What is in Kelvin's Head?

Sermon preached on Radio 4 for Feast of St Mungo

15/01/2019
He quite took me by surprise as I walked down the high street.

A friend of mine. Wearing a beanie hat and a beard. A sweatshirt and a casual jacket. But holding out his hand, on which was perched a robin.

I was absolutely sure it was someone I know. He looked just like him.

He was the spitting image of my friend. But larger than life. Quite a bit larger than life in fact.

His face filled the side of the end gable of one of Glasgow’s tenements.

It was a new mural that I hadn’t seen before. One of a number of striking images that have been appearing around the city centre.

I went on my way and later on phoned the friend whom I thought I had recognised in the mural.

He denied posing for it and said it was nothing to do with him at all though he did admit to having had several calls that week from people who thought it was him.

“But do you know who it is supposed to be?” he asked me.

I looked again at a picture I had taken of the mural on my mobile phone. For the first time I saw that there was a round circle behind the figure’s head in a slightly different colour to the rest of the background.

I realised it could be a halo.

And thinking about where it was, just down the High Street from the place where the city was founded, I managed to put two and two together. I realised it was Mungo and the robin in the mural was the one that he purportedly brought back to life as a child. It had belonged to Mungo’s uncle St Serf who had taken in him and his mother when they were on the run from her violent father.

Right there on the street was St Mungo. Looking just like a friend of mine.

At this time of year, Glasgow remembers its founder and its patron saint. The thirteenth of January is his feast day. And so we call him to mind with thanksgiving today and join our prayers with his, praying for the wellbeing of the city and giving thanks for the impact that he made upon those around him.

Whenever we remember Mungo’s feast day, there are two things that I always bring to mind which make me love him.

The first is his name and the second is the way he died – so different from the way many saints seem to meet their end.

I love the fact that 1400 years or so after he lived, we still know Kentigern by his pet name. And a name which tells us a great deal about him.
He received his affectionate name from his uncle. But it was the common people who popularised it and used it in remembering him.

Mungo doesn’t mean the loving one. It means the loved one.

The Christian faith isn’t about being good, it is about being loved.

Christians believe that the love we have for one another is just one of the many ways we have of experiencing the love of God, and I think I dare to tell people that they are loved because I know that I am utterly loved by God.

Mungo’s name reminds us that ….
- for all the legends of his mission – founding the city here and the diocese of St Asaph in Wales,
- for all the Christian work he did– setting up a mission centre in what we call Dumfriesshire and evangelising Galloway,
- for all the church politics he was involved in – establishing churches and monasteries all over the place
Notwithstanding all these things, he was remembered primarily with a nickname that tells us that love was at the centre of his life.

CHOIR + ORGAN

ANTHEM: Thy Perfect Love (Rutter)

Words: 15^th Century / Music: John Rutter

Text: Thy perfect love
Jesu, my love, my joy, my rest,
Thy perfect love close in my breast
That I thee love and never rest;
And make me love thee of all thinge best,
And wounde my heart in thy love free,
That I may reign in joy evermore with thee.

The gift of being able to receive the love that is offered to you on this earth is just as precious as the love that you offer to anyone else.

The other thing that I love about Mungo is the way he died.

Not for him the way of martyrdom. He didn’t die by the sword. He didn’t die in battle. He didn’t die being persecuted. There was no blood. There was no gore.

Mungo is said by those who told his legend to have died in his bath – surrounded by friends.

And that little detail of Mungo bathing may tell us something about his affinity with Roman custom. For the Romans had built baths round here during their occupation and Mungo was said to have visited Rome seven times.

Various miracles of his life are told in this city, as well as the story of the robin. Of a fire he miraculously rekindles with a hazel branch. Of the miraculous catch of a salmon in the Clyde with a wedding ring in its mouth that cleared the name of a falsely accused local queen.

But perhaps we should remember Mungo for greater miracles and ones we can share in – being loved and being a friend.

Mungo was a great traveller and clearly cultivated friendships with those whom he met. He was much loved by St David in Wales and his fame was such that St Columba came visiting.

When they met, it is said that they “hastened to unite in mutual embraces and holy kisses, and having fattened themselves first with a spiritual feast of divine words, they afterwards restored themselves with bodily food”.

It isn’t difficult to imagine them relaxing over food and conversation at the end of the day – their common task of building the church giving them an instant and enduring bond of friendship and affection.

When I want to relax at the end of a long day, I go to a local institution built in the same year that this cathedral was in 1871. It is a local Victorian swimming club. I swap the soaring arches, stained glass and Minton tiles of this building for the soaring arches, stained glass and Minton tiles of the Arlington Baths Club and relax in the heat of the Turkish bath and chatter with friends about the events of the day.

And when I’m there this week, I’ll spare a thought for Mungo, founder of this great city, taking to his bath with friends all around him.

And I’ll give thanks for the great twin miracles that seem to have been part of his life. The miracle of friendship and the miracle of being loved

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

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

Father Ron Smith

12/01/2015

Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.
  
  The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.
  
  I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.
  
  Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.
  
  Reply
2. Christine McIntosh
  
  13/01/2015
  
  Amen.
  
  Reply
Pam

12/01/2015

From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

Reply
Chris Hansen

12/01/2015

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.
  
  Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.
  
  Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.
  
  And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.
  
  Reply
FakePete

13/01/2015

I feel very angry reading that.

Reply
Steven

13/01/2015

Dear Kelvin

Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

What would you do if you were Primus?

The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

Steven

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  13/01/2015
  
  What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.
  
  The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.
  
  I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.
  
  The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:
  
  1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.
  
  2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.
  
  3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.
  
  4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.
  
  However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.
  
  I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.
  
  I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.
  
  I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.
  
  If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.
  
  If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.
  
  Does that answer the question?
  
  Reply
  1. Steven
    
    13/01/2015
    
    Yes, it does rather. Thanks.
    
    For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).
    
    We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!
    
    Steven
    
    Reply