![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sermon for Epiphany 3
Jan. 22nd, 2023 10:40 pmSermon for Epiphany 3, Year A
St Nicholas Church, Leicester, 22nd January 2023
1 Corinthians 1.10-18
Matthew 4.12-23
“I’m for Philip North”, “I’m for women priests”, “I’m for equal marriage”, “I’m for biblical marriage”
If like me, you’ve spent time on Twitter in the last couple of weeks, or even if you have just been paying attention to Church news, you may recognise the arguments and the way in which Christians, particularly Anglican and specifically CofE Christians have been shouting at each other in *and within* our various tribes.
I can’t criticise – I’ve been shouting along in various debates – despite the fact I’ve also been sitting with tonight’s readings and particularly the epistle since Manuela and I agreed I’d preach tonight a couple of months ago. And realised that I needed to tackled the reading about unity here in St Nicholas because unity so often feels as though it is weaponised against us. We can’t have equality because others will break up the Anglican Communion if we do.
We may know the ins and outs of our current debates. We’re probably less clear what the Corinthians
were arguing about – what were the differences between Paul, Apollos and Cephas? Acts and other parts of Paul’s letters give us clues. Apollos is mentioned in Acts 18 and 19, when he comes to Ephesus after Paul has visited briefly. He is “well-versed in the scriptures” “instructed in the Way of the Lord” spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus – BUT “knew only the baptism of John”. Priscilla and Aquilla (who had come from Corinth with Paul), explain things more accurately and then Apollos goes over to Corinth and Paul comes back to Ephesus to find believers who haven’t heard of the Holy Spirit and have only received John’s Baptism. So they are baptised in the name of Jesus and Paul lays his hands on them and they receive the Spirit Later, in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul says “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” .
Cephas is probably better known to us as Peter. We heard in last week’s Gospel how, according to John, Andrew tells his brother Simon about having found the Messiah (anointed one) and bringing Simon to Jesus who says “‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)”. We know from Acts that Peter and Paul disagree about expectations on Gentile believers – do they have to be circumcised or not?
This was a bitter disagreement and Paul gets passionate about it; in the letter to the Galatians we read ”I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” So Paul isn’t afraid of disagreeing with his fellow Christians, and yet, tonight we hear
Paula Gooder in her book Lydia, which imagines the Church in Philippi when it receives Paul’s letter, explores a similar passage in Philippians 2 about thinking the same thing. Syntyche points out it’s impossible and Ruth asks who gets to decide what the one thing we’re allowed to think? But Manius uses the context of the rest of the letter to tease out what it might mean, pointing to the passage that says “Don’t act from selfish intrigue or vanity, but in humility regard others as better than yourself. Don’t look out for your own concerns, but let each person look out for the concerns of others” and when some of them still don’t really follow, Caius points to two other characters who are not in the church and have been locked in a struggle to show who has the most power and influence and says
It’s about solidarity. I’m reminded of Mark in the film Pride pointing out that the Gays and the miners were hated by the same people and so they should stand in solidarity
The Greek here for “in the same mind” is εν τω αυτο νοι and νους “mind” is at the heart of the Greek translated as “Repent” in the Gospel μετανοειτε . To be a Christian is to think differently. The closeness of the Kingdom of heaven changes things.
But what does this mean in our current debates?
The Bishops have finally published their response to Living in Love and Faith and the arguments continue! Feelings of anger, disappointment, anxiety, frustration run high. It has gone too far for some and not nearly far enough for others.
The Church Times headline was “Bishops propose blessing same-sex unions, but resist calls for marriage”.
This sets it up as a loss for those of us who want the church to celebrate marriages regardless of gender in church. But I am not sure that this is entirely fair. And if we are to have the same mind, we need to be fair to each other’s positions.
