What is in Kelvin's Head?

There is no shortage of grace – a sermon for 28 July 2024

30/07/2024

There lying in a kitchen cupboard they sit accusing me.

I’ve realised that the time has come to throw them all away because it won’t work properly anyway any more.

About a dozen small packets. Orange in colour. Each stamped with a best before date that is now about two years out of date anyway.

I must have struggled to get them in the first place. And yet they sit there unused.

My guess is that I won’t be the only person to have such a collection lying doing nothing in a cupboard.

It is my Emergency Pandemic Yeast Stash.

That’s right. We all had ways of coping with the first days of the pandemic a few years ago.

Some things were in short supply.

And as soon as you know that something is in short supply, that’s the thing you want most of all.

In the first days of the pandemic bread was in short supply – not because people had stopped making bread but because those who were worried took a couple more loaves.

No problem – I know how to make bread. I have a breadmaker. All I need is flour.

And then the flour started to run out – not because there wasn’t enough flour to feed everyone in the land but because everyone who could bake felt more reassured if it was in their own kitchen cupboard than in the shop down the road. And suddenly there was no flour to be had.

And once you’ve got the flour you need something to make it rise. And then the packets of yeast started to run out.

You know – there’s a whole encyclopaedic entry in Wikipedia all about what happened to home baking during the pandemic. It is one of those things that people are going to study in years to come.

People will write PhD’s on the spread of banana-bread recipes on the Southside of Glasgow during lockdown.

There will be studies done on the resurgence of sour dough as a metaphor for coping in difficult times.

But it is probably time to let my Emergency Pandemic Stash go the way of all flesh. It is out of date. And I need to throw it away.

I quite like making bread, but my little stash of old yeast tells me that I’ve not done it in quite a while. Scarcity made making bread seem incredibly important. But that time is past.

In this morning’s gospel there is also scarcity. The big story is the multiplication of loaves and fishes. Clearly there is a lack of food that the disciples ask Jesus to address. We’ll come onto that in a minute.

But not before noting that other things were scarce too.

Jesus had a large crown following him because they thought that he could give them something and what they were hoping for was more than an unexpected sandwich.

It is tempting to spiritualise it all and to suggest that they were looking for a spiritual teacher who spoke with authenticity and that perhaps there was a scarcity of people who did.

Well there’s pretty much always been a shortage of people who spoke with spiritual authenticity and anyway, the gospel writer is clear about why they were all pursuing him. They were following him because of the signs that he was doing for the sick.

In an age and a place devoid of modern universal healthcare it isn’t difficult to see why people were pursuing him.

If you go looking for commentary on this gospel passage, pretty soon you’ll get into a discussion about miracles.

Was the miracle of the multiplications of the loaves and the fishes like a magic trick or was it a social phenomenon?

Was it that there was suddenly more food than people had brought with them. Or was it that the sharing of the wee boy’s barley loaves and fishes prompted everyone present to share what they had.

Does it matter what kind of miracle a miracle is?

I’m not convinced that it does.

During the pandemic, despite all the chaos most supply chains held up and notwithstanding some shortages caused by people stashing away extra loaves and fishes in the freezer and you know, that feels like the miraculous to me.

Not everyone has enough in this country even though this country has enough.

I want to see the end to food poverty in my lifetime. Will there be enough people who desire that in public life to make it so?

Even the desire to make it so is evidence of miracle.

Do people need to chase religious leaders across the fields looking for healthcare in the land that we live in. No – and thank God they don’t.

Is the NHS perfect?

No.

Is the common, heartfelt and persistent desire to provide healthcare free at the point of need for everyone in this land a miracle? You bet.

We would live in the age of miracles if only we had the grace to recognise them all around us.

When a twelve-step group organises to help someone find a way back to sobriety there is miracle.

When musicians band together to provide music that is balm to the soul, there is miracle.

When artists provoke and surprise there is miracle.

When educators educate, when activists get the rest of us to take action, when human kindness makes us cry…

Does it every matter what kind of miracle a miracle is? Our God is a God of abundance anyway.

There is grace enough for thousands
Of new worlds as great as this;
There is room for fresh creations
In that upper room of bliss.

