What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Christmas Sermon 2013

    [UPDATE: The Herald newspaper covered this sermon as a front page story here:
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/clergyman-calls-for-human-rights-focus-at-2014-games.23039023]

    Here’s what I said in my Christmas Sermon this year.


    It has become something of a commonplace that Christmas, at least in the life of the shops and the media starts all too early. Even at the end of September, the trees were being dusted down and the fairy lights for shop windows tested. The piles of mince-pies were arriving in the supermarket, all clearly marked with a best-before date of Halloween or before.

    My local newsagent seemed to have done pretty well at resisting this kind of thing. I was pleased to see when I went in for a paper during the first week in Advent that they were only then getting out a new box of chocolate confectionary which was all wrapped in shiny paper. These delicacies were in a bright gold box which was placed right under my nose as I stood there on Advent Sunday. And clearly on the box was marked the slogan: “Cadbury’s Crème Eggs – your number 1 Easter Treat”.

    Somehow the world seems to have become a bit muddled by when the Son of God appears.

    And then the same week at the start of December I was driving down to the farthest end of the Diocese for a special service in Stranraer. I could only pick up one radio station in the car and it was one of the local stations down that way.

    Come along, the announcer entreated me, come along to the shopping centre for our specially sponsored competition. Come and sing a seasonal song and see if you can win. Come down today. Maybe you will be crowned winner; the winner of our X-mas Factor Competition.

    And as I was driving along I could hear myself start to splutter and exclaim. “It isn’t Xmas, it’s Christmas, I shouted at the poor unsuspecting radio announcer who was thankfully unable to hear a world.

    And I drove on realising that I had suddenly become all my grandparents rolled into one. All I lacked was a walking stick to attack the radio with.

    But now, the day has arrived. The Lord of Heaven and Earth has come and is wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.

    And it is our joy and delight to worship him today.

    There is no question now. We can sing our carols with gusto. We can enjoy the feast. Food will be eaten, wine will be drunk, presents and cards exchanged and all for the sake of a child. Born in a manger. Born a long time ago.

    There is such goodness there lying in that manger. For there lies joy and challenge, peace and promise, blessing and love – all wrapped in the swaddling of all our hopes and dreams and expectations.

    God is come into our world.

    And there’s the thing.

    When the world starts to celebrate the birth in September or October or November, it isn’t entirely wrong.

    For though we rejoice in the coming of the child today, the news we celebrate now is that God is in this world. Always here. At home here. An inhabitant with us of this spinning, turning world.

    We celebrate today the incarnation but that is just the theological name, spruced up in its Sunday best for the truth that we celebrate every week which is that God lurks in this world.

    Here in this place we preach weekly of a God who is here. A God who knows us, share our joys and shares our sorrows and loves us to distraction, come what may.

    What we celebrate at Christmas is not merely that God came into the world and gurgled in a Bethlehem cowshed but that God is here in Glasgow and in every place on this earth all ready to be encountered anew. For God is only a glimpse, a breath, a prayer away.

    In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. In heaven, an unknown factor. But not forever, for the Word took shape and came amongst us to show, to tell, to proclaim the good news that God is with us in everything and that with God, all that is ill can be transformed.

    Today, all eyes are on the manger. The city of Bethlehem is the place on all our lips. And Bethlehem is one of the cities that is twinned with this city, the city of Glasgow.

    In the year that is to come, the city in which we live will become for a brief time the place that everyone is talking about. The City of Glasgow is the place where many eyes will be looking as we host the Commonwealth Games.

    And we must not shirk from naming that which is ill. For all is not well in the Commonwealth. Sadly, driven by the legacy of British colonialism, several Commonwealth countries should be held to account when they come to us. After all, it will not merely be sports people who are here but their political leaders.

    With Sri Lanka unable to face questions about war crimes; with Uganda and India even in these last few days attempting to turn the clock back for those who are gay, with human rights abuses across Commonwealth countries too numerous to mention, There must not simply be silence when so much of the English speaking world comes to sport and play. In these last weeks we have been reminded by the celebrations of Nelson Mandela’s life that ordinary people can bring about massive change for the better.

