The Preacher 2
To revive the spirit of the humble (Isaiah 57:15)
Sister Michelle, OA at the Shrine of Saint Thomas in Canterbury Cathedral
Yesterday we posted some thoughts on preaching from Brother Scott, OA, the 10th Bishop of the Diocese of Georgia. Today we’re offering the thinking of Fr. John Danforth, a former Senator from Missouri. That comes to us via the The Public Witness written by Brian Kaylor. Brian is a thoughtful liberal Baptist who recently interviewed Danforth. I came across this soon after posting Br. Scott’s article. Kaylor was writing soon after Bishop Budde’s now famous “Have Mercy” sermon.
If I were teaching homiletics to seminarians I wouldn’t be asking them whether they agreed or disagreed with Bishop Budde’s sermon. That would only tell me their politics and ability to proof text. I’d want more from them.
Ambassadors of reconciliation
One element of Kaylor’s take on Danforth was about his long standing approach to preaching as being an empathetic activity, “it aligns with what Danforth’s been preaching for years as he has lamented the incivility and dishonesty in politics today. Like in a 2022 sermon at the nation’s largest United Methodist church amid a contentious midterm election season. In that message, he noted that “the center is gone” in Congress as “politicians target the extremes” and “politics consists of manufactured rage.” He told stories from his time in the Senate when people developed friendships across party lines as he encouraged those in the congregation to “be agents of change” and “ambassadors of reconciliation.” …”Then in politics, friends could disagree. Now it’s a holy war between good and evil. Candidates win elections and news channels win viewers and social media wins consumers by stoking feelings of grievance, fear, and rage. They demonize opponents,” Danforth said in the sermon. “We can change politics by changing how we treat one another. … We create our culture, for better or worse. We can be coarse and angry. We can be just and kind.” Recently, Danforth especially saw the need for this stance in relation to President Trump’s supporters.
Preach biblical truth to power
The interview also included this, “What she (Bishop Budde) did was preach biblical truth to power,” Danforth told me. “Now, it fell on deaf ears as far as Trump is concerned. But even falling on deaf ears, I mean, that’s Isaiah 6. So that’s what the prophetic ministry does. It speaks from the standpoint of what the understanding of the speaker is of the word of God to the world at large, and particularly in Washington to politics. The prophetic tradition goes back to Moses confronting Pharaoh. And it is all over the Hebrew Bible, and particularly the great prophets of Israel.” Even Danforth’s acknowledgement about Trump’s “deaf ears” is part of the tradition — “Whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house), they shall know that there has been a prophet among them.” (Ezekiel 2:5)
You can read the whole piece - HERE
The Bishop’s Sermon
Bishop Budde has received a flood of praise and condemnation for the last part of her sermon. I’ve decided to not weigh on on all that. Too much of it is a mix of politics and proof texting. A quick, predicable, knee jerk reaction. Most of it ignoring most of the sermon. Listen to the sermon HERE. Better yet read it slowly, in prayer. Here’s a PDF of the text
My interest moves in a somewhat different direction.
A polarity to manage
One way to approach our preaching is to consider the polarity between prophetic and empathetic preaching. Don’t collapse the polarity. Don’t seek some final solution. Accept the validity of both. It is something to manage. An act of humility and courage.
Humility: Intention and impact
As I read Brother Scott’s posting yesterday I was struck by his acknowledgment that a 2003 sermon might have missed the mark. “The sermon made me feel so morally superior and many people in my parish who shared my worldview were impressed by my courage and “prophetic” word. I am quite certain, however, that no hearts and minds were changed and that no one, because of my sermon, began to trust more deeply in the mercy of God in their own lives.” See, even our bishops can be humble!
It had me recalling a few of my sermon’s from some years ago. Just a few came to mind one that I felt good about, a couple that just seem silly now, and a few where the gap between intention and impact was far to wide.
The intention-impact gap is a space between what I hoped would be the outcome of my effort and what the actual outcome turned out to be.
Bishop Budde’s first comments on her intention was mostly a clear description of what she did rather than what she hope the impact would be. However she did say that she wanted to counter the narrative that was so divisive and polarizing in which people were being harmed. Countering the narrative is another aspect of describing what she was doing. Did she also hope to reduce the division and polarization in the nation?
Here’s my guess, I doubt she had given much thought to the impact the sermon would have. What the effect would be on the President or how it would influence the broader public. I say that because it’s been so true of my own preaching and it’s how I’ve heard so many clergy describe their process. In Brother Scott’s words, “What’s the outcome we desire when we step up on Sunday to declare God’s word to those in attendance?” We all to often don’t even consider the question.
I then thought about my last sermon on the Feast of St. Mary the Virgin and Blessed Jon Daniels. I wondered if I had learned anything about how to consider the intention - impact gap as I prepared that homily. On reflection I realized that I had wanted the congregation to increase its understanding of how the Holy Spirit works in our lives. And from the comments at the door and coffee hour it appears that people “got it.” (So yes, I felt a bit of pride and humility - getting it right for once and seeing how often I missed the mark). I used the story of Daniels’ martyrdom to illustrate it and made a specific statement, “I’ll tell you how I think this works. God is as close as our very breath. Every impulse we have toward kindness and gentleness, justice and mercy, freedom and responsibility -- every one of them is a nudge of the Holy Spirit. All our spiritual disciplines – going to Mass, saying the daily office, acts of contemplation and reflection – are a participation in the very life of God and they can attune us to the movement of the Spirit within us. And so it was for Jonathan.”
Here’s what I don’t know. Even Bishop Budde doesn’t know this. What will she make of her sermon 20 years from now? Or 1000 years from now as she will have then experienced “continual growth in Thy (God’s) love and service.” What will she, and you and I, then understand that we don’t understand now?
Politics and faith
It is, in part, that last bit of perspective that helps me stay calm about the awful tendency we have to confuse our politics with our faith.
So, three things I find comforting and instructive.
Two hymns about how “Thy throne shall never pass away”
So be it, Lord, thy throne shall never. Like earth's proud empires, pass away (earlier posting)
The power and pomp of nations, shall pass like a dream away (Earlier posting)
Rely on God’s mercy and grace
We see the true outcome of our actions, not immediately, but maybe in the years ahead. Even more, we may not see our intention fully for many years. This is true about all forms of discernment — we can do all the right things in the process of making decisions, we can inform and obey our conscience, we can consider our intentions and hoped for outcome, and in the short term we we never really know. This is so we might come to rely on God’s mercy and grace.
God graciously accepts
The other day I came across a very timely and wise message, put together by the chancellors of the Diocese of Olympia, offering guidance on “Immigration and Sanctuary.” The memo was “to clarify how we might navigate living out our Christian values faithfully in accordance with secular civil and criminal laws.” It began with a discussion on the idea of sanctuary and noted, “Currently, sanctuary has no legal meaning in the courts or in state and federal laws. State and Federal laws apply equally to churches and other institutions.”
That drew me back to the story of Henry II and Blessed Thomas Becket. Becket believed the church had a right to try clergy of crimes rather than trial in the king’s courts. Henry disagreed. In our world today we would think that Becket was mistaken. That was the world in which the church offering legal sanctuary still had standing. Hmm, “new occasions teach new duties,Time makes ancient good uncouth.” But there’s more.
What offers me comfort in the chaos is how James Keifer came to understand Thomas Becket, “The chief moral that I draw from Thomas's life and death is that when a man seeks to serve God, God graciously accepts that service, even if the man is quite wrong about what it is that God expects of him.”
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA
.