• Sermon for Epiphany 4

    If you look carefully at the video, you might spot the moment when I realised that I didn’t have all the pages of this sermon with me in the pulpit.

    Sermon preached on 1 February 2015 from Kelvin Holdsworth on Vimeo.

    Come out and shut up

    On Friday, we celebrated a commemoration in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Not one that matters to most people. Not one that is graded high enough to automatically merit a mass. Not indeed, one that most people will have thought much about at all.

    However, last Friday was the commemoration of Charles I – King and Martyr as some liturgical books in our tradition describe him.

    I don’t want particularly to preach a defence of Charles I here today. However, I do want to call him to mind as a jumping off point before we get into looking at the bible passages in the light of our own times. For those of you who don’t know the history of this country, Charles I was a King who ended up being beheaded. And all manner of trouble came to the Scottish Episcopal Church because it maintained its allegiance to the Stuart cause afterwards. Within 50 years various penal laws had been passed restricting the ability of Episcopalians in Scotland to worship freely. For a time, it was a crime for Episcopalians to baptise people or marry them. And for a time, it was illegal for a cleric to minister to more than 5 people at a time and the punishment, if you were caught doing so a couple of times, was transportation for life.

    We had a way round it in Glasgow – Episcopalians would gather in old rooming houses – primitive tenements if you like and groups of five would meet in each room and all leave the door open onto the stair. And the priest would stand on the landing and shout (or maybe yell) the service so that everyone in each of the rooms could hear it but he couldn’t be accused of speaking to anything more than 5 people.

    Occasionally I’ve thought of trying to recreate this scene in the tenement I now live in, particularly when I had downstairs neighbours who were fond of Saturday evening parties.

    There’s a certain romance about thinking about the people of the past getting around the penal laws in that way.

    However, the danger with looking back is that we see the past through rosy spectacles and forget reality. Episcopalians need to remember that we were capable of doling out persecution to others when we managed to get hold of the levers of power.

    In particular this year, we will be reminded of this as the Roman Catholic Church remembers the 400th anniversary of the martyrdom of St John Ogilvie. It is the case that the Episcopalian bishop of the time – one of Bishop Gregor’s predecessors in effect, had a direct part in Ogilvie’s capture, trial and death. Indeed John Ogilvie was keep imprisoned in the Bishop’s palace.

    Now, I’m remembering some of the religious conflicts of the past this morning not just because there’s an Old Firm game this afternoon but rather because I want to think about one of the big questions of the day in the light of our scripture readings. And in the light of the fact that our scripture readings this morning are not really much help.

    Over the last few weeks we’ve been forced into thinking about free speech. None of us saw it coming, but the murders of the cartoonists in Paris suddenly uncovered huge questions which I think we probably still have some way to go in trying to answer.

    Is free speech a right? Is it absolute? Are there limits?

    Cast your mind back to the first reading that we had this morning.

    Did it give you a sense of outrage to hear it read in church? Maybe it should do. Maybe that’s the point of reading it.

    The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet – But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.

    Free speech does not come naturally to us.

    And that should give us pause for thought.

    I was also struck by the gospel reading this morning. It comes at the start of the Gospel of Mark that we are reading this year. Presumably that story comes in the first chapter because it was thought to be important. It comes right after the call of the disciples.

    And the first thing that Jesus is presented as doing after gathering the disciples is telling someone in the synagogue very firmly to shut up.

    It is one of those times where Jesus doesn’t seem to be terribly nice. Not terribly Christian, in the way that people often presume Christian to mean.

    God wants to kill dissenting prophets. Jesus tells the first person he encounters outside his close group to shut up.

    There’s no free speech there.

    I wanted to highlight this because I think it is important sometimes to remember that Scripture isn’t helpful to us and we need to know where to turn when that is the case.

    In particular I think we need to remember that the Anglican tradition, which we belong to here, looks to other sources of authority as well as scripture – in particular, tradition and reason.

    And perhaps they are more help when we are trying to think about the free speech controversies of our day.

    The conflicts of the past that I’ve spoken of this morning remind us that we’ve been on both ends of religious persecution and attempts to silence people because of their faith. And maybe that gives us permission to try to work out what appropriate ethics of freedom of expression for our own times. Our own tradition here has been silenced. And our own tradition has done some of the silencing.

    Our own tradition has been persecuted. Our own tradition has done the persecuting.

    People of our own traditions died. People of our own tradition caused others to die.

    And that experience should help us see modern controversies from both sides.

    And maybe that experience from our history can inform us in using reason as we try to work out what to say about free speech today.

    So I’ll tell you where I think the limits lie and you can tell me later or discuss online whether you think I’m anywhere near what’s reasonable. Because everything is a conversation these days. Or at least, everything should be.

