• Not merely patronising

    Bishop Victoria Matthews is not merely patronising, she is actually wrong.

    Wait, you want me to back up a bit? OK.

    The story so far: We’ve been considering the idea of an Anglican Covenant for years and this year the Scottish Episcopal Church decided to reject it and did so in a very clear synodical decision. The Anglican Consultative Council is currently meeting in New Zealand and Bishop Victoria has been making statements about those who can’t agree with the Covenant that are, at best disingenuous. (Which is Anglican for “Completely Wrong and Verging on Deceit”).

    Here’s part of the report from the Anglican Communion Office:
    Bishop Matthews… was introducing a session on the history and progress of the Covenant as part of the 15th ACC meeting in Auckland.
    She stressed the point that it was not the work of IASCUFO [The International Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order] to promote the Covenant, but rather to monitor its reception.
    “As we have sought to do that,” she told delegates, “I have often thought that the document people discuss and the actual Anglican Covenant are two different documents.
    “One is the document that people have in their mind and the other is the Anglican Communion Covenant on paper. So I really want [people] to read the Covenant and be focused on that. Because often, when people start talking about the Covenant, what they describe in their mind as the Covenant is unrecognisable.”

    I have to say that I find the suggestion that we really need to read the actual Covenant quite insulting. No church could have done better at reading the thing than the Scottish Episcopal Church. We’ve discussed it at our annual General Synod over years. We’ve looked at each different version of the text. We’ve discussed it in dioceses. We’ve discussed it in regional councils. Some have discussed it in Vestries and in some places whole congregations looked at it. People preached on it. People studied it. We went over the text itself with a tooth-comb. The Standing Committee discussed and implemented every possible way of discussing the document. We talked about it until people were sick of talking about it. We printed it out so many times that people complained about the environmental impact of the Covenant process.

    And then we finally made a decision and the decision was a resounding “No.” We really don’t need to go back and read the text. We read it plenty and we made up out minds very clearly and overwhelmingly.

    Bishop Victoria also said, “Remember most of the Covenant reminds us who we are in Christ.”

    You know, the predominant thing that we said was not that we were worried about the punitive sections. That was true for very many of us. However the thing I heard people saying again and again was, “This just doesn’t represent who we are”.

    The claim that the Covenant reminds us who we are in Christ is a rather foolish one. The Covenant is an imagined identity which we have firmly rejected.

    It is certainly patronising of Bishop Victoria Matthews to imply that we in Scotland just have not read the Covanant enough. More than that though, it isn’t true.

    She’s just plain wrong.

10 responses to “Sermon for Christ the King 2014”

  1. Julie Mansfield Avatar
    Julie Mansfield

    Kelvin, I follow your blog and I often find your conversations on facebook a lot of fun. But often, too, I don’t really understand what you are saying – such as your last paragraph there; ‘Like love. Like compassion. Like truth. Like hope. Like justice. Like joy. Like peace. Like the Way. Like the very essence of life itself.’ It sounds wonderful but what does it actually mean? Are you saying that the word, ‘God’ is a synonym for other worthwhile words which already have meanings I do understand?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      What a good question.

      No, I’m not saying that, or at least not quite. I would say that we can’t describe what God is like in language, but one of the closest ways we can come near to talking about God is to talk by analogy – to talk about what God is like.

      The bible is full of times when people use analogy and metaphor to describe the reality of God which we can never completely comprehend.

      In this sermon I’m saying that whilst God may be like a king, God is also like a lot of things that one doesn’t immediately associate with kingship and monarchy. That string of words that you picked out in the sermon are all ways that the bible uses to speak of God. I was using them to do the same.

      Does any metaphor contain or enclose or sum up what we can say or know of God. The answer is always no.

  2. Joy Jones Avatar
    Joy Jones

    I loved your sermon. And have subscribed to your blog.

    No, I have not met the Queen, but I have met the King! And continue to get to know Him more and more every day. His love, peace joy, truth, etc.

