• Can the Epi Scopal Church speak of the love of God?

     

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

    Identity matters. It always has of course but these days it seems to matter a huge amount.

    And one of the most difficult things for Scottish Episcopalians is to explain to others who we are.

    The name doesn’t help of course.

    Scottish Episcopal always sounds a bit more like an Edinburgh based insurance company than a part of the church universal. And the simple truth is that a lot of people have never heard of us, or if they’ve heard of us have no real idea who we are.

    Tricky names make things difficult.

    My name is one that lots of people get wrong. One of the great advantages for me in living so close to Glasgow’s greatest, if not widest river is that I live within the only few square miles of the world where I seldom have to spell my name to people.

    This came home to me once when I was gearing myself up to do a national broadcast on the BBC. And I could hear the continuity announcer in the headphones I was wearing introducing me live on air as the Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth. I sighed deeply just before the red light went on ready for me to be bright and perky to the nation. And I heard him finish his sentence with, “… the Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth, from St Mary’s Epi-Scopal Cathedral in Glasgow”.

    The Epi-Scopal sounds more like a procedure that you would have done at Gartnavel than an identity that you would want to be known by.

    The truth is, we’ve not been doing terribly well as a church with getting people to know who we are.

    My view is that this is one of the biggest jobs that the Scottish Episcopal Church has on its hands at the moment. No-one is going to learn anything about the love of God from us if they think we are an insurance company or a ghastly piece of medical equipment that goes up your nose, down your throat or ….

    No, let’s not think about where else an Epi Scopal might go.

    But it is a job that can be done. We can reclaim our space in the public life and consciousness though probably not by being meek and mild.

    This week I found myself being asked to talk to dozens of young LGBT activists who were gathered in Edinburgh for a conference. I was asked to join a human library. The idea being that the young people could come and speak to all the exhibits and hear our stories and ask us question.

    I know of no process more clearly designed to make you feel ancient. But the young people treated us all like national treasures and had good questions.

    And they all wanted to know what church I came from.

    And I tried to explain.

    Are you like the catholics? Yes

    Are you like the Lutherans? Yes

    Are you a bible church? Yes

    Are you a Reformed Church? Yes.

    It was a little puzzling for them.

    Until they started asking questions that were a bit like the questions that were being put to Jesus in the gospel this morning. Then we started getting somewhere.

    Well, what do you think about marriage? Who can be married? What do you think about divorce? What does your church teach?

    And I found that my identity was being seen through the lens of what they thought were decent ethics.

    And I don’t really have a problem with that.

    I think our ethics – the way we behave are our calling cards. People will remember us by the way we behave at least as much as by what we say.

    I find it interesting that religious groups in Jesus’s day found their identities in what their leaders taught about marriage.

    And I find it interesting that Jesus is sitting down with his disciples and giving his take on marriage and talking about how it is changing.

    Marriage was political then as it is now. Jesus is in the part of the world where John the Baptist had his head cut off for challenging Herod’s marital behaviour. His answers to the questions here are not just about what the man or woman on the Jerusalem omnibus is to think about marriage and divorce but had political overtones.

    Jesus is using language which might put him at risk from harm – which may be why some of his teaching about it seems to be done in private with just the disciples.

    As I was preparing this sermon, I saw others on social media having trouble trying to work out what to say about it. Mark 10 is a difficult chapter for many to preach on.

    I think that it is no problem at all if we are prepared to accept and preach boldly and with confidence the truth, which is that the body of Christ today teaches things differently about marriage than the person of Jesus did when gathered in private with his disciples.

    We don’t believe that someone who is divorced is committing adultery when they remarry. That was one of the questions the young activists asked me this week.

    We believe and teach something different to Jesus in his name because we believe in our day that the love of God commands us to have compassion.

    We live in a place and time where we teach that God’s love compels us to recognise that sometimes people need another start, and recognise that sometimes the ending of a marriage may prepare the way for new life better than staying in something that is not working, abusive and painful.

    And we do so in Jesus’s name believing that we are following him in sharing compassion and love in the world, notwithstanding these few verses of Mark chapter 10.

    I believe that the Jesus who said, “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. “ would do the same if he lived in our day.

    I’ll probably never convince the fundamentalists.

    But then you never can.

    Last week’s gospel included the line that if your eye sins you should pluck it out.

    Cedric nudged me in the ribs and pointed at the preacher and said, “but he’s got two eyes, why should we listen to a word he says”.

    My response to that gospel is always the same- Never trust a two-eyed fundamentalist.

    And maybe that can shine a light on Jesus’s words that we hear today. Maybe the same sense of Hebraic hyperbole is going on. If you get married, stay married he says and does so with a force that seems downright unreasonable now but in his day was part of the daily rhetoric.

    But then he says, “oh, and let all the little ones come unto me”.

    And he loves them and he blesses them

    I know where I hear most the God of Love in today’s the gospel as I read it in our times.

    And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.

    Our identity in the world will be found when we can do the same.

    In the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit. Amen.

9 responses to “Who we are”

  1. Susan Sheppard Hedges Avatar
    Susan Sheppard Hedges

    I have a question… What were the genders of these two persons?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Person 1 was male. Person 2 was female.