    I think that freedom of speech is something that allows us to worship in this city, in this building, in this way, at this time.

    That experience makes me think that we’re onto something important in modern society in believing that free speech matters. And that should make us want to defend it strongly from our religious experience, if not from our scriptures and our history.

    However, as victims of hatred that led to persecution, we’ve also got something to say to those who would see themselves today as being victims of hate-speech.

    I think that freedom of speech is vital but has to be limited. And the line I would draw, and the line that I think the law tries to draw is, where speech becomes a weapon and is used to threaten others with harm.

    And because I’ve said that everything is a conversation these days, here are some questions that are worth thinking about this week.

    • Having heard today an argument from scripture against freedom of speech – can we think of things which would support it?
    • Having been both the persecuted and the persecutors in our own history, can we see things both from the point of view of those holding up their pencils and demanding a right to say anything and also from the point of view of those on the receiving end of a freedom being used to abuse and mock things others hold dear?
    • Lastly, as people who believe God to be good and loving, how can we convey that love to those whom we meet this week?

    For I think that the world needs that love right now.

    Can we commit ourselves in our minds this day to show forth God’s love wherever we go.

    Can you do that this week?

    I think that might be the gospel we are called to share this week.

    It might be worth remembering the saying purported to St Francis of Assisi. – “Preach the gospel. Use words… if you have to.”

10 responses to “Where does the Church of Scotland stand?”

  1. Robin Avatar
    Robin

    I understand your sentiments, but both on this issue and on the ordination of women in the Church of England the weary words of Mrs Boyle in Sean O’Casey’s ‘Juno and the Paycock’ in reply to her son, who scorns the Irish Free State and wants an Irish Republic or nothing, are inclined to come to mind:

    “To be sure, to be sure — no bread’s a lot better than half a loaf.”

  2. Nick Brindley Avatar

    I think you’re right to think this is a disastrously wrong-headed attempt to avoid having to think the issue through, although we may not agree on what would be involved in such thinking (almost nobody agrees with me!)

    I think we need to revisit some pretty fundamental problems on the nature of the moral authority of the Bible, the meaning of “salvation” and what ministry is to make any real progress with this issue and there appears to be depressingly little appetite to do this in a spirit of mutual trust and of trust in the leading of the Spirit guiding our interpretation of scripture

    http://loveswork.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/failing-to-be-biblical-reflections-on-church-of-scotland-sexuality-debates/

  3. Frank keefe Avatar
    Frank keefe

    This is what happens when you water down Gods truth so the secular world will think what a progressive church you are.When a small secular wedge is pushed under a church door you can bet a larger one will be pushed under it in the not to distant future.I believe a liberal minded church like the Church of Scotland is more dangerous to the Christian faith than atheists like Richard Dawkins and his followers. Jesus found it hard to convince the Pharisees of their misguided beliefs if He walked our earth today He would find those modern day Pharisees in the Church of Scotland even harder to convince.

    1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      Well, there you go – I think the exact opposite – that Jesus, who plucked corn, and healed, on the Sabbath, would be out partying tonight with all sorts of disreputable people. The Pharisees were the people who stuck rigidly to the law, breaking it even as they kept it. Jesus was the one who re-interpreted it.

      1. Frank keefe Avatar
        Frank keefe

        I find it amazing how those who look for sin to be accepted would try and use Jesus to back them up.First Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.The Pharisees abused Gods law with their legalism.Its why He said about the rescue of a sheep on that day.He didnt re-interpret it He was showing them how it SHOULD BE KEPT as God ALWAYS intended it.Its the church who is doing the interpretation and Jesus certainly wouldnt be “out partying” such disrespect of our Lords holiness is often the way with liberal ” Christians” Instead of the church being a light to the world that worlds darkness is putting out that light.

        1. kelvin Avatar

          Bless you for your faith, Frank. May it bring you happiness and joy.

  4. Graeme Cowie Avatar

    It’s a fudge, no doubt. And one which, far from preserving the “traditional” Kirk actually serves to undermine it in a number of ways, particularly concerning the status of “doctrine” and who gets to determine what it is, or at least what practical meaning it is for something to be “doctrine” rather than merely a personal religious sentiment. Explicitly to permit complete deviation from “doctrine” by congregations is not very Presbyterian, and the “traditionalists” either didn’t seem to realise that, or they care about preserving substantial doctrines at the expense of, well, what makes the Kirk the Kirk.

