What is in Kelvin's Head?

The University Sermon – University of Oxford – 23 February 2025

24/02/2025

I glanced up from my desk as I sat down to write this sermon and gazed at an icon that has been on my wall for the last 8 years. It is obviously an icon showing the garden of Eden. A green background. Two figures stand on either side of the tree of knowledge.

Although just an icon, painted by someone I know, it is a piece of art which does what all great art does. It inspires some people. It infuriates others. It throws some people into a rage.

And sometimes we must pay attention to rage and make up our minds what we make of it.

The gospel reading that we have set for today seems on the surface to be all about a nature miracle. A storm at sea. A boat tossed about. A saviour who calms the tempest.

In Glasgow, where I come from, we recently went through a big storm that pulled things from the ground and hurled them about.

It was a day where few dared to venture from the safety of their homes for fear of being battered by the stuff flying about as the city was battered by high winds.

But as I think about this gospel reading this morning, it is difficult for me to read it simply as a nature miracle. For the whole world seems to be beset by political storms this week. Even as we find ourselves here worshipping using familiar words and singing comforting hymns, the world feels changed. The ground is shifting beneath our feet. The advent of Strongman politics in the USA and with the apparent triumph of Trumpism has left many across the world breathless. And fearful. Things have changed this week. Old alliances feel as though they no longer hold true. The way the world was is gone. Security guarantees that seemed to be forever are no more.

And who in public life in America and nearer to home will dare to venture from the safety of their political homes to stand in the way of the unfolding events for fear of being battered by the stuff flying about as the world is battered by storm after political storm?

As I got this far in preparing this sermon, I looked up again at the icon above my desk. The garden of Eden. A dark background. Two figures stand on either side of the tree of knowledge. It is a familiar archetype yet there is something unfamiliar to this version of the icon of paradise. Something that draws the eyes. And then you notice the names above the figures.

The icon depicts something that is behind the rage that has led to the new political world order that we are watching unfold before our eyes.

It is a peaceful scene. And religious people tend to believe rather deeply that a world of peace and harmony is a godly world. We believe that a world put right is part of the mission of God in the world, a mission that we can be part of.

A world where the hungry are fed, the violence stops, the tears are wiped from every eye and everyone gets to sit in security in the shade of their own tree. This is emblematic of the paradise that we find in scripture.

Scripture begins and end with images of the peaceable kingdom being represented by all being well, in a garden.

I glance up at the icon again and read the names of the two figures on either side of the tree of knowledge. And I smile at the sight of their names.

Adam stands on one side. His name written above his head. And Steve stands on the other side of the tree. Also clearly named.

It is an icon and Adam and Steve in the garden of Eden at peace in the cool of the day. Two men. Naked and delighting in the world that God has made.

It is the kind of picture that raises cries of wokery from some and draws fascination from others.

It is the kind of picture that infuriates those of a conservative mindset and delights those of a progressive one.

I have little doubt that there would be some these days who would condemn it as degenerate art.

The fury of some in the face of such art is but one of the many things that has led to the political reset that we are seeing unfold before our eyes each day.

My icon says something to me. But what?

And as I read the scriptures to prepare for this sermon that icon speaks to me.

It says, read the chapter from Genesis again. Read it as though it is about more than the gender of the participants.

And I do read the chapter again. And I realise that I delight in seeing that Adam represents all people. And Eve represents all people just as much.

Adam represents the fact that we are all creatures – beloved creatures of a God who was always interested in our company. And Eve, the one created from Adam’s side represents the fact that we all need to be helpers.

And my icon undermines so many theological and societal presumptions about men and women.

As it happens, I was, I think, the first priest outside North America who was licensed to preside at the wedding of same-sex couples – an issue which still seems stormy in the Church of England.

As all kinds of couples have prepared to be married in my office over the last 8 years, the icon of Adam and Steve has been present. It could just as easily have been an icon of Eva and Vera too.

As I begin to draw the writing of this sermon to a close, I gaze up again at the icon before me. Two figures on either side of the tree of knowledge.

They are at peace.

And I believe that peace is our destiny.

Each created. Each beautiful. Each loved by God.

As we all are.

Each dependant on the other. Each created to help another.

As we all are.

And as the storm rages. I hold onto the hope of Godly people through the ages. The hope of a world put right by good people inspired and aided by a loving God who aim to build the kingdom of peace on earth. Where the hungry are fed, the fearful find protection, the sorrowful are comforted. And all is right with the world again.

And our true destiny, the peaceable kingdom of our loving God becomes our everlasting dwelling place.

And I believe that our God will be with us if we can grasp this vision.

For they went to him shouting, “Master, master, we are perishing.”

And he woke up and rebuked the wind and the raging waves.; they ceased and there was calm.

So may it be.

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

Amen.

Adam, adam and steve, Eve, icon, Oxford, Sermon, steve, university sermon

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