What is in Kelvin's Head?

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

19/08/2024

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.

Billings, David’s Lamentation, lament, love wins, Sermon

41 responses to “The Columba Declaration”

Edward Andrews

11/02/2016

As Anglicans get down to the important issue of the niceties of Theology, lets get into the broad brush situation.
The relationships between the Churches of the Celtic tradition and the Southern tradition have been fraught since the 7th Century (Whitby). Part of the whole question surrounding the war of Independence (and before with King David was teh independence of the Scottish Church.
The irony is that the present attempt is to bring the Churches of the united Kingdom together may well blow back on them. While the Kirk today doesn’t mean much in Scotland the most secular part of the UK I’m not convinsed that playing footise over Bishops is going to impress the older members – the ones who voted No.
The fact is that the Scottish Episcopal Church has the Anglican franchise in Scotland. It is an authentic Scottish Church (especially if you ignore the instances when it has gone to England for Episcopal ordination.) and to negotiate over its head about something so sensitive it at the best discourteous.
Those of the reformed tradition don’t get wound up by the antics of a few Episcopalians. We seek whatever degree of true unity is available to us, but do not see the need for uniformity. I spent some very pleasant years as a guest of the Scottish Episcopal Church when the climate of the Kirk became unattractive to me, and am grateful for the table fellowship which I received.
The site of two big boys presuming to set things up is not pleasing. For the information of those who want to get up tight about the real presence, that is what the reformed tradition believes, we are Calvinists not followers of Zwingli. I am not going to seek to discuss which Greer philosopher we get our understanding of existence from.

Reply
Father David

12/02/2016

Father Ron: let us not forget that the great Arthur Michael Ramsey was born an ecumenical baby. His maternal Grandfather was Vicar of Horbling in Lincolnshire and his paternal Grandfather was a Congregationalist Minister. His Anglican Grandfather baptised him and when in adult years he visited Horbling parish church he was deeply moved when standing by the font – the place where this great man of God began his Christian pilgrim journey. However, as a child he worshipped with his family at the Congregationalist church in Cambridge. To the great benefit of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion – the kind of High Jinks that took place next door at Little St. Mary’s proved to be an attractive magnet and so the pull of Anglo-Catholicism brought to us a spiritual giant and a contender (in company with William Temple) for the title of the greatest Archbishop of Canterbury of the 20th century and a man who yearned and longed for Christian Unity.
Edward Andrews: Even as we all long and hope for the unity of all Christians your words are wise when you point to unity not uniformity.

Reply
Keith Barber

12/02/2016

Cynic I may be, but my first response is to ask what is the hidden agenda. For I’m pretty certain there will be one, whether it’s about trying to create an ecclesiastical bulwark against disintegration of the UK or get ++Welby an ally or two in the aftermath of the huge and hostile reaction to the Anglican Primates’ decision to punish TEC (sorry Kelvin) for its moves towards inclusion of LGBT people.

Reply
1. Jeremy Bates
  
  13/02/2016
  
  Or perhaps it’s like the Easter-calendar announcement–a convenient way of changing the subject, at Synod and elsewhere.
  
  Reply
Father Ron Smith

12/02/2016

Whatever the motivation for this ‘secret’ accord with the Church of Scotland; simple courtesy would require that the Church of England promoters consult with their Episcopally governed equivalent in Scotia.

Another point is this; do the Presbyerians realise that they may have signed up to the catholic premise of recognition of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion? Are they happy with that?

Reply
1. Edward Andrews
  
  12/02/2016
  
  Well actually the Presbyterians believe “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” You will see the word real is there. Don’t know what the 39 articles say you believe.
  Those of us who are big on the real presence use the Platonic rather than the Aristotelian understanding of reality.
  
  Reply
  1. Father Ron Smith
    
    12/02/2016
    
    Not believers, then, in con-substantiation? Freely translated as bread and wine ‘together with’ the Body and Blood of Christ? Note, not the more literal trans-substantiation, which would nean the disappearance of the bread and wine. (although as some of my more scientific friends would say, this is a tautology.
    
    What all must agree on, though, is that some members of the Church of England, and many of its constituent partner Churches of the Anglican Communion, do have a problem with the ‘Real Presence’ – a reality that, for me, and I suspect most Anglican Catholics, means that the substance of the bread and wine consecrated at the Eucharist is truly “The Body and Blood of Christ” in accordance with the dominical instruction: “This IS my Body, my Blood” (Not, you will notice, “this REPRESENTS my Body, my Blood”). ‘A Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’ – this saying sums it all up pretty well, I think
    
    Reply
    1. Kelvin
      
      12/02/2016
      
      I think it is time to draw the discussion about the real presence to a close on this comment thread. It is hardly the main point and I’ve never ever known a comment thread about transubstantiation to be constructive.
      
      Comments on the Columba Declaration welcome. Comments trying to explain what transubstantiation *really* means – not so much.
      
      Reply
      1. Edward Andrews
        
        12/02/2016
        
        Thank you Kelvin. As I see it the C of E has come poaching in your preserves. This is wrong and unhelpful. If there were going to be Anglican/Presbyterian dialogue the SEC should be the lead player. I have my own problems with the declaration as a Member of the Church of Scotland who seeks an end to the United Kingdom. However as a Catholic Christian I am in solidarity with my SEC brothers and sisters who have been left out of the loop. Both the Cof E synod and the Kirk’ General Assembly should reject the document, but I don’t suppose that they will.
Augur Pearce

16/02/2016

A contribution to the ‘establishment’ discussion: In my book the terms ‘establish’ and ‘Church of England’ both have more than one meaning. ‘Establish’, for example, can mean ‘set up, bring into existence’ (sense E1), or it can mean ‘endow, privilege’ (sense E2).

Most people who use it of the C of E use it in sense E2, and they understand the C of E (in what I might call sense C3) as an association with its own rules, distinct from the English nation but privileged by law in various ways (with some concomitant obligations).

In fact I think this describes the C of S position fairly well, but is quite wrong as regards the C of E. The C of E (I contend) is not distinct from the kingdom of England, it is that kingdom ‘wearing its spiritual hat’ (sense C1). England, as church, has various spiritual responsibilities to discharge, and in order to do so, it establishes (=creates; sense E1), by its law, a complex of specialist institutions, offices, rules, and assets which itself becomes known derivatively as the C of E (sense C2).

One clear example of how the C of E (in sense C1) and the C of S have been differently understood from very early times is found in comparing Richard Hooker’s well-known words ‘There is not any man of the Church of England, but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth, nor any man a member of the commonwealth which is not also of the Church of England…’ with the Church Act 1567, declaring those ‘quha outher gainsayis the word of the Evangell ressavit and apprevit as the heidis of the Confessioun of Faith professit in Parliament of befoir in the yeir of God 1560 … or that refusis the participatioun of the haly sacramentis as thay ar now ministrat, to be na memberis of the said Kirk within this realme now presently professit’.

The Church of England, in short, is simply England; the Church of Scotland is a privileged sectional group.

Reply
1. Seph
  
  17/02/2016
  
  If this be so, it strikes me as uncomfortably caesaropapist. This may be one of the things that makes me uncomfortable when I am down south and find myself in a C of E church.
  
  Reply