• Guest Post: How to Hear a Sermon by Rosemary Hannah

    In this guest post, Rosemary Hannah reflects on how to hear a sermon. Rosemary teaches in TISEC, has just written the definitive biography of the Third Marquess of Bute and is a member of the congregation at St Mary’s.

    ‘I always listen to the sermon, knowing the word of God will reach me through it,’ he said, his face that misleading mask of innocence his class knew so well. We waited.

    ‘Of course,’ continued the Rev Jim Whyte, later to be Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, ‘Usually the word of God comes to me that the sermon is quite wrong.’

    To sit and listen to a sermon is a spiritual exercise. You settle back, and expectantly open yourself to God, and almost always he does speak. If you are listening to one of the Jim Whytes of this world, His word can be astonishingly direct. If you are listening to one of those who preached to Jim, it may easily come in other ways.

    Listening to a sermon is like beach-combing. Who knows what delights lie ahead? Anything from old rubbish through to bleached driftwood, birds crucified by the sea, or polished gems and gold rings. The important thing is to be awake to what may be there, for it may be anything.

    Each preacher has their own style. Generally Kelvin prefers a beguiling circuitous route to lead his listeners, apparently effortlessly, where he wants them to go. But there is also the sermon which takes the hard direct route to lead you into the experience of faith, sharing something of the anguish of the preacher; sermons it is a privilege to hear. Or you may get a discussion of any number of issues in a passage; something to puzzle over. I once sat for some years and listened to a preacher who specialised in picking Scripture apart so you could see the warp and weft of it, and I think I learned more from that than any other set of sermons I have heard; not so much the content of the passages, but how to square up honestly to the writing, and to trust the writer’s intelligence. Just occasionally there will be the sermon which suddenly throws open a door to a Biblical passage so that you see for the first time what it really means. This is for me both the most exhilarating and the most meaningful and the rarest of sermons.

    Then there are the sermons which start up some little wader on the shore. Sermons where you stop listening to the content being laid out from the pulpit and follow some delightful distraction set off by it. So the Good Samaritan used oil, you find yourself thinking, which is not so different from the ointment you buy to heal the dog’s cuts. You wonder how effective old remedies actually were, and how many scars the poor man who fell among thieves ended up with, and did he get word to his wife, and did somebody ever … That is all fine. Contemplating what childhood traumas caused the preacher’s attitude to life, or what execrable theological education formed his thoughts may seem less noble but be equally useful to those with responsibilities along those lines, or those seeking to awaken the need to care compassionately for the speaker in daily life – and dear knows our preachers often need care.

    But as you settle back into your comfortless seat (and actual chairs are far less accommodating than pews and nothing is at all like the squashy sofa I always think would be best place to listen to a sermon from) as you settle back, just remember to be open to everything, including the small voice which tells you God is actually nothing at all like the preacher imagines She is.

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

  • Links added

    I've added a link o­n the left to Dylan's lectionary blog – well worth checking out. (And thanks for the post further down the page, Dylan).I've also added o­ne to healyourchurchwebsite.com which is required reading.Talking of church websites, the o­ne for the diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney is worth checking out. The news is out…

  • Scottish Churches House

    I was at Scottish Churches House yesterday for a day conference for those who have been in their first ministry position for about five years. It was good to be with others from a variety of churches, though the two largest churches in Scotland were noticeably absent.We were asked to talk about some of the…

  • Yoga

    Who teaches cats to do yoga anyway?

  • Blogging

    The thing about blogging is that most people still don't understand its power yet. It is power sufficient to make new networks or break a traditional organisation. The church that I work in has always been an early adopter of technology – electic light, organ etc all arrived here before they arrived anywhere else. Predictably,…