What is in Kelvin's Head?

Youse are the Salt of the Earth – sermon preached 9 February 2020

10/02/2020

In the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

I seem to have reached a particular age.

I seem to have reached the particular age which is that whenever I got to the doctor about anything I come out with a prescription for another regular medicine and an instruction to give something up.

Red meat was one of this first things. No more red meat.

Red wine was the next. No more red wine. (Though I’m not that much of a drinker anyway).

[This being St Mary’s I can see several doctors in the congregation working out what prescriptions I got for which pills too]

But then it was caffeine that had to go. No more ordinary tea.

And the latest of course was salt. Cut down, cut back, give up on the salt.

Now, I have, or at least had, rather a liking for salt on my food.

It makes other things tasty.

So being told to cut it down and try to cut it out was something of a bitter blow.

What’s a poke of chips without a good sprinkling of salt after all.

Oh, and I know what comes next – it’ll be the chips next. First they came for the red meat. Then they came for the salt. Then they came for the chips…

Steak and chips nae mair, nae mair.

But the salt thing really got to me.

I took myself off to the supermarket straight away to find an alternative. And sure enough someone produces this stuff. Lo Salt it is called.

And it has all the attributes of salt. Except one.

It looks like salt. It feels like salt. It sprinkles like salt.

It is perfect in every way except the rather necessary requirement.

It doesn’t actually taste like salt.

It proudly says on the tub that it contains 66% less sodium than regular salt. And by my reckoning you need about three times as much of the stuff for it to actually taste the same.

And, well, the truth is, I’ve kind of lost heart with it as a substitute. It has been sitting in the back of the cupboard for a year or more largely unused. Better to retrain my tastebuds to do without salt than to be disappointed with ever sprinkle.

This stuff is what Jesus is talking about in the gospel today. Salt that has lost its savour.

And it is good for nothing.

Well, except for one thing of course. Real salt doesn’t ever really lose its savour. Real salt itself can’t go off. You can keep it as long as you like and it will still be salt.

And, well, that’s just one of the points that Jesus is making.

In the gospel words we have just heard, Jesus says, You are the Salt of the Earth.

But the wee periscope, the section of the gospel that we heard did not really make it clear to whom he is speaking.

Jesus isn’t talking to the church – it hadn’t been invented then. Nor is he talking to a congregation in a synagogue. Though he went to such places, he was outside when he preached this sermon.

Nor was he talking just to his disciples.

For this is part of the sermon on the mount.

He’s speaking to those who crowded around him to hear.

He’s speaking to the crowd as well as to his friends.

You are the salt of the earth. You are the light of the world.

Might it make a difference to how we hear the sermon on the mount to remember that he isn’t speaking only to us. He isn’t murmuring the sweet nothings of a personal saviour who has come just for me as an individual.

This isn’t just about my relationship with God.

He’s speaking to the crowd. To all of us. And more.

To all of us and a lot more.

To the forgotten and the poor and those with no influence and no power.

And he says, you, all of you, are the salt of the earth and the light of the word.

The crowd are the salt of the earth. The crowd are the light of the world.

When he’s talking about you, he’s not just talking to you.

In Old English, he’s talking to ye – all of ye.

In Southern American English, he’s talking to y’all – or even all y’all.

In Glasgow he’s talking to youse. Yes, all of youse.

Jesus seems to see human dignity and worth in every member of the crowd.

Each was part of being the salt of the earth. Together they were light to the world.

Every member in the crowd is made in the image of God and that gives us innate human dignity.

Dignity that Jesus sees and proclaims.

There are so many occasions when we can see simply the worst in people.

There are so many occasions when we experience a crowd as simply being the mob.

But Jesus looks with compassion at every soul there and says you – you collectively are the salt of the earth. You, yes, all of you are light.

What a world we would have if everyone was able to contribute to making the world tasty and full of light.

What a world we would have if the special dignity and gifts of every soul were recognised and affirmed and known.

What a world would we have if the innate goodness of everyone was visible and shining out like a light on a hill or a lamp put on a bushel basket.

Evil and sin abound are oh so real. Yet Jesus looks at the crowd and seems to see the vision of a kingdom altogether different and altogether new and altogether built on the goodness of every soul.

So, let your light shine in this city. Let your light shine in this land. Let your light shine in this world.

In loving you, God knows the light that is already in you. And God wants that light to be what you are known for.

Until the light illuminates everything and all wrongs are put right, and the tears are wiped from every eye so that every eye sees clearly that love has conquered. And love reigns supreme.

Look for the best in people.

Look for the love in people.

Look for the light in people. For the light in people is simply the sign of the love that is in them that connects them directly to God’s own being.

Look especially for the light in people in whom you don’t expect to find it.

And set that light high.

High on a bushel basket

And let it shine. Let it shine. Let it shine.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

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