What is in Kelvin's Head?

That Damn Magnificat

16/04/2022

A sermon preached in St Mary’s Cathedral on Good Friday 2022

There’s something about spending these three hours in a church dedicated to Mary.

Through the year, we often get particular joy from keeping the Marian festivals. We’ve got more music in the choir library about her than about any of the others who accompanied Jesus in this life.

We sing with her the Magnificat every Sunday at evensong. We share her joy. We share her hopes for a world turned upside down. Where the mighty would what they deserve. At last.

In a church dedicated to Mary, because we pay attention to her, we get a unique insight into her Son Jesus. Because she was there. There at the beginning when he was born. There when he taught the learned teachers in the temple. There sometimes when he was teaching the rather more thick disciples and the adoring crowds. There when he performed the the first miracle – water into wine.

What did she think when that one happened?

Go my son. That’s the world we want. A world put right. A world where God breaks in and joy breaks out.

But the trouble for us is that having accompanied her through all of this, we now find ourselves in his company again.

Mary stands at the foot of the cross. It is almost unimaginable that she was able to stay. But presumably unimaginable for her to leave until it is over.

And a few other women comfort her and stand beside her in her agony.

And John, the beloved. He’s there too. Ready to take her in.

We enter into Mary’s experience when the going is good. How on earth do we enter into her experience today.

Can we see this day through her eyes or is it entirely beyond what we can bear to think of?

It is common in newsgathering to tell the story of disasters through the tears of parents weeping for their children. Mothers particularly.

A whole war may be too much to take in. A whole nation invaded is expressed in arrows on a map, nothing more. A whole cities get bombed and we struggle to know one from another. It happens over there.

But a mother’s tears at a crucifixion…

Harder to ignore. Harder to walk on by.

Theological concepts are broken by the crucifixion.

Theories of how we are reconciled to God circle the crucifixion scene like vultures.

They are too big to grasp. And they offer no comfort to a mother weeping either.

What does she think as she stands there?

Can she think? Can she process this?

Raw. Present. The pain. The agony. The tears.

Three hours is long enough to think. This is a cruel death for those being crucified. This is a cruel death for those watching.

I’ve been haunted by a question this year as I try to keep company with Mary at the cross.

Did she hold fast to what she had believed about God – all the things that she had taught him?

Or did it all break down on that day?

One of the things that I love about Mary is that her spirituality seems to be about two things which she ties together.

The world being put right is one of her themes.

And the joy of singing God’s praises is another.

Now you can find plenty of other saints who loved those things. But Mary uniquely brings them together.

My soul magnifies the Lord. And my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.

He has shown the strength of his arm. And the proud and the mighty and the rich have got their comeuppance at last.

It is joyful spirituality. Full of cheek and full of fun.

And oh, how often when I hear Jesus giving clever answers that bring God right into the lives of people who need God most, or when I see him turning over the tables of those who are corrupt, I think, I bet he got that from her.

But as she stands at the cross, what on earth goes through her head.

What questions does this hell scene raise for her.

Does she keep repeating to herself again and again, “The mighty will be brought low. The mighty will be brought low. The mighty will be brought low”.

Or is it worse than that.

Does she loose faith with it all today?

As she looks on and smells death all around her does she call on God.

We have no words from Mary on Good Friday. Nothing is recorded from her.

I don’t know what she said.

But I guess that had it been me, I wouldn’t be singing of the goodness of God nor of a world put right.

I’d be thinking, “Shit! The bastards have won. I wish I’d never brought him up the way I did. What could I have done differently? I should have taught him to keep his mouth shut more.

That damn Magnificat. Look where it has got him.

I sang, God has filled the hungry with good things.

But I’ve not eaten in hours and I never want to eat again. My stomach is in knots as he twists and turns in agony.

I sang, from this day all generations will call me blessed.

But from this day all generations will call me cursed.

I sang about God sending the rich and the mighty and the powerful away empty.

But they’ve won. They’ve won. They’ve beaten him.

