The death of Michael Jackson is a tragedy, especially when he was setting up a world tour.
But when will the hangers on let go ?
The regrettable fact is that his estate will go into hyperdrive now he’s gone and I really get narked with all the press coverage which is only serving to hype things up even more.
There is no doubting the musical genius of the man, but there is also no doubting his wacky nature and his lunatic moments. Remember the baby over the balcony ? And what was all the surgery about ?
It was curious to hear the recent awards ceremony reclaiming him as a ‘black’ when he spent most of his life either disguising the fact or even attempting to become ‘white’.
Before anyone makes the point, I am NOT making a racist point here, simply observing the reality of the situation.
At the end of the day, his death is just one more. The celebrity seeking nature of our society makes it into an international disaster.
As someone who deals with funerals on a very regular basis, each one is a tragedy and we need to get some sense of proportionality here.

I was asked to do exactly that by a member who is fascinated by all the intrigue and gore of the Old Testament stories.
As it happened, the Lectionary threw up the David and Goliath incident, so he was a happy bunny (although he quipped that sick bags should be handed round !!)
I didn’t overdo the violence of the story, rather to allegorise it a little by considering what giants are around today. The physical individuals who make our lives hell, through to the ‘things’ like illness and bereavement.
I author suggested naming the stones we pick to help us defeat our giants, from courage, faith, hope through to friendship, prayer and Scripture.
I had the feeling that there were many aching hearts in the congregation today and that we all needed to think about such things.
Giants can be faced and defeated.

The annual golf meatch between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England took place on Tuesday 9th June at Kilspindie, near Edinburgh. The result was a win for Scotland, and, although the scoreline was 14-4 this tells nothing of the day.
The morning foursomes were tied at 3-3 and the singles were keenly contested, with many games, including my own, going to the last hole.
As last year, my opponent was Tom Honey from Exeter and, as last year, the match was keenly fought and great fun to be part of. Tom’s graciousness was evident once again and it was a joy to play against him.
The result, although important, was not as important as the friendly banter and the fellowship that proceeded during the match and at the meal afterwards. A great day. Thanks to all the CofE team for making their way north and contributing massively to a fantastic event !

I wonder how many commissioners reported back to their congregations ? Were they in awe of the ‘encouragement’ not to speak of certain events ? Or were they honest in theirnreporting to include some of the angst ?
On other blogs I have dared to suggest that the bottom line of the revisionist thinking that seemed to win the day is ‘anything goes’. I accept that I have overstated my case by saying that, however, I maintain that revisionist thinking seems to be driven by the thought that we are wanting to be more acceptable in the world’s eyes. Have I got that right ?
If I have, then where does that leave Jesus’s remarks about being in the world but not of it, about being salt and light ?
I hear a lot about principles of love (which are good) but there is a real tension between that and the holy God who loves justice. One speaker at the GA told those gathered that charity exists because justice has failed. Worth thinking that through on ALL sides on the debate in the Kirk. I am not saying that the truth rests with the tradititionalists/evangelicals, but I have a great sympathy with their position. No one has yet come up with a holistic Biblical view on the great ‘issue’ of the GA. Maybe I have to wait for the special commission to report back.

What to make of a tense week ?
The temsion between the various factions of the church was easily seen in the debates this week. There was a good deal of thoughtful and considerate debate on all issues. And yes, the Kirk has kicked things into the long grass yet again !
Not talking about issues is a dangerous thing for the Kirk to do, although we’re allowed to mutter among ourselves. That’s not true, it’ll be meanigful dialogue.
The worry for me in all this is the way in which broad general principles, which need not be found in Scripture (they could apply to most faiths) have been dominant over Scripture. For me that’s a very uncomforable place to be. For me there has to be standards that allow the church to offer a prophetic voice to secular society. If we say that anything goes (and I exaggerate with that statement) then we lose that authority. We lose the distinctive nature of the Christian faith if we adopt what is acceptable in society. We become indistinguishable from any other philosophy, and I don’t think that’s what Jesus meant by being the salt of the earth, being in it but not of it.
I’m busy putting together thoughts for my next sermon trying to reflect on what has been a turbulent week as a church and as an individual. More thinking and prayer required !

