The thing I most felt about the sermon was that it was lecturing. And this was delivered in a way which was sneering. I mean look at her face! The curled lip and condescending tone! She was loving every minute of it.
It would have been entirely different if exactly the same words had been delivered in a more measured and respectful tone. I kept expecting to see her wag her finger at the Don!
I have such mixed feelings about this post. The end of it resonates strongly with me - I am likewise of the view that, if norms are being shattered, the appropriate response is to build new and independent ones, not simply to argue over whether the old norms should be restored or, in fact, they either still exist or never were.
And yet that resonant core resides at the center of a chasm I do not know how to bridge. I am a pragmatic atheist. I have no feelings I am comfortable labeling "religious" - indeed, I broadly do not understand what is meant by that term. And because I lack that understanding, I cannot but read statements like "religion is upstream of culture" as fundamentally exclusionary. If a religious person's root connection to the world around them necessarily runs through their faith, and I partake in no such thing, how then can I truly connect with them, their individual self? And worse, if *I* insist on a society that values that individual selfhood over any collective or religious identity, am I not creating for that person the same struggle of connection and exclusion that I am now experiencing for myself?
Someday I would like to write on this topic more directly, but it is a difficult thing to do when the core problem is this deeply personal thing that I neither understand, nor particularly feel the lack of, which yet is such a fundamental part of those around me.
I am, like you, an atheist/agnostic. But I did not read the piece the way you do. To say that religion is upstream from culture is just a way of saying morality is upstream of culture. Religion is one source of morality but not the only one. There can be others as well, especially in a pluralistic, liberal polity. This piece is simply drawing on religious traditions to seek ethical guidance on how to resist the political moral nihilism. Others can draw on other traditions.
I know. I meant this comment more as a meditation on my own thoughts and struggles relating to my religious fellow citizens, not as a critique of the post as such or your decision to publish it.
The issues that the piece delves into go beyond the Bishop herself. THey are about the different moral categories of action at a time of complete moral breakdown. It is among the best pieces we've run and, honestly, it's your loss if you believe that timeless questions can only be raised within a short news cycle. We deliberately waited for the passions to subside to run such a reflective piece when so many are reacting reflexively.
I personally don't see her sermon as "prophetic" as much as just explicitly teaching a fellow "Christian" what everyone in Sunday school has been taught and encouraged to do.
St. John Chrysostom (about 344-407 A.D.) His preaching constantly irritated the Emperor Arcadius and Empress Eudoxia earning him privations and exile.
John Knox preaching before Queen Mary of Scotland comes to mind... except with more civility and Christian charity.
AI relates: The sermon John Knox preached that day has become infamous. Knox loudly proclaimed of young boys and women being sent to rule as tyrants to plague the people of Scotland. He then went on to compare Mary to the “harlot Jezebel.” Knox went on and on making the sermon twice as long as he would normally preach. When the sermon finished Darnley stormed out of the church. When he returned to Holyrood Darnley, angry and offended, refused to eat his dinner. For his actions John Knox was made to go before the privy council. He was to be forbidden preach while Mary and Darnley were in Edinburgh. The town council, however, refused to prevent him from doing so and Knox promptly had his sermon printed.
I agree! But hasn't this been written about a million times already over the course of the last three weeks? And to the same points and conclusion? Sorry, it's curmudgeon day for me. Ignore the grumpy old man.
The thing I most felt about the sermon was that it was lecturing. And this was delivered in a way which was sneering. I mean look at her face! The curled lip and condescending tone! She was loving every minute of it.
It would have been entirely different if exactly the same words had been delivered in a more measured and respectful tone. I kept expecting to see her wag her finger at the Don!
It really wasn't a good look.
I have such mixed feelings about this post. The end of it resonates strongly with me - I am likewise of the view that, if norms are being shattered, the appropriate response is to build new and independent ones, not simply to argue over whether the old norms should be restored or, in fact, they either still exist or never were.
And yet that resonant core resides at the center of a chasm I do not know how to bridge. I am a pragmatic atheist. I have no feelings I am comfortable labeling "religious" - indeed, I broadly do not understand what is meant by that term. And because I lack that understanding, I cannot but read statements like "religion is upstream of culture" as fundamentally exclusionary. If a religious person's root connection to the world around them necessarily runs through their faith, and I partake in no such thing, how then can I truly connect with them, their individual self? And worse, if *I* insist on a society that values that individual selfhood over any collective or religious identity, am I not creating for that person the same struggle of connection and exclusion that I am now experiencing for myself?
Someday I would like to write on this topic more directly, but it is a difficult thing to do when the core problem is this deeply personal thing that I neither understand, nor particularly feel the lack of, which yet is such a fundamental part of those around me.
I am, like you, an atheist/agnostic. But I did not read the piece the way you do. To say that religion is upstream from culture is just a way of saying morality is upstream of culture. Religion is one source of morality but not the only one. There can be others as well, especially in a pluralistic, liberal polity. This piece is simply drawing on religious traditions to seek ethical guidance on how to resist the political moral nihilism. Others can draw on other traditions.
I know. I meant this comment more as a meditation on my own thoughts and struggles relating to my religious fellow citizens, not as a critique of the post as such or your decision to publish it.
Legend :)!
Honestly, you're 3 weeks late with this article. The Bishop's 15 minutes are done and gone....
The issues that the piece delves into go beyond the Bishop herself. THey are about the different moral categories of action at a time of complete moral breakdown. It is among the best pieces we've run and, honestly, it's your loss if you believe that timeless questions can only be raised within a short news cycle. We deliberately waited for the passions to subside to run such a reflective piece when so many are reacting reflexively.
I personally don't see her sermon as "prophetic" as much as just explicitly teaching a fellow "Christian" what everyone in Sunday school has been taught and encouraged to do.
St. John Chrysostom (about 344-407 A.D.) His preaching constantly irritated the Emperor Arcadius and Empress Eudoxia earning him privations and exile.
John Knox preaching before Queen Mary of Scotland comes to mind... except with more civility and Christian charity.
AI relates: The sermon John Knox preached that day has become infamous. Knox loudly proclaimed of young boys and women being sent to rule as tyrants to plague the people of Scotland. He then went on to compare Mary to the “harlot Jezebel.” Knox went on and on making the sermon twice as long as he would normally preach. When the sermon finished Darnley stormed out of the church. When he returned to Holyrood Darnley, angry and offended, refused to eat his dinner. For his actions John Knox was made to go before the privy council. He was to be forbidden preach while Mary and Darnley were in Edinburgh. The town council, however, refused to prevent him from doing so and Knox promptly had his sermon printed.
The only mistake Budde made was not referencing scriptures to back up her exhortations. See these links for examples: https://thewayweseecom.ipage.com/howtolove/how-to-relate-to-the-poor/ https://thewayweseecom.ipage.com/howtolove/how-to-relate-to-strangers-and-aliens/
I agree! But hasn't this been written about a million times already over the course of the last three weeks? And to the same points and conclusion? Sorry, it's curmudgeon day for me. Ignore the grumpy old man.