What is in Kelvin's Head?

Sermon preached on 7 June 2015

07/06/2015

St Mary’s is a special place for all kinds of reasons.

This place is a joy and a wonder and it is a place where I really enjoy preaching.

I almost never come away from a Sunday or a feast day without feeling moved, inspired and thankful for the worship that we manage offer here together. And that’s a wonderful thing for a priest. Too many clergy, I suspect, conduct worship which doesn’t really excite them and which they wouldn’t go to if they didn’t have to.

But not me. This is a special place.

Just occasionally, Sunday’s can be a bit more stressful than you hope they will be. And what I have in mind this morning is the very occasional times when someone has taken ill during the course of the service.

Now, the thing is, different churches deal with that in different ways. The best organised churches have someone at the door all ready to call an ambulance if one is needed.

Here in St Mary’s, what usually happens is that a perfectly formed medical team seems to instantaneously form around the person who is laid low.

I remember on one occasion someone leaning over to me and asking whether they should call 999 and my response was that they could do but there was much more chance of the person seeing an A and E doctor quickly here than actually at A and E.

On one Sunday someone rather dramatically told me that someone in the congregation had died in church and asked me to bring the holy oil to anoint them. I sent for the oils and rather tentatively approached. As I did so, I found the “corpse” sitting up and fighting people off with the words, “Will someone get all these doctors away from me”.

Not only is there suddenly a bunch of medics all set to do what they can but right behind them there seems to come a team of trained counsellors all ready to step in to offer comfort and concern to anyone who needs it.

It is all very St Mary’s.

I feel as though this morning’s gospel is a bit of an accident and emergency this morning.

• Jesus’s family thinking he has completely lost the plot and needing saving from himself.

• This line about the sin against the holy ghost that can never be forgiven.

• And then Jesus comprehensively rejecting his mother and siblings.

It is a tricky piece for any preacher.

And if we had all the time in the world, I’d tell you to get into groups and try to sort it all out. And you know what I’d do, I’d have a group of medics trying to work out what was wrong with Jesus over here. And a bunch of psychiatrists over there trying to work out whether his issues with the devil were psychological ones.

And the team of trained therapists could move in on the business with him rejecting his family. Some might want to spend time with Mary and his siblings trying to help them deal with his rejection and some might want to give Jesus himself a good listening to.

And I think we could probably manage a team of theologians in another corner to try to work out the stuff about blasphemy against the holy ghost and to say what all that was about.

And when they fell out about what that means, as I think it is probably inevitable that they would do because (trust me on this) no-one really knows what it means, we could send the counsellors over to that corner to help them listen more effectively to one another and do a little emergency pouring of oil on troubled waters.

And then those who are in management might raise the question of problem solving in multi-disciplinary teams and suggest a significant reorganisation of resources.

But by this stage we might have the justice and aid network forming themselves over in one coffee corner to remind us that blasphemy is a serious business in some parts of the world and people can be killed simply for being accused of blasphemy and asking whether or not we can have a forum speaker about this very important issue and reminding us that some in this very congregation come from those very countries and that all local issues are global issues and all global issues are local ones.

And then you might get the lesbian and group having a subversive bible study group in another corner and having a very long conversation about the idea of first tying up the strong man in order to plunder his house and asking whether or not that is a prophecy of the overthrow of hetero-normative sexist homophobic society and whether or not we are about to usher in the commonwealth of God where all it justice and joy. And peace and light will appear to break out until someone suggests that this means we need to change from speaking about the kingdom of God to speaking about the queendom of God.

And then we’ll need the team of trained counsellors and therapists all over again. And the musicians could come up with a chant on the important text, “Blessed are the peacemakers”.

And pretty soon the God Factor people zoom into action to gather the questions that the congregation might have about the gospel of the day. And they’d be busily putting them all up on a sticky label wall so we can all see one another’s questions and then we would add more questions on top of the first questions. And it would never be too late to ask another question because accepting the questions is what it is all about.

And then, this being St Mary’s, you’ll get some smart alec preacher in the pulpit going on and on about Jesus rejecting his mother and siblings and wondering whether this means that it is time for single people to remind those who live in couples and families that Jesus seemed pretty decisively to reject their way of life. And thanking God we don’t have family services here in St Mary’s because we’re a church for everyone.

And on hearing this, the therapists decide they will work most effectively running a triage system and employing their talents to those who are most in need. And they split themselves into teams that quickly get to work here, here, here and here.

And all the while, the poor gospel is lying there gasping for breath and saying, “All I wanted to do for you people was to bring you a bit of life”.

So.

What will we really take away from hearing it today?

Can I suggest three little things.

Firstly,

That God’s compassion is so exciting that when it is found in Jesus it draws a crowd.

And as a congregation we need to be ready for that to happen.

Secondly, that God’s compassion is disruptive of our expectations and of our identities. And as the people of God we’d better be ready to be able to learn more about the expansive love of God than we already know. (And if we can’t do that we’re not the people God wants us to be).

And finally – that God’s compassion comes to us as individuals. The love of God doesn’t come because of who we think we are – neither by profession nor, as this gospel teaches us via family or friends. This is not the news that Jesus regards his mother and siblings as unimportant. It is the better news that he regards every one of us as being just as close and loved by himself as as all of them.

Because God loves us each, utterly and forever. And in God’s world, no-one comes first and we all belong to another.

And after the service you can get into your teams and discuss the sermon.

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

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

David Evans

29/06/2015

I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  29/06/2015
  
  I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.
  
  I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    30/06/2015
    
    I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”
    
    You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.
    
    It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.
    
    Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.
    
    I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.
    
    Reply
    1. Graham Evans
      
      05/07/2015
      
      David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.
      
      Reply
      1. David Evans
        
        18/07/2015
        
        Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.
        
        However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.
Iain Brodie Browne

02/07/2015

Firstly thank you for your posting.
I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

Reply
Andy

18/07/2015

Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  18/07/2015
  
  Thanks for commenting, Andy.
  
  I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.
  
  When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.
  
  It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    18/07/2015
    
    Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.
    
    Reply
David Evans

13/11/2015

Kelvin,

It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

Reply
1. Graham Evans
  
  13/11/2015
  
  David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.
  
  Reply