• Sermon for Candlemas

    When I was a theology student in St Andrews, many years ago now, I found myself in the company of people with all kinds of religious views. There were extreme protestants and extreme catholics and everything inbetween and beyond. There were feminists and atheists and agnostics amidst and apart from the Christians and a fair number of the bewildered who were still trying to work it all out.

    I suppose that I was in the latter category when I started but by the time I’d got my degree I knew who I was and had a fair idea of where I hoped to be heading.

    One advantage of that ecclesiastical melting-pot was that you got to rub up against all kinds of different kinds of church and all kinds of different style of religious expression. You got to know your friends and by extension you got to know the religious path that your friends were on. In that rare world, it was almost certain that they believed and practised differently to the way you did.

    And when seeing other people’s religion you got to see the things you liked and the things you didn’t. You got to see the bits you would take back to your own expression of faith and pinch and you got to see things which horrified you and confirmed all you ever thought about how wrong headed other people could be.

    Inevitably, it being a place where Presbyterian candidates for ministry were being trained I got to know lots of Church of Scotland candidates. They saw me discover the Episcopal Church and with the zeal of a new convert, try to take them along to every feast and festival going.

    They would never come to church with me and not think the Episcopal church to be something that was permanently enshrouded in holy smoke that you could only see through by the light of a thousand and one candles shining around the altar.

    And it confirmed in most of them the suspicion they had that Episcopacy was something full of superstition and only one stop away from witchcraft.

    However, some of them liked what they saw. And remembered it when they were ordained and moved into ministry.

    Particularly so one friend of mine. She had been moved by some of the worship I’d dragged her along to and pined a little for it when she started work in a parish.

    Now, those of you who have arrived in Scotland since the arrival of IKEA might be unaware of the suspicion which candles in churches one aroused.

    Even Episcopalians and other Anglicans were once suspicious. There were riots in some churches about putting candles on altars. They were mostly riots backed by hideous sectarianism but they were riots all the same.

    Twenty years ago it was a very rare Church of Scotland which would have candles in church.

    Anyway, this friend of mine went to a fairly stark church and happened to say that when she celebrated communion it would be nice to have some candles on the communion table.

    I dare say that there were some intakes of breath. I dare say that teeth were sucked. I dare say that not everyone was happy.

    But the locals decided to give her what she wanted.

    And so, processing in for her first communion service, she was somewhat startled to see two candles brightly burning on the communion table.

    Two dinner table candles.

    In fact, two very bright pink dinner table candles.

    And a grinning congregation who knew that they had made the new minister happy.

    I like that story for it reminds me how far removed from the dinner table my own experience of the altar is. And yet, dinner table it is if you think about it. And why should’t candles that we usually use for a candlelit meal not be just right for what we do when we place bread and wine here?

    Religion is a funny thing. (I often have cause to notice).

    For it is a way of thinking about the world but more than that. It is a way of putting the world to rights, but more than that. It is a way of ordering life about one that makes sense (hopefully) but more than that too.

    The very act of lighting a candle is typical of what religious expression is so often about.

    For setting light to beeswax or tallow and letting it burn slowly means nothing.

    And yet, it so often means so much.

    We actually need candlelight less than humanity has ever done.

    Yet we need to mark moments in our lives, moments of significance, more than we have ever done too.

    In a busy rushing digital, electrically powered world, something about the simple act of lighting a candle matters. It connects us with everyone who has ever kindled light in any darkness. It connects us with those who have given physical expression to hope going back way beyond memory.

    And so, we find ourselves lighting candles when children are baptised. We kindle light around coffins when the final journey comes.

    And in between we light candles at birthdays and other significant times.

    Symbols of light in the darkness, of hope amidst fear, of prayers when words won’t work.

    The story we get of the presentation in the temple at this Festival is a lovely one but one where there is so much going on.

    One can imagine rather easily I think, the bringing of the child into the temple – a young couple wanting to do what was right for the child. Luke conjures up pictures that we feel we can see.

    I wish that those who wrote baptism liturgies today would stop trying to make them pre-ordination rights that turn babies into proto-ministers. We need to get back to more human desires to mark moments with symbols of significance.

    Here in a church like this, most of the symbols that the Christian religion has ever explored are available to you but no-one will force them upon you.

    Yet they really are worth exploring anew.

    When I was in the USA on sabbatical I was struck by how, influenced perhaps by Buddhist practise, Christians were asking – how do you practise?

    How do you make faith, put down markers of significance, mark moments that matter?

    Do you light a candle. Some of you probably do. But what else?

    How else do you practise your religion? How else do you build patterns with physical things in your life that connect with ways of being human that come to us from the depths of human experience?

    Do you light a candle for a friend in trouble? Do you make the sign of the cross before falling asleep? Do you give yourself the gift of … silence? Do you read the scriptures? Do you remember anniversaries? Do you pray with words or without them? Do you aim to worship with others weekly? Do you recognise Christ in friend or stranger or see something holy in both of them?

    These are all questions about how we practise a life of faith. For we can learn to consecrate time and circumstance. We can find the holy in the ordinary and make sacred space from beeswax and a match.

    Once upon a time, a young couple brought a child to do for him what was required by the religious practise of their day. They had two pigeons to sacrifice. And the child changed the world.

    What do you bring to the altar? What do you take from it?

    How do you practise? And how will you change the world?

7 responses to “Sermon – 1 June 2008”

  1. Di Avatar

    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.

  2. Marion Conn Avatar
    Marion Conn

    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.

  3. Jonathan Ensor Avatar
    Jonathan Ensor

    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.

  4. kelvin Avatar

    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.

  5. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    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.

  6. Jonathan Ensor Avatar
    Jonathan Ensor

    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.

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Many thanks for your comments.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Congratulations to the Polis

    Congratulations are in order to Lothian and Borders Police for becoming the most gay friendly employer in Scotland according to Stonewall. It is an amazing turn around – 20 years ago it would have been inconceivable to me that a police force could ever be named as a gay friendly organization. We should not underestimate…

  • Blasphemy

    The BBC is reporting that the government is going to oppose attempts to abolish the law on blasphemy. “A spokesman said ministers wanted to consult the Anglican community further before supporting such a change.” Goodness. Thanks for asking. On you go. Ban it. Without delay.

  • Epiphany sermon 2007

    Today is the Epiphany – the day we remember visitors from the East coming to worship Jesus, and bringing with them their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. The temptation, when preaching in the West of Scotland is to dwell on the idea of people coming from the East and tell jokes about people from…

  • Thomas Becket

    Let us pause for a moment to remember Thomas Becket on his feast day. The thing that he is remembered for is his death in Canterbury Cathedral – struck down by knights who believed that they were carrying out the orders of Henry II of England. His cult spread through Europe and I remember discovering…