    For all that is ill can be transformed. For God is with us, already here now, working in us in this world.

    We celebrate the birth of a baby – a real live baby with lips and hands and tiny feet. And in doing so, we celebrate the fact that God’s lips and hands and feet are now those of our own bodies. God incarnate not simply in this world but God incarnate right here in our own lives.

    Here in this church, we know that God is here. In fact, we know that God is here, there and everywhere. For God lurks in this world wishing and hoping and praying that we will join the conspiracy of those who seek to put the world to rights and bring in the kingdom of justice and joy that all people of goodwill ache to see.

    When I was driving down in Galloway earlier in the year, in the silence, having slammed the radio off, I had enough peace in the car to hear the truth of the announcer who spoke of the Xmas Factor.

    Now, of course, I know that the X is the Greek letter Chi – the first letter of the world Christ. I know that the X abbreviation has been used since Christians first celebrated the birth of their Saviour.

    Here in this church today, I tell you that the Xmas Factor is here. The unknown God is born and has a name. The God who was once unknown, the Logos, the X-factor – has now been born. That God has a name, for God is found in Jesus – the wonderful counsellor, the mighty God, the prince of peace, and is here and lies in the manger.

    For the God Factor is here.

    The God Factor is everywhere.

    The God Factor has come into this world.

    And God blesses you this day as you come to this place to worship.

    In the name of God, Father, Son of Righteousness, Holy Spirit.

    Amen

    , , , , , ,

37 responses to “The Peace and Unity and Order of the Church”

  1. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin,
    I should, of course, have written ‘on this site’ rather than ‘appear in this blog’ because such derogatory terms have been used in the main by some of the correspondents.

    However, as to your use of the term ‘misogynist’, while certainly not applying it to any individual you seemed to be suggesting that all who held such views on headship were misogynist – a word which my dictionary defines as a hater of women. I happen to know a number of clergy who take this view and while agreeing that they are seriously mistaken , in no way can they be described as women haters – a serious and unfair accusation.

    Your also referred in your comments on the Bishops’ New Statement to ‘homophobic bullying’ which I also find objectionable. Today, of course if one dares, even with good reason, to remonstrate with anyone it is very likely that an accusation of bullying will be made and if they happen be gay then it is just as likely to be accused of being homophobic.

    Finally the term ‘arch conservative’ was used by someone who contributed a comment. I apologise for giving the impression that it was a term used by you.

    The point I was trying to make is that the use of such intemperate language cannot be conducive to reasoned discussion or argument. It reduces the whole thing to name calling.

    Reply
    1. Cynthia Avatar
      Cynthia

      “It reduces the whole thing to name calling.”

      What is church leadership calling ME when they treat me as lesser in the eyes of God and the church? What is the result of hateful and hurtful language? Depression, LGBT teen suicide, homeless LGBT teens who are cast out by their religious families, sexual abuse of these homeless LGBT teens, hate crimes, human rights abuses…

      The truth of the suffering caused at the hands of the church needs to be told. It isn’t a pretty story, nor is it a polite one.

      Reply
  2. Kelvin Avatar
    Kelvin

    Ross, I’ve done an electronic search and I can’t find many instances of the term arch conservative on this blog. I happen not to think it too terrible, not least because I can imagine people using the term arch liberal to describe me. Although that would be inaccurate, I’m not sure that I’d be that offended to be honest.

    But that’s not the point. I can find only one instance of someone commenting on this blog using that phrase. That’s one comment in 10500 comments. It doesn’t seem to me to be a phrase particularly commonly used on this blog.

    The terms homophobe and misogynist have sometimes been used, but I’m struggling to find any instances of them being used to describe any individual. Again, I’m not of the view that they’ve been particularly commonly used in those 10500 comments. There simply aren’t that many instances of the words being used on this blog at all.

    Generally speaking, I think it is OK to debate ideas – it seems to me to be reasonable to be able to describe homophobic ideas or actions. Generally it is not helpful to call people homophobes. There is a difference that I know and tend to be quite careful around.