`I sang, He has come to the help of his servant Israel.

But God hasn’t come to his aid. He hasn’t turned up at all.

I sang about the promises that God had made to our forebears to Abraham and his children forever.

But he has forgotten me today.

It is finished.

My song is finished.

And I’ll never sing again.

6 responses to “Back from Sweden”

chris

08/05/2007

I don’t think so. I’m not a Nat, and I didn’t vote for them – but I’m pretty appalled at the Lib Dem stance on this. If there was a re-run, I’d be tempted to vote SNP just to prove a point. You *can’t* expect the majority party to go back on a manifesto promise – and I don’t think it’s morally on.
If the Lib Dems had won under the same circs, would you still say this?

Reply
Stewart

09/05/2007

The difficulty I have with the whole situation is that there was multiple adverts, leaflets, etc describing the voting methods. The returning officer at my local council distributed a special leaflet – before all the political leaflets deluged me – setting out the way to vote. I also felt the voting papers were clear in their directions. Even the party literature gave directions on how the voting took place and how to vote for a particular candidate/party.

I do not think were are in a Florida situation were the voting papers could possibly be misunderstood by the way the place for the holes to be punched were interleaved, and the holes where not always completed punched through.

On the Scottish Parliament Paper it was clear to me that one cross went in one column and one cross in the other column. The second paper for the local councillers was to rank the candidates in order.

Reply
vicky

09/05/2007

I agree with Stewart, but I struggle a bit with Chris’s point. I think that politics by referendum is always problematic and we have a representative democracy for historic reasons (to protect from civil war if you care to go back to the 1640-60s and see why the subsequent Restoration Government worried so much about government by petition, which it is hard not to view an independence referendum as.) For my mind there is no concensus about a referendum and the Lib Dems were right not to sign up to a coalition when such a central issue is on the table. Perhaps a minority government, however, might be a more liberal one any way? (though, it is more likely to descend into a power manipulating fiasco….)

Reply
kelvin

09/05/2007

Chris – I don’t agree. The nature of coalition is trying to make an agreement that you can both agree on. Both Labour and the Lib Dems had to compromise last time and each were unable to implement their manifesto in full. I think that kind of compromise is probably good for Scotland, even though, like anyone involved I would like to be able to implement a manifesto fully that I believe in.

We are so unused to coalition talks that we don’t know what to do with them. There is no reason why the Nats should not try to govern as a minority government. There would be many measures that the Lib Dems (and even Labour) would support them on. There were times during the last sitting of the parliament when I thought that we would have been better to have a minority Labour government.

The Lib Dems could no more become a government delivering a referendum when they had said they would not than the Nats could become part of one which didn’t when they said they would. It works both ways. The Nats didn’t have a majority and have no mandate to force through anything. I’m happy with the idea that law is made on the basis of what happens in a parliament rather than what is put in a manifesto.

Stewart – clearly you understood the process involved. That does not seem to me to cancel out the spoiled ballot papers. We don’t know yet why so many went uncounted, but we do know that it was far, far more than ever before and that they could have affected the result. I’d like to think I would take the same view about the need to rerun the election whatever the result.

Vicky – I’m also inclined to be suspicious of government by referenda. Big Brother has taughts us, amongst many things, that we could have a vote every evening on any issue of the day. However, governing by plebiscite is governing without either scrutiny or loyal opposition.

Reply
David

09/05/2007

I think that the SNP calling itself Alax Salmond for First Minister party had a lot to blame for the confusion. The voter should have been presented with a column of parties and a column of candidates. What we got were two columns apparently starting with candidates. Think how the brain scans the voting paper – title, first in each column, then the detail.

It is simply appalling that so many votes were lost. Ideally, we should run the election again, but I really wonder if we collectively can face it. If no FM/PO declared, then we have to do it.

Reply
vicky

09/05/2007

As the numbers of spoilt ballot papers rise…I think we have to give in and hold another election….:(

Reply