Ah yes, the upper room.

Many have come to the story of the loaves and fishes and seen in it the same shape as the meal in the upper room that happened on the last night of Jesus’s life – the same meal we share here. Jesus took the bread, broke it and gave thanks for it and distributed.

And grace and love broke out. Broke out not just in the room he was in but in every room and in every place that the Eucharist has ever been shared in.

Today is no different.

As the bread is shared today, join with Jesus in givng thanks. Give thanks for the miracles around you. They may be things that other people wouldn’t see as miracles at all. Indeed, it is very likely that they won’t be.

Life can be tough. Living isn’t always easy.

But rejoice – God is good. And meets us with enough for today. There is no shortage of grace.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

barley loaves, enough grace, five loaves, grace, pandemic baking, Sermon, two fishes

10 responses to “The Church of England and its Bishops”

Joan H Craig

20/11/2012

You put it well, and I agree with all that you say. In one sense it is a very sad day for priests who are women. In another, parity is crucial 🙁

Reply
Patrick Smith

20/11/2012

I am not a regular C of E communicant now but have been so in my life and I unequivocally support the proper human rights entitlement of women to serve equally as Bishops.I think that the women priests appear to have been too inclined, cap in hand, to compromise that would still have deemed women bishops, as second class.This Vote, according to some of their spokespersons was as far as the talented women priests could get, amongst the conservative antis, in the C of E.

Surely,that in our enlightened world men do not hold a monopoly on either the aspiration to achieve good in their work or to eclipse human goodness in prayer,mission and faith in the ranks of the C of E? The Bishops and Clergy have seen that women are now do one third of active work in the C of E but do not have parity at the top table.

Why is it the case that women are ordained in the US and NZ and have served their communities equally, as men, over 20 years? Whereas, in the C of E at home, the vision of the Laity Synod threatens to derrogate the status of women, as if the clock had been turned back into Victorian times and before the Suffragettes had started their quest for universal suffrage and equality in work for women.

Reply
Duncan MacLaren

20/11/2012

Nigel McCulloch said in the debate, “If you wait for the perfect piece of legislation, you’ll be waiting for ever.”
I can understand the principled position that you don’t want to pass flawed and discriminatory legislation: but I can’t help thinking this would be better than acquiescing for another 5 years in an even more discriminatory status quo.
Had women bishops been voted in, they would have had five years to demonstrate practically to their opponents that they were competent, valuable, indispensable, talented and undeniably called leaders in the church. Instead, we now have the task of creating legislation the opponents will like even less (because it won’t make space for their position), and then trying to get it voted through. And five years of practical experience – perhaps the best argument – wasted.
If there were six lay liberals (the margin of votes) who voted ‘no’ on principle this evening, I wonder how long before they will rue the day? Principle is all very well, but possession is nine-tenths of the law. Had women been granted this possession, we could have spent the next five years chasing down the discriminatory clauses: as it is, we are back to square one. Barren theological argument now prevails over the witness and example of flesh and blood women.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  20/11/2012
  
  I understand that view, Duncan. I’d agree with it if there was any evidence in the last 20 years of anyone either trying or succeeding to eliminate the flying bishops that were created last time around. It is much, much easier to create good legislation than to repeal, tinker and undo bad legislation.
  
  Reply
2. Augur Pearce
  
  21/11/2012
  
  As I see it part of the problem was the large number of Synod members who wanted to see women bishops but thought that unity was more important than principle, and were therefore prepared to compromise. The ideal scenario would not have been rejection of the Measure, but an amendment to get rid of the discriminatory clauses. That wasn’t possible because the ‘unity party’ (for want of a better name) would have allied with the fundamentalists to defeat it. I hope that those who made up this ‘unity party’ will now realise the time for compromise is past and support legislation which, as you say, the opponents will like even less because it wonâ€™t make space for their position. I believe such legislation would pass, but would lead the fundamentalists to dissent from the C of E and form their own conventicles (as many have done before them, for better reasons). There would then be some hope of the General Synod addressing other equality issues, such as marriage…
  
  Reply
Tim

20/11/2012

Could it be said that it spent too long cooking?

