Wedding sermon suited to occasion
CIVIS didn’t watch the recent royal marriage when it was first broadcast, but, thanks to cancelled flights last Sunday, saw repeated, partial, reruns of it. It was good to see locally born and educated Nick Madden singing in the choir, and the passion that the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church showed in his sermon, rather more vigorous than many are used to.
Commentary on the marriage from TV and radio has generally been sickly, and the time devoted to it in their news programmes excessive, but that was to be expected, given the preference of much of the media for saccharine slush rather than reality.
What was unexpected was the denunciation, by John
Blennerhasset, of Wanaka, in a letter to the ODT (22.5.18), of what he described as ‘‘the disgraceful proselytising’’ of Bishop Curry’s sermon, which he viewed as ‘‘hijacking’’ a ‘‘TV hightoned programme’’.
Civis understands that Dr Blennerhasset and his wife own a wedding venue in Wanaka, and it’s reasonable to assume that most or all of the marriages celebrated there are secular, rather than religious. But what he watched was a religious service, conducted by, and using a form authorised by, the Church of England.
Church services often include a sermon — there’s provision for one in the Marriage Service, from the C of E’s Common Worship, used on this occasion, as in the old Book of Common Prayer Order of Solemnisation of Matrimony (the one where the woman promises to obey her husband), and in the three forms contained in A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa.
Many marriages which Civis has attended, in various churches, have included sermons, directed (as in this case) not just to the couple but to the congregation. What Dr Blennerhasset watched in St George’s Chapel was a religious service (not primarily, despite appearances, a madefortelevision spectacle) and he was a remote part of the congregation, albeit with a better view than many of those physically present. Proselytising is a proper function of a sermon, and describing it as ‘‘disgraceful’’ is illogical.
The sermon’s theme, though, wasn’t conversion, but the power of love. Not just romantic love, or the love of God, but also the love of others of which Jesus spoke. Sacrificial, redemptive love, which can provide ‘‘balm in Gilead’’ in the hell of slavery, and can change the world.
Is it ‘‘disgraceful’’, even for those with a pathological hatred of religion, to be reminded of this, at a time when the world’s most powerful nation is modelling hate?
Dr Blennerhasset must be disappointed that the sermon hasn’t incurred the ‘‘widespread disapproval’’ for which he hoped. Diana Evans, of The Guardian (not noted for religiosity), describes being ‘‘moved’’ by it, and for many it was the highlight of the service.
Thank you, Dr Blennerhasset, for persuading Civis to watch and listen to it online.
Civis has been watching parts (sometimes sleep proves stronger than the TV) of the new series of
Dancing with the Stars, and was puzzled by the first eliminations from the contest, naively expecting they would be the least competent dancers. Wrong! The first two to go clearly danced better than, for instance, the rather wooden (though not as bad as Civis would have been) Act party MP David Seymour, who, in the second elimination bout, was scored well below every other contestant by the expert judges.
Clearly, something other than talent is at work — two possibilities come to mind.
Apparently voters by text can pay for as many votes as they like, thus boosting the charities supported by the contestants. That’s good for the charities, but may allow Act funders with deep pockets to keep Mr Seymour in front of the cameras longer than talent would justify, for possible future political advantage.
And is it significant that the two first contestants rejected were assertive, nonwhite, immigrant women. Does their ousting reflect endemic sexism and racism in New Zealanders?