    To an extent, though, you could see it coming. I think the traditionalist wing sensed they would lose if it was a straight choice (unfortunate phrase) between 2A and 2B, and so tried to push for something that retains a symbolic attachment to historical doctrine whilst letting liberals have the lion’s share of the cake they want, which is to be able to ordain those in committed same-sex relationships and to be done with it. I know for a fact that a fair whack of liberal commissioners were swayed by 2D (not including my parents, who are CofS ministers who voted with option 2A), many seeing it as a way of letting the traditionalists have some sort of phyric victory whilst in fact enabling ministers to be in civil partnerships without any lasting problems. It is much more likely that 2D will make it through Barrier Act procedure now that it’s got the traditionalists’ name on it, and notwithstanding the extra year it’s going to take to turn it into a proper overture, I think the consensus of the Kirk is that they really want to stop talking about this.

    The new system ought to be fairly robust once the Legal Questions Committee have had their teeth dug into it. The clear intention was conceded by the movers that they did not intend for Presbyteries to be able to discipline or annul decisions made by Kirk Sessions seeking to be allowed to appoint ministers in civil partnerships, and for a lot of liberals (and actually, a lot of those on the conservative wing too) this will be seen as a critical part of the compromise if it is to be laid to rest. My only real concern is that if the traditionalists are for any reason unhappy with the implementation by LQC it could lead to the whole debate re-opening in GA 2014.

    It’s clearly not enough for many liberal ministers, elders and members of the Church of Scotland, for whom this still presents a partial sense of “separate not equal” for congregation and minister alike, and it probably makes it more difficult for the theological position of the kirk formally to be moved away from same sex relationships being sinful, now that the “practical harms” are in a significant sense out of the way, but by Church of Scotland standards, it’s a major step forward for a very broad church, and one which has probably saved it from a major schism (though a handful of churches may still leave over and above The Tron and Gilc South). For those of us in the Kirk 5 years ago, this would have been virtually unthinkable, and momentum has picked up since the Rennie case 4 years ago. The good fight goes on, and hurdles remain, but if it gets through Barrier Act procedure I think the practical objectives, in a Kirk which already offers substantial liberty of personal opinion in matters of doctrine which do not enter into the substance of faith, have largely been met, albeit in a roundabout way.

    For more of my thoughts on this matter, see:

    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/church-of-scotland-religious-progress.html

    and

    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/presbyterianism-cracking-at-seems-cost.html

  5. Margaret of the Sea of Galilee Avatar
    Margaret of the Sea of Galilee

    And it still does not properly address how LGBTQ people (single or in civil partnerships) will be dealt with (dealt to?) when they offer themselves to Presbyteries as feeling called to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. Will they be asked about their orientation? Questioned? Interrogated? What responses will allow them to or prevent them from pursuing that call?

    Who is this Albert Bogle anyway – is he about to become the first to be beatified by the Kirk and for what exactly? By-passing (even disregarding) Kirk “Order”, convincing his important friends to let him bulldoze ahead and his less important friends to print off 700 and something copies of a Deliverance which is incoherent and unimplementable.
    Off to read Revelation for other signs of The End Times…
    .

  6. Peter W Nimmo Avatar

    Kelvin, you make lots of good points in your post. But just to clarify- what is the doctrine and practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church on this issue? Does your doctrine approve of persons in civil partnerships being clergy, and is that put into practice?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Yes – there are quite a number of clergy in civil partnerships. In England, Anglican clergy in civil partnerships are supposed to declare that they are “celibate”. That isn’t the case in Scotland.

      The pension scheme in Scotland recognises Civil Partnerships by giving such partners the same benefits as wives or husbands in marriages. Civil Partners also are treated in the same way with regard to housing as a straight spouse if a relationship breaks down.

      Any candidate for ordination who is in a Civil Partnership is expected to be honest about that at selection.

      The bishops of the church announced a few years ago that they would not consecrate anyone as bishop who was in a Civil Partnership. They were clear at the time that this was a moratorium. However it is not clear to me whether that moratorium still stands. I do expect there to be questions about that at the coming Synod.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Other Montezuma Reviews

    There are a couple of other Montezuma reviews out there: Conrad Wilson in the Herald liked it. (4 stars – no mention of the dog) Rowena Smith in the Guardian hated it. (2 stars – no mention of the dog except in comments) Conrad Smith also hated it. (2 stars and concern for the dog’s…

  • Montezuma

    Montezuma by Carl Heinrich Graun to a libretto by Frederick II, King of Prussia Rating: This review should appear in due course on the Opera Britannia web-page. King’s Theatre, Edinburgh – 14 August 2010 Despite a somewhat slow start to proceedings, this Edinburgh Festival production of Montezuma was an inventive, surprising and ultimately very enjoyable…

  • Commercial Break

    We interrupt our usual coverage to bring you a short commercial break.