As far as I can tell, the reason the response doesn’t go as far as proposing a change in our doctrine of marriage being between one man and one woman is because for such a change to get through Synod it needs a 2/3 majority in each house. We saw in November 2012 great disappointment when the motion to allow women bishops fell short the needed 2/3 majority in the House of Laity. Someone I follow on Twitter commented that they had gone through all the statements of those elected to Synod in the Houses of Laity and Clergy last year, and it was clear from them that over a third of each house is opposed to a change to the marriage canons. The bishops say in their response “While there is a range of convictions held by the bishops about this important matter, we have not found sufficient consensus to propose a change in doctrine at the present time.” I take “sufficient consensus” as meaning “enough to change the canons”, i.e. 2/3rds. To take forward a proposal that is highly likely to fail (though does that downplay the role of the Spirit in the deliberations of General Synod) would result in more heartbreak. And while at times in following General Synod debates since I watched the 1992 debate on women priests as a 13year old newly confirmed person, I’ve been frustrated by having to get a 2/3rds majority, the Brexit referendum made me realise that there are good reasons for needing them!
The Archbishop of York at the press conference said he thought the response led us into “a good place”, I’m not quite sure I agree with him, because there is still a way to go, but I think it is a better place than we were in, and on a route to a good place.
There is also a lot that is still undecided. The Prayers issued are a draft and Synod is going to have a day of working in groups on them and feeding that back. Issues in Human Sexuality is going and will be replaced by new Pastoral Guidance but that is still to be worked out and this is what will say whether priests are allowed to be married to someone of the same gender.
Some of you may disagree with me, and think that I’m misguided in my reading of the response and ready to settle for too little. That the response is too little and too late. And I do not want to tell you how you should feel or shut down your response in the name of unity.
But I am challenged by tonight’s reading and am trying to let it influence how I respond in these debates, even though I think I’ve probably failed several times in the last week.
Paul brings us back to the central point – it’s not about who baptised who, or who wins at what argument, but about the cross which is:
And returning to our gospel, it’s about continuing to repent, to change our minds, and to follow Jesus and see the good news of the kingdom as lives are changed and people healed.
St Nicholas Church, Leicester, 22nd January 2023
1 Corinthians 1.10-18
Matthew 4.12-23
“I’m for Philip North”, “I’m for women priests”, “I’m for equal marriage”, “I’m for biblical marriage”
If like me, you’ve spent time on Twitter in the last couple of weeks, or even if you have just been paying attention to Church news, you may recognise the arguments and the way in which Christians, particularly Anglican and specifically CofE Christians have been shouting at each other in *and within* our various tribes.
I can’t criticise – I’ve been shouting along in various debates – despite the fact I’ve also been sitting with tonight’s readings and particularly the epistle since Manuela and I agreed I’d preach tonight a couple of months ago. And realised that I needed to tackled the reading about unity here in St Nicholas because unity so often feels as though it is weaponised against us. We can’t have equality because others will break up the Anglican Communion if we do.
We may know the ins and outs of our current debates. We’re probably less clear what the Corinthians
were arguing about – what were the differences between Paul, Apollos and Cephas? Acts and other parts of Paul’s letters give us clues. Apollos is mentioned in Acts 18 and 19, when he comes to Ephesus after Paul has visited briefly. He is “well-versed in the scriptures” “instructed in the Way of the Lord” spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus – BUT “knew only the baptism of John”. Priscilla and Aquilla (who had come from Corinth with Paul), explain things more accurately and then Apollos goes over to Corinth and Paul comes back to Ephesus to find believers who haven’t heard of the Holy Spirit and have only received John’s Baptism. So they are baptised in the name of Jesus and Paul lays his hands on them and they receive the Spirit Later, in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul says “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” .
Cephas is probably better known to us as Peter. We heard in last week’s Gospel how, according to John, Andrew tells his brother Simon about having found the Messiah (anointed one) and bringing Simon to Jesus who says “‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)”. We know from Acts that Peter and Paul disagree about expectations on Gentile believers – do they have to be circumcised or not?