  2. Suz Cate Avatar
    Suz Cate

    I arrived here in June, after graduating from the fine institution where you are visiting now and my subsequent ordination as transitional deacon. When I am ordained to the priesthood in December, I will be the first woman to serve as priest at St. James. I have sensed a growing excitement, especially among the women here, about the ministry of a woman priest–not unlike the the frisson expressed in the visitor’s statement: “Really? Wow! All this, and divorce and women priests.” We are figuring out together what difference it makes who we are, and on most days it is exciting!

  3. Calum Avatar
    Calum

    I think the exchange is completely adorable. But also bang-on accurate. The Piskies are indeed “the ones with woman priests” – it’s not a bad moniker to be known by, is it? Although progress is still to be made in certain parts, I think it’s positive that that might be how some people identify and distinguish Episcopalians.

  4. Tracey Avatar
    Tracey

    The first time I attended an Episcopal church (in California), and they invited me to a picnic afterward on the church grounds. I agreed to stay on, but was kind of dreading it… and then I saw the ice chests full of cans of lager. So yeah, I have to admit that it was at first beer and later, divorce (both of which had caused me to become ostracised from my family) and women priests (i’d been brought up in a fundamentalist church where women were to keep silent in church) that made me become really interested in finding my way into this wonderful, welcoming, non-judgemental, and inclusive group where hell-fire and brimstone and damnation and punishment were never a part of the lovely, uplifting and inspiring sermons.

  5. Nädine Daniel Avatar

    Well in one way, the lack of awareness is pretty depressing, but the willingness to give the Cathedral a try would be encouraging, where it not for the perception that divorce made a denomination more acceptable. Frankly I don’t care what brings someone into a Church, any Church; just so long as we make them want to stay and discover the love of Christ once they get there.

  6. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    I come to this from another angle – a liberal church background. It does not come to me as a surprise to hear women preach, teach and lead. I rejoice in it but the equality of women is no news to me

    Divorce – well, to me it is never more than an admission of failure. Not something to be celebrated and welcomed, but a sad admission that things which started so very happily and hopefully and with such love, have ended in heartbreak. That my sometime husband left me for another woman in the church came pretty close to breaking my heart, and was one of those knife-edge things. A thing where either there will be just damage and misery and loss, or one day a resurrection, and you do not know which. That for me the balance finally tipped to life does not mean that divorce is something I want to rejoice in as I do in the ministry of women.
    That God can turn evil to good is a blessing. It does not do however to continue in evil that He gets a better opportunity at such transformations. I would a jolly sight rather we were known for work for social justice, for respect for the environment, and for really positive things.

    Beauty however – whether sound or image or architecture or the spoken word – yes I love us to be known for that and I rejoice in it.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I suspect that what we may really talking about here is not actually divorce, but the question of whether divorce and remarriage bars one from communion.

  7. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Recently our Government had the stunning idea that ‘victims’ ought to be choosing the sentences of those who had offended against them. This is my idea of a utter nightmare – to have not merely the need to undertake one’s own recovery, for which one is of course responsible, but to then have to undertake some responsibility for the rehabilitation of those who have offended one strikes me as a bridge too far. I could never ask that somebody is turned away from communion because of an offence against me, and therefore I cannot ask that they are turned away because of a sin against others. I don’t really believe in that kind of God.

    Yet there is a problem. Of all the bad moments I had over the divorce, one of the very worst was the moment I walked alone into church and saw in a prominent pew my husband, who had left but from whom I was not yet legally separated, sitting shoulder to shoulder with his new partner. I ended in the nearest pew on my knees, helplessly sobbing, unable to hide my distress. That should not happen to anybody and it should not be up to the ‘victims’ (however much we espouse a doctrine of equal blame for marriage failure) to protect themselves from such a thing.

    I took communion every week with the lady with whom my husband now lived, and every week I had to forgive her anew in order to offer the Peace and forgive her. It was, to put it mildly, a big ask. That, to me, is the essential reality of divorce, and I really, really, really do have the right to say that we may have divorce and we may have to live with it, but the reality of it is pain and hard hard work. I find no ‘Wow!’ anywhere in it. It was hard and bitter punishment for all the stupid things I had managed to do in 30 years of marriage.

    There is always a cost to be borne for such things. We believe in forgiveness and fresh starts, and I must suppose the ‘Wow!’ is for that – but such things are costly. I believe they are always costly for God, and most usually they are costly for humans too. I don’t want humans judged, but – but where the joy of person A is bought at the price of the pain of person B we need to tread exceedingly circumspectly.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • “Marriage is a sacrament”

    Here’s the third and final video that I’ll be posting this week from the collection of equal marriage campaign videos. It is Jaye and Ruth who are a married couple who are members of St Mary’s. They had to travel to South Africa to get married. They’ve been very much some of the most visible…

  • This is a church for everybody

    Yesterday I reposted the It’s Time video from the equality network which features a 1 second cameo of me waving a sign. They filmed that over a year ago and as they collected those sign-waving people – religious leaders, celebs, couples, politicians etc they also asked them in front of the camera why they were…

  • It’s Time for a Vote

    This week we get to a significant point in the campaign for more equal marriage law in Scotland. On Wednesday there will be a vote in the parliament at Holyrood. Whilst there has been a lot of pre-scrutiny of the legislation and a long political process already, this is the first time that members of…

  • The Christian Year and Social Media

    I do love the way that the Christian Year is becoming more important to Christians because of social media. When I check my facebook and twitter feeds in a morning I can be pretty sure that there will be something there which relates to what season or more likely what day we have got to…