What is in Kelvin's Head?

And David Danced before the Lord in a Lightweight Kilt

12/07/2015

Sermon preached on 12 July 2015 – (click here for video)

Are you dancing?

And is it the dance of life or the dance of death?

Is it dancing in the streets with the people or dancing in palaces to please the tyrant?

This week’s pairing of Old Testament and Gospel has always seemed to me to be particularly fortuitous. You get two dances and they shine light on one another. Two sets of royal palaces. Two dancing figures. One figure skipping about the streets in his linen ephod to the scandal of the decent and well to do and the other shimmying about Herod’s palace casting all decency aside to bring a good man to his death.

The dance of Life or the dance of Death. Which will it be?

Well, inevitably, I want to come back to the dance that seems to me to be more filled with life than with death and so I’ll return to David’s dance in a minute or two.

Let me first though meander back almost 20 years in my memory to a particular dance – a particular ceilidh that I have in mind this morning.

Just over twenty years ago, I found myself at a ceilidh. I was a young man in my first job in the church and I was working in University Chaplaincy – a ministry in the church that I’ve been involved with a few times.

Now, those who are University Chaplains get invited to a big conference every couple of years. It is ecumenical and diverse. You get people from all kinds of traditions but who happen to be in University Ministry turning up. And they are an eclectic and quite interesting bunch.

Anyway, there I was at the Higher Education Chaplains conference. And on the last night there was a ceilidh band playing for a ceilidh or a barn dance or whatever you want to call it.

Now at that time, as I suspect is the case even today in England, University Chaplains were quite often people who had not fitted in, or more likely had been nudged out of parish ministry for one reason or the other – usually the other.

And it was the case at that dance that a number of the gentlemen chaplains wanted to dance with other gentlemen chaplains and a number of the gentlewomen wanted to dance with other gentlewomen.

And gradually over the course of a few dances it because obvious that people were just dancing with whoever they wished to dance with and a good time was being had by all.

A good time, until someone noticed. A grand old time was being had by everyone present until the leader of the dance band who was calling the dances noticed what was happening right under his nose and stopped the band and gave us all a bit of a ticking off. Except that rather than telling us that what we were up to was in contradiction with the book of Leviticus, he took humbrage at us because we were offending against the principles of the English Folk Song and Dance Society.

“Men dance with women and women dance with men” he said in exasperation as the dancers began to argue back.

“If men want to dance with men, they shouldn’t be doing it at a social dance” the poor man cried. “It is allowed in ritual dance but not social dance – you should all go off an become Morris Dancers”.

I suspect he grew up to become a bishop.

And as the floor of couples erupted in indignation asserting that they either wanted to dance with whoever they wanted to dance with or arguing even more loudly and more indignantly that they didn’t mind the fact that some people wanted to dance with whoever they wanted to dance with, I realise now that I was having two epiphanies.

Firstly, I can see very clearly in that incident some of the origins of me seeing that the struggle for equality between people was the part of the justice jigsaw that I wanted to be able join in with to help put the world back together in a way that made more sense than the way we’ve received it does.

And secondly – the realisation that some hierarchies just need to be broken down. Sometimes the people on the dance floor need to tell the caller what they need to hear in order to have a good time. Things don’t always need to be the way they’ve always been.

Hierarchy gets things done. At its best it can allow us to help one another – making laws that protect and encouraging us to collect money to providing welfare and nourishment for those in need. (Taxes are a good and godly thing remember!)

At its worst and most brutal though, hierarchy doesn’t just make the trains run on time, it kills prophets like John the Baptiser and threatens all who sing the songs of justice and dance the jigs and reels of freedom and love that the Lord of the dance would have us dance in the great heavenly ceilidh to which every child on earth is invited.

Let us take ourselves back to David dancing in the streets. What’s going on?

There are two standard interpretations of what was going on and they are both about hierarchy and I have a particularly Scottish interpretation of one of them that depends on how you translate “Linen Ephod”.

The first is to say that what’s going on here is that King David has divested himself of the royal paraphernalia and gone into the street in a linen ephod which was the standard wear of a priest of the temple. He’s chosen to rejoice in a religious way rather than a royal way and that somehow this is indicative of a king putting aside his majesty and being one with the people. (A bit like the story of the Queen and Princess Margaret sneaking out of the gates of Buckingham Palace on VE Day and dancing in the crowd without anyone knowing who they were). This interpretation would work for me if it were not for religion’s capacity for taking hierarchy and worshipping hierarchy itself rather than taking hierarchy and using it to enable people to worship. (And when you work in a job like mine with a pantomime title you need to work particularly hard at knowing the difference).

So I rather favour the second interpretation of all this which is that David’s wife scolded him for dancing in the street because he was dancing practically naked.

Such is the way hierarchical societies work. (“It is OK for the common people to have fun your Majesty but such things are not for you – and look you ruffians and rapscallions, the King doesn’t dance in the street so why are you causing such a rumpus”).

This works particularly well when you realise that perhaps the best interpretation of linen ephod for a Scottish audience is “lightweight kilt”.

David was dancing for joy and didn’t care who saw what he looked like. He was dancing before the Lord and didn’t care that he was letting his dignity slip a bit. He was dancing with such joy that care itself dropped away.

And I love him for it.

I’ve always said I’d rather be a priest who risked getting into more bother with God for saying yes to people than saying no to people. My vision for this place is something of the same. And that sentiment makes me forgive all David’s vulgarity and love him for all his joy.

If we are ever accused of being slightly vulgar in daring to care about things that real people care about, slightly over the top in our exuberant worship, slightly too ready to take to the streets to bring in the kingdom of justice and joy then we will find ourselves accused of dancing in good company.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Lord of the Dance.

Amen.

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