• 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.”

12 responses to “Do you believe that God intervenes in the world?”

  1. Mark Chambers Avatar
    Mark Chambers

    I think this is probably the best way to think about prayer. When you say the world is affected by praying people, are you saying there is a link between prayer and improved behaviour or increased charity etc ?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Well, I guess if I think that I’m changed by prayer, I probably hope that it affects me for the better.

      I might even be prepared to say that unless prayer changes the person praying, it probably isn’t being done right at all.

  2. Dyfed Avatar

    Thanks for this thoughtful piece.

    I agree with you wholeheartedly that prayer is about me being silent before God for a moment. Such a silence is so necessary in the midst of our busy lives and busy minds.

    But I do believe in healing – physical, emotional, and spiritual. I have no experience of physical healing but I have plenty of experience of the emotional kind. As someone who was left very angry and full of shame following an episode of abuse as a young child, I have certainly known God’s love wash away those feelings as I have been prayed for by friends.

  3. Ruth Richards-Hill Avatar
    Ruth Richards-Hill

    Before I ever ventured into the concept of prayers being answered, my journey took me to a place where I asked myself “who or what is this G-d I am communicating with?”

    My idea of g-d has nothing to do with an old man with a long beard sitting in the clouds looking down on us, but rather a positive spiritual consciousness that we are all connected to.

    When I pray I tap into this consciousness and often prayer, when used as a form of meditation, brings to me the answers I need, even sometimes realising that they are not rhe answers I want.

    Does g-d intervene? In my interpretation definitely yes. But not necessarily in the way we traditionally expect. Intervention from G-d in my life has always involved realisations as to how I should deal with the very personal things I pray about and for. I have often cleared my mind for prayer in Church and found unthought of solutions to my problems come rushing into the void.

    As for tangible interventions such as g-d curing cancer, I think we find ourselves dealing with similar spiritual issues such as destiny, freedom of choice and the like which become interwoven with our concept of prayer and its use and usefulness.

    I do believe prayer brings healing too, but I could write a blogpost of my own about that.

    The question is a huge one, and if we can accept that the answer we get is not always the one we’re seeking then the value of prayer becomes priceless, regardless of our religious/spiritual path.

    I dont comment often, but I couldnt resist replying, sorry for the long reply.

  4. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    What do we mean by ‘intervene’??

    Not perhaps a foolish question. Let me put it another way, or rather let me borrow from Terry Pratchett/Neil Gaiman the words they put in the mouth of their sorely tempted (to save the world) Christ figure, a small boy: ‘Seems to me, the only sensible thing is for people to know that it they kill a whale they’ve got a dead whale.’ I am fond of saying that God lets us run around barefoot in the snow until we see the good sense in wearing wellies in it. The only way the world works is if it has consequences.

    That said, I think there are ways he does intervene.

    As regards prejudice – I’m with Shaw and Pratchett on that too – thoughts are too powerful to be let to run into paths which corrupt and anything that stops us seeing the equal worth of the life and love of another is downright evil. While people are made miserable, or made to suffer consequences, because their skin is one or another colour, or they love their own gender, or anything else which stops us valuing the person before us, then we can never let such attitudes breed in ourselves, or go unchallenged when they pass before us, whatever the cost. This is a quite different thing from disagreeing on matters which are almost certainly so complex that we struggle to understand them almost as much as my dogs struggle to understand when happens when I to work, and how that links into the bowls of food which turn for breakfast each day.

  5. Mark Chambers Avatar
    Mark Chambers

    Far be it from me to say what is and isn’t god or to doubt your experience but it could be said that your example of intervention is a common result from any meditation, religious or otherwise.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Yes, that’s right.

      But that doesn’t prove a great deal either. It could simply show that God is with those who least suspect that God is with them. (Which would fit rather with some of the ways in which Christians do understand God).

  6. RevRuth Avatar

    Just came across this…
    Lord, I do not presume to tell you what to do,
    or how and when to do it.
    I simply bring before you
    people who need your love,
    and needs which your grace alone can meet.
    Let love reign, O my God.
    Let grace avail.

  7. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    All the same, I do not wholly discount the possibility that God might have so structured things that he does actually need our help in praying for actual events (healing eg.)

    IF there IS ‘non-medical healing’ (and plenty of people believe in it) it would be just like God to so structure it that it is hard for him to do alone. He has, after all, structured justice that way, and absolutely enjoined us to join him in pursuing it. (FWIW, I believe that in the parable it is God who is the Importunate Widow).

  8. Tim Avatar

    I’m inclined to agree.

    Panentheistic immanence implies God is already *in* (and, indeed, permeating through) the world so the idea of intervention becomes moot.

  9. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    I believe that above all God really really wants us to grow up, take responsibility and help in his work – I believe most things are set up to draw us into this.

  10. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    I like that Tim – I think that yes ‘intervention’ fails to grapple with immanence.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • To Moffat

    To Moffat today for the Diocesan Council. “What is the Diocesan Council?”, I hear you ask, your interest piqued and your excitement rising. Well, the Diocesan Council consists of elected people from the different Regions of the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway who meet together several times a year to do the business that needs…

  • Whither the Kirk?

    I watched with interest the BBC documentary last night about the Church of Scotland. (A Church in Crisis on BBC 1 Scotland) I guess that those who were hoping for a celebration of 450 years since the Scottish Reformation were a little disappointed. The programme was something of a lament and really rather sad. They…

  • What’s in Kelvin’s Tooth

    If its Tuesday, it must be root canal treatment and another session of gazing into the eyes of Stylianos whilst he does things inside my mouth which feel like someone is twanging a rubber band behind my nose. Again. After some time poking and twanging, Stylianos shakes his head sadly and says, “No, the infection…

  • Glasgow Landmarks

    Oh, here’s something to do! If you like St Mary’s Cathedral, why not nominate it as one of Glasgow’s Landmarks on this page: http://www.glasgowlandmarks.org.uk/ Closing date for nominations is Wednesday at 5 pm.