    Our priest in North Carolina, said on Sunday, that
    it was hard to tell the difference between sheep and goats.
    Since you live in Scotland, you see a lot of sheep and goats….why did Jesus picked those animals?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for your comments, Joy.

      Actually, I don’t see that many sheep and goats in Great Western Road in the middle of Glasgow. I do see sheep when I drive in the countryside but very rarely goats.

      I think that it is the case that in the Middle East, sheep and goats are pastured together and do sometimes need sorting out. Here in Scotland, sheep and goats (especially wild goats) look very different. However I think in the Middle East, that’s less true.

  3. Julie Mansfield Avatar
    Julie Mansfield

    Kelvin, I’ve only just found your reply! Thanks so much for bothering. I really mean it. I thought you must have just ignored it. Yes, I see what you are saying but… I would say that all those meaningful words in the Bible about what God is like only make sense in the context of understanding who God is. ( i.e. that He came into being as the personification of the worldview of the marginalised Hebrew people, later taken up by Jesus, just as all of the other communities of the ancient Near East had gods representing their worldviews. I study with this bloke here http://www.bibleincartoons.co.uk. ) What I am trying – !! – to say is that God obviously cannot be everyone’s ‘truth’, ‘joy’, ‘justice’ etc because in society there are contradictory ideas about what these things are.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Are there contradictory ideas about truth, joy and justice?

      I’m not so sure. Surely we can still speak of these things as though they had some commonly understood meanings.

      1. Julie Mansfield Avatar
        Julie Mansfield

        oh absolutely there are, Kelvin. Just one of many examples: these immigrants in the Mediterranean Sea. Their truth and joy and justice is to be allowed to come and live here. Many folk here get their truth, joy and justice in seeking to put in controls. Whose truth, joy and justice is right? As I see it, the god of the marginalised Hebrews would side with the immigrants but I’m not sure about the Church…

        1. Kelvin Avatar

          I was speaking about God, not ethics. That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot that is interesting to say about the two, but they are quite different I think.

          The fact that people disagree about how to show love. does not, to me at least, negate the assertion that God is love.

      2. Julie Mansfield Avatar
        Julie Mansfield

        Oh absolutely there are contradictory ideas, Kelvin. Just one of many examples; these immigrants in the Mediterranean Sea. Their truth and joy and justice is to be allowed a place to live and thrive. For many folk here, their truth and joy and justice depends on keeping out as many immigrants as possible because they affect housing, medical care, schools etc. As I see it, the Biblical god of the marginalised Hebrews is on the side of the immigrants…

        1. Julie Mansfield Avatar
          Julie Mansfield

          sorry I didn’t see your reply! My difficulty is that you use words as if they have a universal meaning. E.g. love is not a neutral word. there are many different types of love such as conservative paternalistic love or socialist love or non-marginalising love. They are all love. How can God be them all?

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 5 September 2004

    I?d really like to concentrate on the Potter?s Wheel image from Jeremiah this morning. However, since we heard that reading, we have now just had a gospel reading which I don?t think can be read without comment. Those of you who have been here over the last couple of weeks will have heard several bits…

  • Provincial Conference

    No easy internet access at the conference, so no reports up until now. It has gone very well indeed. Although it was not just about big name speakers, it was worth going just to hear Rowan Williams speak. It is hard to imagine the abuse that he has to put up with, yet he stands…

  • Provincial Conference

    I'm going to most of the Scottish Episcopal Church's Provincial Conference, which begins today. These things happen every four years or so. I didn't sign up until the last minute. The trouble is, I never could imagine that I would not be there.It is taking place at Herriot-Watt University – somewhere I have never been…

  • Zebra Dung Lion Rover

    The BBC reports that a remote-controlled vehicle carrying zebra dung is being used by a Stirling University student to study the behaviour of lions in captivity. And all this happening just down the road at Blairdrummond.The BBC have a picture of the lions, but not the zebra.