The impression I get is that the SEC was quite decisive in dealing with the Covenant earlier.
What I’ve seen with the CoE looks like internalized via-media meeting a half-open door – and no wonder some people use the word “irrelevant”. As such, I’m wondering if it shouldn’t have simply been “women bishops, yes or no?” a while ago and then there wouldn’t have been such clumsy inaccuracy of reporting, at least…

Reply
Ritualist Robert

21/11/2012

I have to say, regretfully, that I am relieved it didn’t pass because, imho, it allowed for far too many ‘provisions’ for so-called traditionalists. Their arguments seem to be based on one of the most vile theological concepts ever invented – ‘taint’ – though, of course, nobody admits to it. I understand the Evangelicals’ objections (though I disagree with them), but I am flummoxed by things like the ‘traditionalist’ catholics’ demand for ‘flying bishops’ (a concept which fails any test for catholicity) and attacks the very basis of Anglican Church structure and order – that of a bishop acting as the Ordinary in his/her diocese. Choosing one’s bishop based on whether one likes their theological outlook is quite a novelty, but it’s one that the so-called traditionalists insist on being allowed. Moreover, to claim to be catholic surely means to support the Church. When the Church of England ordained women for the first time surely it was up to those catholics who disagreed to either (a) conform their minds to the mind of the Church – surely the duty of anyone who calls themselves catholic – or (b) to have enough integrity to part with the Church and find another spiritual home.

Instead we have so-called traditionalists promoting what are essentially congregationalist novelties whilst claiming – falsely, I believe – to be catholics, all the while arguing for a distinctly non-catholic version of the Church.

Reply
Justin Reynolds

22/11/2012

If politics is ‘the art of the possible’ then surely all liberals should have backed the measure, whatever its flaws. The notion that one day we will all be marching hand in hand towards the sunlit progressive uplands is somewhat fantastic, I think.

Everyone who joins the C of E, or indeed the SEC, knows what kind of church it is: essentially progressive (as witnessed by the Synod vote) but with significant minorities opposed to change. And it isn’t like a political party where arguments are conducted in the field of political philosophy and politics with a realistic hope that the mind of the party might change decisively over time in one direction or other. In the case of the church disputes are necessarily more intransigent, concerned with the interpretation of revelation and long standing traditions. These disagreements take decades, indeed centuries, to resolve, in so far as they can be resolved at all.

Perhaps those who can’t live with compromise, be they conservative or liberal, should consider whether they are actually in the right denomination at all, rather than hoping that one day – sooner rather than later – everyone will agree with them. It’s often noted that conservatives can go Orthodox or Roman Catholic, as indeed some have. It’s less often suggested that liberals might consider Unitarianism or Quakerism. I say that as a liberal who has at various times wavered between those two – and others – and Episcopalianism. I’ve ended up as an Episcopalian, but I did so knowing full well the intractable nature of the disagreements besetting the denomination, and that I had to live with them or simply go elsewhere. It seems to me that Christians are far too sentimental and attached to particular denominations.

Also, with respect Rowan Williams’ tenure can hardly be seen as an ‘abject failure’. Everyone knew he believed in conciliation and compromise when he was selected. His liberalism on a number of issues only formed a component of his theology. And his intellectual contribution over the past decade to British national life has been significant, particularly in regard to political and economic issues. His archepiscopate has gone some way towards restoring Anglicanism’s intellectual credibility: witness the tributes from secular as well as religious quarters on news of his retirement.

Reply
Seph

22/11/2012

Apparently Diana Johnson MP (Lab., Hull North) is planning to bring a ten-minute rule bill in the new year which will include a clause calling for women bishops. Parliament could succeed here where General Synod failed.

Reply
Rosie Bates

02/12/2012

Check out Bristol Diocese action re Vote of No Confidence in Synod! How lovely on the mountains are the feet of Him who brings Good News! Hope the rest take note and follow a fine example. Hope in this Advent message. Bishop Mike was an Area Bishop in Oxford Diocese and likely to be very clued up to certain of their Synod Reps games which cannot be stopped before July without reform or, at the very least, tough love.

Reply