• Youse are the Salt of the Earth – sermon preached 9 February 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.

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

  1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

    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.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      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.

  2. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    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.

  3. Chris Hansen Avatar
    Chris Hansen

    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.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      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.

  4. FakePete Avatar
    FakePete

    I feel very angry reading that.

  5. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    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

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      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?

      1. Steven Avatar
        Steven

        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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Same-sex Marriage Date for Scotland – 31 December 2014

    Exciting news this morning – we have a date for the first same-sex marriages in Scotland. The date is within this year – just. The first day on which most couples will be able to get married will be 31 December 2014, the day known in Scotland as Hogmanay. There’s going to be some parties…

  • Come out and carry on

    Today has been designated as National Coming Out Day. There’s been so much going on recently in the media and social media about gay bishops in the Church of England. This seems to me to say it in a more elegant way than all the letters to the press, editorials, blog posts and twitter posts…

  • How twitter and facebook can save your blog rather than kill it

    One of the things that anyone keeping a blog must be aware of at the moment is that things are not the same as they were. At one time you simply had to put up something even vaguely interesting and people all over the world would read and comment. Blogging was like the Wild West…

  • Dinner at the Trades House

      Out last night to a lovely dinner with the Trades House of Glasgow. Glasgow is one of those cities where the Medieval Guilds of the city still exist. The various trades in the city formed themselves in to Incorportated Crafts which were ways of regulating (and monopolising) trade as the city grew. Nowadays they…