    I stand by my description of last week’s guidelines as homophobic bullying. Indeed, I can’t think of a better example of such behaviour. However, I’m not in the business of calling people homophobes and the accusation that I am and even that I do so habitually, seems to me to be far from secure.

    Reply
  3. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin

    I accept your comment about my comment about the use of the word ‘archconservative!! Apologies for overstating the case.

    Having re-read the Bishops’ statement I cannot for the life of me understand how you can suggest that any part of the document can be suggestive of homophobic bullying. Its obvious intent is to clearly state what the current situation is which is important given that there could be legal implications for any clergy who decides to act outwith the confines of the stated law of the land (i.e the Act permitting same sex marriage.)
    I’m not really sure what you expected the Bishops to do.

    I appreciate how emotive and divisive this whole issue is. Inevitably the peace and unity of our church is going to be (and is) seriously disturbed to the detriment of its mission.

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      No-one can be surprised at the bishops letting people know they should not do anything illegal.

      However the surprise has come from clergy being told that they themselves should not marry. If the bishops knew they were going to say this previously then they should have said so before the General Synod and particularly before the Cascade Process began. Both the debate at General Synod and the Cascade would have been different if this had been known.

      It particularly targets anyone who is in training to become a priest or lay reader who may have been accepted for that training whilst being open and honest about being in a civil partnership. To publish this with just one week to go before the law changed was, to say the least, unhelpful.

      People make plans. Most things to do with marriage are planned more than a week in advance.

      Reply
  4. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    My final comment -you’ll be pleased to know!

    But surely any ordinand who is in the situation you describe will be fully aware of the doctrine of the SEC regarding Christian marriage as expressed by Canon 31. At their ordination/licensing they can hardly promise to render due obedience to the Code of Canons if they plan not to abide by them.

    When I was ordained in the Church of England candidates for ordination were barred if they were divorced and had remarried. Through time the situation was changed. I would not be surprised if, in a few years time, the SEC changes its stance on same-sex marriage – I wouldn’t be surprised but I would not be happy. As I have commented before, as an Anglican my faith is based on Scripture, Reason and Tradition, all three of which bear witness to the truth that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      If someone in a same-sex marriage cannot subscribe to the Code of Canons because their manner of life puts them outside of the definition of marriage in Canon 31, then I can’t see any way that someone who is divorced can subscribe to the canons for the same reason.

      I personally think that someone’s subscription to the canons represents them accepting that this is the doctrine of the church. It is on that basis that I can subscribe to the Canons. Clearly I don’t believe the definition in Canon 31 to be adequate and have said so many times and very publicly.

      Reply
    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      Ross, Parts of various articles in Ian Bunting’s collection, Celebrating the Anglican Way, can be paraphrased thus:

      “Anglicans understand the Old and New Testaments as “containing all things necessary for salvation” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. ‘Reason’ and ‘Tradition’ are seen as valuable means to interpret Scripture (a position first formulated in detail by Richard Hooker), but there is no full mutual agreement among Anglicans exactly how Scripture, Reason and Tradition interact (or ought to interact) with each other.”

      To the best of my understanding, it is Tradition alone (and not a terribly old one, when compared with the Hebrew Bible as “Scripture”), that declares “that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” given that for a great deal of the past millennium there may, indeed have been one man and one woman, but the rest of what was called “marriage” bore no resemblance to what we in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries recognize. I refer to women as chattel, marriage for political purposes, etc.

      I’m sorry that you are not happy, but I’m sorrier that you are subtly suggesting that, since I affirm that my Reason and reading of Scripture trump “Tradition,” that I am somehow less of an Anglican than you.

      Reply
  5. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Surely the Canons are not articles of faith. They are laws to be abided by, not a creed to be believed. There is a huge difference between the two.

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      My understanding is that it is something of an anomaly to have a doctrinal statement in a canon. The canons should indeed be regarded as the law of the church and not a doctrinal statement.

      Reply
  6. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Apologies for making another comment after I stated that I had made my final one on this issue.

    I agree that canons are not doctrinal statements or articles of faith but they must and do reflect the belief of the church. As the Bishops’ Statement puts it ‘The doctrine of marriage of the SEC, as currently expressed in Canon 31 of the Code of Canons, is that marriage is “a physical, spiritual ad mystical union of one man and one woman.”