It would be a great pity for the Assembly to be remembered as a one issue meeting of the Kirk. Saturday will come soon enough, but before that comes some of the pageantry the makes it a great gathering. The Lord High Commissioner (George Reid) will deliver the Queen’s message to the Assembly and it will be interesting to see what that contains. I suspect that the first couple of days may well be quite tame, but there are a lot of matters to be considered, not least of which is the Israel/Palestine issue, Zimbabwe, how ministers stipends are worked out (ie who actually does this) and loads of other stuff. Looks to be a tremendous week, providing the grace of God is evidenced in the debating.

Not sure what’s annoyed me most. The 11,000 petition or the OneKirk newsletter.
Online petitioning is not the way to go in the Kirk. It gets the subject noticed, but will never be allowed as evidence in the case.
And as for the totally biased OneKirk diatribe…. Every commissioner got one, and it is clearly an attempt to skew the vote come Saturday night.
Not sure which is more outrageous.
I mentioned the whole matter to the congregation on Sunday last and was surprised by the passion from both sides of the argument. It is clear that there will be a lot of reconciliation and healing required whichever way the vote goes.

Having been thinking about the General Assembly again and the controversy that seems to be gathering around it, it seems that the trenches have been well dug already.
The Rennie case is a complex one and there are varying legitimate views on the matter.
For someone who is theologically centrist (with evangelical leanings) it is becoming increasingly difficult to have a firm view on the matter.
There is the matter of a congregation’s right to call. Some see this as an unarguable right to call whomsoever they want. That is not the case. There are approved categories that have to be applied here so it isn’t as straightforward as that argument goes.
There is the issue of ‘the unity of the church’, which all ordained people take a vow to protect. That is a real problem here and the argument is over who is causing the unity to be disrupted.
There is the place of Scripture. There is no doubt that people ‘cherry pick’ (as one of my elders rightly said) texts, and there is an issue about which part of Scripture holds supremacy. Some argue NT over OT, and others subdivide the NT into Jesus over Paul. The general tenor of Scripture, however,would seem to be against accepting the case. I read that Mr. Rennie claimed the Bible said nothing about same sex relationships in the society of the time. Paul goes against the matter, but in any case, there is evidence of same sex relationships in the society of the time counter to Mr. Rennie’s assertion.
There is the tension between the church being a prophetic voice to society, and the church being moulded by society. Being in the world but not of it would seem to indicate to me that there will be times when the church will be villified by society. This may be one of those times. Is this, perhaps, one of those moments when Jesus himself spoke of when we are ‘not to be surprised when the world hates you’ (Matthew 5) ?
There will be a lot of angst on Saturday evening at the GA, and I am still praying for the mind of Christ to be found on this matter, that debate may well be vigorous and passionate, but that it will also be gracious, and that some form of reconciliation may be found at the end of it.

In my last sermon I got to thinking about the situation that the Assembly will be drawn into that I referred to in the last blog.
At what point does the world’s standards define the church’s position on something ?
Historically, the church has not always got things right. Galileo comes to mind, and some would argue for Darwin too.
The gay issue is one that is far more complicated. There are several well known texts that state unambiguously the view of the evangelical side of the Kirk, and there are those who prove to be equally selective about their interpretation on the other side of the argument.
The problem I have with the argument as it sits at present is that it seems to me that the Kirk is reacting to world views rather than being the prophetic voice that it should be.
I think I need more thinking on this….

For most people, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland may not be something that sets the heather on fire. It is another (large) church meeting based in Edinburgh, and beneath the ceremony and the ritual there will be a lot of heart searching this year, more than most.
The Assembly has been in the habit of not deciding when it comes to controversial decisions and topics, but this year has been backed into a corner over a decidedly thorny problem.
A situation has arisen where an openly gay minister has been called to a charge. He didn’t start that way at the beginning of the selection process and so this has come something of a novelty (in the sense of being new, not ‘funny’).
The emphasis in recent years has been whether CofS clergy could be censured for blessing civil partnerships, and the decision was to leave things as they were (which was to leave matters to the minister’s conscience).
The only trouble with that position is that is relies on the get out clause at ordination where matters that are not central to faith can be left to an individual’s liberty of opinion. The snag is that this clause can be a door where many things can sneak in that certainly wouldn’t have in years past.
Now, I quickly recognise that faith is an evolving thing, it isn’t static, and yet there have to be things that are central to the faith, and this is the battleground for this discussion. It might get messy.
There are sure to be loud voices heard for each side, but this may be an occasion where the Assembly will show its true colours of grace and Christ-like love instead of the nastiness that the tabloids will certainly try to work up.