What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Sunday’s Sermon on Vocations

    Here’s what I said on Sunday about vocations

    [Sorry about the poor audio. We’ve some major problems with the sound system that are going to take some weeks to sort out – however, the Vestry are well aware that Something Needs to be Done].

    The Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church have asked the whole church today to reflect on vocations. The idea is that on this Sunday, when the readings tend to reflect on the idea of Jesus as the great shepherd of the flock, we think about the notion of calling. So we must think about how we discern God’s calling and what we might make as an appropriate response.

    I am aware as I begin to open up that subject that we are stepping on sacred ground and must mind where we go. Immense amounts of sadness and disappointment have been the result of vocations, and not exclusively clerical vocations, which the church has not been able to affirm and rejoice in. On the other hand, this is, as the gathering place for the diocese, a place where vocations are delighted in and celebrated in ordination services and in various ways of thanksgiving for lay ministry, including the Ministry Celebrations Service in the summer.

    But I do with caution. And I begin with my own experience. (more…)

    , , , , ,

One response to “Eid, Pride and Abraham’s Sacrifice”

  1. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    As one who grew up(?) in churches leaning toward the view “it’s a tough story for a tough world, how else would God be just?” in varying degrees, I agree the face-value-narrative understanding of the story is repellant.

    One thing stood out for the first time during Sunday’s reading: the plurality in Abraham’s line – “…and we will return to you”. I’ve been idly wondering about that since.
    It doesn’t make the story wholly acceptable as Abraham still ploughs on ever closer.
    But if one’s goal is to find a “by faith, Abraham” in there, better to say it’s the prior confidence that things will somehow work out well (which I thought was how Hebrews was trying to define it), than to locate the commendable quality in violence (which, by rabbiting on about resurrection, Hebrews does).

    In the absence of other clear & wholly mitigating contexts in which to place the story, certainly it’s simplest, easiest and probably best to file it under “that’s how they saw God back then” and move swiftly on.

    Oofft.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 9 October 2005

    This morning?s gospel reading is one of the most difficult to hear, especially for Scottish Episcopalians. The story of everyone from the streets being invited to the party is all well and good, but it offends our ears rather to hear of someone being thrown out for not wearing the right frock. I say that…

  • Unearthing St Francis

    Not for the first time, I find myself thwarted in an attempt to do an assembly at the local primary school. This time, they gave me the wrong time, so I turned up an hour after the assembly had happened. In the past I have turned up only to be told that on one occassion…

  • 6'U

    Last night’s episode of Six Feet Under did end with a surprising thud. What I could not really come to terms with was the Quakers in the Quaker Meeting sitting in pews in rows. Are there really Quakers who don’t face one another in meeting? Their singing of Holly Near’s song “Singing for our Lives”…

  • Sermon – 2 October 2005

    One of the things that we are being asked as Christian people more and more, is to tell people how to live. We used to be the ones who were there to tell people how to come close to God, and many of us still want to do that. The trouble is, people think that…