    I would, therefore, have to disagree with Rosemary’s claim that there is a ‘huge difference between the two.’ They are obviously very closely linked to each other and with the practice and life of the church

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      The important point to remember is that the statement regarding marriage in Canon 31 is “The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”

      If it isn’t possible for those who advocate same-sex couples being able to enter marriage to edit that definition to suit their own ends then it can’t be possible for anyone else to do so either.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons because they happen to be in a marriage with someone of the same gender then it can’t be possible for someone to subscribe to the canons who is in a second or third marriage either.

      The way our church has dealt with divorce (which is also controversial for some people) has been to allow people to minister who are in relationships which fall outside the definition of marriage in Canon 31.1

      Reply
    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      “Huge” or not “huge”? Rather than debating the size of a subjective term, perhaps we can try to find a more objective method for determining the relationship between the two.

      It seems to me – and I welcome debate on this point – that the Canons ought to flow from our faith (“reflect the belief of the church”). Assuming that is the case, then after we deal with the question of “what IS the belief of a church that encourages reason over dogma?”, we get to wrestle with the potentially circular nature of putting statements of belief into a governance document.

      Reply
  7. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Not so. Canon 31.4 allows for a Diocesan Bishop to permit the marriage of person/s whose previous marriage has been dissolved and where one of the previous partners of that marriage is still living.

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      Yes, Ross. The Canon allows for a bishop to permit a marriage after divorce.

      However, that says nothing at all about subscription to the canons or anything about whether such a person should be fit for ordination.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons if they happen to be marrying a person of the same gender due to Canon 31.1 then I can’t see how a person can subscribe to the canons if they are in a second marriage which also falls outside the boundaries of Canon 31.1 regardless of whether such a thing was permitted in church.

      I think that a second marriage should not be an impediment to ordination. However, the Bishops’ recent guidelines have implications beyond those who happen to be gay and lesbian.

      These are all inconsistencies that come from a time when the Canon was revised to suit some circumstances (divorce) but before other circumstances (marriage of same-sex couples) were even thought about. We shouldn’t expect such Canons to answer questions they were never designed to ask.

      Notwithstanding that, one of the reasons that it was presumed by many that being in a same-sex marriage (which does indeed fall outside the doctrinal definition of marriage in the canon) would not be a bar to ordination is precisely because being in a second marriage (contrary to the doctrinal definition of marriage) isn’t. One can’t have it both ways.

      Reply
  8. Seph Avatar
    Seph

    It seems to me that a bishop can either be a ‘focus for unity’ (a seriously dubious phrase in my opinion) or show real leadership—I don’t see how it is possible for one person to do both.

    I can’t see much evidence of either from the SEC bishops at the moment.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Tartan Friday

    From the comments on a previous post, we have this, from Michael Hare: So what tartan do Episcopal clergy wear? Those of us who are of non-Highland connection would like to wear Clergy but the tartan makers refuse to make Clergy in kilt-weight. Should we denounce them from the pulpit?! Heavens, how should I know?…

  • Piscy Blogger Spotted

    Hey, why didn’t you tell me that Duncan MacLaren is blogging? He is Associate Rector at St Paul’s and St George’s in Edinburgh (aka P’s and G’s) I know he’ll be coming up with interesting stuff because I’ve read and reviewed a book of his. It was one of the more interesting bits of thinking…

  • Edinburgh?

    Off to Edinburgh yesterday. The transformation of the city in August is never anything less than extraordinary. Visitors cannot really appreciate what it is like to see a city thus transformed. Watching Edinburgh in August is like seeing a maiden aunt take to the gin on New Year’s Eve and do the can-can. Every year,…

  • Kilt Monday?

    Can anyone tell me who designated Monday as Kilt Monday? Was it the spiritual residue of so many bekilted pipers marching about on Glasgow Green in the rain over the weekend? Three kilt incidents – all on Monday. I just don’t get it. Firstly, a long discussion after Morning Prayer which included the sentiment that…