This was a bitter disagreement and Paul gets passionate about it; in the letter to the Galatians we read ”I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” So Paul isn’t afraid of disagreeing with his fellow Christians, and yet, tonight we hear
“Now I appeal to you, siblings, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”
Paula Gooder in her book Lydia, which imagines the Church in Philippi when it receives Paul’s letter, explores a similar passage in Philippians 2 about thinking the same thing. Syntyche points out it’s impossible and Ruth asks who gets to decide what the one thing we’re allowed to think? But Manius uses the context of the rest of the letter to tease out what it might mean, pointing to the passage that says “Don’t act from selfish intrigue or vanity, but in humility regard others as better than yourself. Don’t look out for your own concerns, but let each person look out for the concerns of others” and when some of them still don’t really follow, Caius points to two other characters who are not in the church and have been locked in a struggle to show who has the most power and influence and says
“I realise now that this is who I used to be. It consumed me. I’d have done anything to end up on the top of the pile. The problem is that there’s always another pile, always someone above you. It never ends. What Paul is talking about is another way of being. If we genuinely do believe that Jesus Christ has changed the world, if we know what love is, if we understand companionship in the Spirit, if we want to stand up for compassion and kindness, there’s only one thing for us to do. We stand together. We don’t celebrate ourselves and our own worth, we celebrate each other. Paul isn’t talking about us agreeing with each other all the time. He is talking about standing shoulder to shoulder, side by side, supporting each other when we need it, rejoicing in each other’s strengths, not in our own”.
It’s about solidarity. I’m reminded of Mark in the film Pride pointing out that the Gays and the miners were hated by the same people and so they should stand in solidarity
The Greek here for “in the same mind” is εν τω αυτο νοι and νους “mind” is at the heart of the Greek translated as “Repent” in the Gospel μετανοειτε . To be a Christian is to think differently. The closeness of the Kingdom of heaven changes things.
But what does this mean in our current debates?
The Bishops have finally published their response to Living in Love and Faith and the arguments continue! Feelings of anger, disappointment, anxiety, frustration run high. It has gone too far for some and not nearly far enough for others.
The Church Times headline was “Bishops propose blessing same-sex unions, but resist calls for marriage”.
This sets it up as a loss for those of us who want the church to celebrate marriages regardless of gender in church. But I am not sure that this is entirely fair. And if we are to have the same mind, we need to be fair to each other’s positions.
As far as I can tell, the reason the response doesn’t go as far as proposing a change in our doctrine of marriage being between one man and one woman is because for such a change to get through Synod it needs a 2/3 majority in each house. We saw in November 2012 great disappointment when the motion to allow women bishops fell short the needed 2/3 majority in the House of Laity. Someone I follow on Twitter commented that they had gone through all the statements of those elected to Synod in the Houses of Laity and Clergy last year, and it was clear from them that over a third of each house is opposed to a change to the marriage canons. The bishops say in their response “While there is a range of convictions held by the bishops about this important matter, we have not found sufficient consensus to propose a change in doctrine at the present time.” I take “sufficient consensus” as meaning “enough to change the canons”, i.e. 2/3rds. To take forward a proposal that is highly likely to fail (though does that downplay the role of the Spirit in the deliberations of General Synod) would result in more heartbreak. And while at times in following General Synod debates since I watched the 1992 debate on women priests as a 13year old newly confirmed person, I’ve been frustrated by having to get a 2/3rds majority, the Brexit referendum made me realise that there are good reasons for needing them!
The Archbishop of York at the press conference said he thought the response led us into “a good place”, I’m not quite sure I agree with him, because there is still a way to go, but I think it is a better place than we were in, and on a route to a good place.
There is also a lot that is still undecided. The Prayers issued are a draft and Synod is going to have a day of working in groups on them and feeding that back. Issues in Human Sexuality is going and will be replaced by new Pastoral Guidance but that is still to be worked out and this is what will say whether priests are allowed to be married to someone of the same gender.
Some of you may disagree with me, and think that I’m misguided in my reading of the response and ready to settle for too little. That the response is too little and too late. And I do not want to tell you how you should feel or shut down your response in the name of unity.
But I am challenged by tonight’s reading and am trying to let it influence how I respond in these debates, even though I think I’ve probably failed several times in the last week.
Paul brings us back to the central point – it’s not about who baptised who, or who wins at what argument, but about the cross which is:
foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God
And returning to our gospel, it’s about continuing to repent, to change our minds, and to follow Jesus and see the good news of the kingdom as lives are changed and people healed.
