as that of the authors.

Thank you for this, Kelvin. I agree with you wholeheartedly. After all, only the author truly knows what was in his head when he wrote it and indeed, where the inspiration came from.

Oh, and I enjoyed the rest too.

Reply
Marion Conn

02/06/2008

Once again I’m listening to this late at night. Definitely food for thought and prayer. I was outside in the rain tonight, I really like the idea of that I was not just wet, but drenched in Grace. Thanks Kelvin.

Good Night.

Reply
Jonathan Ensor

03/06/2008

I believe that everyone has a right to freedom of thought. Freedom of speech is a circumscribed fact of life in the UK and it is certainly an interesting idea that reading can be inspired, but who is the arbiter of what is inspired and who is the arbiter of what is apostate. I may believe with all my heart that I am divinely inspired, but I still have to convince other people that this is the case and that I am not being grandiose etc. If I pontificate about a text in the common domain, I may well have to justify myself and/or defend my position at some considerable cost, which I may or may not be willing to pay.

Reply
kelvin

03/06/2008

Thank you for your comments.

Jonathan – I think that I was suggesting that we see both the authorship of texts and the reading of texts as activities that can be inspired. I think that there has to be some dialogue between author and reader.

I also think that in the history of looking at biblical texts, some people have emphasised the value of the text to the individual whilst others have read the text in community. (We might also presume that the texts themselves were gathered in community). I don’t think that I’d like to lose sight of that idea of inspiration coming when a community reads a text together. That idea is important to me as it counters against the idea of individuals thinking that they (alone) are divinely inspired.

It seems to me that more people have believed that they alone were the only proper source of truth or inspiration or legitimacy than has actually been the case.

Reply
Elizabeth

03/06/2008

Having heard this text spoken of many, many, many times in the context of Luther’s reading, I must say it was an enormous relief to hear this other way of reading. This tempts me to return to other texts of Paul’s that might be worth re-reading without Evangelical/Calvinist/Lutheran-coloured glasses.

Reply
Jonathan Ensor

03/06/2008

Kelvin, I agree that there has to be a community, but pretty universally in churches I have been to the Minister has preached and the community has continued to be fragmented. Also there is no chance of dialogue with dead authors and in the realm of art, once a work is in the public realm it is available for multiple interpretations which the artist may well never have considered. Even legal documents which attempt to define the law are interpreted by the judiciary. There is little chance for art or literature or the bible to be consistently read because the implications of certain phrases or sentences may reside in the way that they are written rather than in the mind of the author and the definitions may be too loosely drawn.

Reply
kelvin

03/06/2008

Many thanks for your comments.

Reply