Saturday, May 19, 2018

Preaching to the royals [Updated]



Well, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are married, so we can all exhale.  I elected not to roll out of bed at 4 am to watch the live coverage.  When, pursuant to the invariable custom in our home, I did emerge from behind the bedroom door to be beset by starving cats at the still-ungodly morning hour of 6:30 or so and switched on NPR for a spot of news, already there were reactions to the homily being reported.

The homily can be viewed here.  I highly recommend watching it.  It was preached by the Right Reverend Michael Curry, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (I hope I have that honorific and title correct; apologies if that's not quite right).  Bishop Curry is African American.  It seems fair to say that he preached from the African American preaching tradition.

The initial media comments I heard were a little on the snarky side: they implied that the homily was too long; and there were one or two suggestions that Curry was trying to steal the show (presumably from Markle's veil, which, based on the few seconds of footage I caught, was sufficiently long to exert a gravitational pull which no television camera could long resist).  The gist of it all was that what Curry did was somehow unseemly, that it just wasn't done in that borough.

Some effort was made to show that the royals and their posse were aghast at the spectacle of this black person in their chapel.

Don't believe any of it for a minute.  Curry is of the same communion as the Anglican Church which the Royal Family theoretically represents in some way, shape or form.  If I'm not mistaken, the Anglican Communion is the third largest communion in Christianity, encompassing something like 100 million members, with a sizable presence on every continent and clergy drawn from those local areas.  The Anglicans can, and do, do multicultural.  I doubt anyone in the chapel thought Curry was exotic - save possibly those media talking heads whose shadows have never darkened a church doorway.

And I thought the homily was pretty good.   It was a little bit longer than your typical wedding homily, but this is not a typical wedding.

As for the royals and the others in attendance: they seemed fine with it.  Harry and Meghan listened semi-attentively and politely (all the royals seem to be pretty well trained in courtesy).  Judging from the congregation shots, some people were listening, some weren't.  I didn't see anyone actually reading a bulletin or checking their Instagram on their smartphones, but except for that it was about what one expects when one watches people listening to a homily.

Preaching at a wedding is interesting because, unlike a parish Sunday mass, a wedding congregation is not a cohesive faith community that gathers week after week.  A typical large wedding assembly would include folks from many different faith traditions and some from no particular tradition at all.  The wedding preacher can't assume a shared faith background, or any particular level of faith formation.

And these factors are further complicated by the fact that this is not just any wedding; this is a royal wedding.  The gathering would include, besides the royal family and the various earls and baronets, a galaxy of politicians, celebrities, media personages and other high-profile types.  And of course the audience would include tens of millions of people watching worldwide.

What does a preacher say to such an august gathering?  Even the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church may be forgiven for feeling a bit like Peter and the apostles before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5.  And the answer is: do what Peter did.  Proclaim the Good News, even to that group.

And that is what Curry did.  He spoke of love.  Not just the love between Harry and Meghan, but the possibility of love to bring about justice, to transform the world.  Curry spoke approachably, he spoke passionately, and he injected just the right, light touch of erudition. He invoked Dr. King, African American spirituals, and Teillhard de Chardin.

In my view, it was the right message, and it was delivered well.  Please watch it if you can.

Update 5/21/2018: Over at Pray Tell, Kimberly Long has posted about Bishop Curry's homily, covering some of the same ground we've covered here but with some additional insights as well.  And in the comments to Long's post, Deacon Fritz Bauershmidt provides a link to this take by Rev. Robert Hendrickson, who blogs as A Desert Father.  Hendrickson's post provides one of the finer instances of tongue-in-cheekery that I've encountered - I recommend it.

16 comments:

  1. I read the text of the homily. Later I plan to watch footage of the wedding and catch Bishop Curry's actual delivery of it. Even the written text was stirring, and in no way inappropriate. Couldn't help noticing that whoever transcribed it kept spelling "prophets" as "profits". Maybe it wasn't even a person, perhaps Alexa or Cortana or something. Bet nobody slept through it. As far as length, 13 minutes doesn't seem excessively long. Had to smile at the idea that 600 invited guests is a "small" wedding. I suppose it is, for the royal family.
    Had a little discussion going on Facebook yesterday with some family members about the cake, which was a sponge cake flavored with elderflower syrup. The elderflowers had been grown on the queen's estate. From the description it sounded lovely, we were game to try it. But I'm sure Amazon will be out of elderflower syrup for awhile. I remembered that our grandmother had elderberry bushes, I assume that elderflowers come from those. Grandma would have been surprised to find out that they had become trendy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On your recommendation, Deacon Jim, I just watched the only 13 minutes of the royal wedding I'm likely to pay attention to. I saw no excuse for snark. It was a neat juxtaposition of the joy of royal love and a reminder to the powers assembled that love could, actually, feed the hungry and clothe the naked if we had enough of it. He did run a tad long, but the long coda was from a Jesuit source, which justified it. Interesting that, aside from the Bible, the Episcopalian quoted only a Baptist and a Roman Catholic. (The spirituals he cited quote Scripture.)

    It's unfortunate the main camera angle caught the Archbishop of Canterbury sitting like lawn ornament, which seems to be normal liturgical behavior when someone else is preaching at the presider's ceremony. I thought for a minute he might be playing Angry Birds, but it was just what the clergy takes for politeness.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Love that sermon by Bishop Curry!

    Brits said the sermon last an hour. Possibly measuring time by the royal family's limited attention span and inability to follow extended metaphors.

    To wit, Prince Charles seemed confused at the "harnessing of fire" part and started whispering to his neighbor. Kate looked pretty grim, but possibly because Camilla seemed to be talking to her non-stop behind her umbrella hat.

    The Queen looked like her feet hurt, though she was a fan of Billy Graham and my guess is that this kind of sermon spoke to her sense of duty and usefulness. Prince Philip smiled throughout. It is said he is quite hard of hearing.

    Zara Phillips, in a hat designed by Morticia Addams, seemed to find it appalling that anyone would talk about love and redemption at a wedding.

    Harry looked alternately sleepy and verklempt. And Meghan is an actress, so whatever she thought, she was able to maintain a face that was appropriately attentive.

    The sad thing is that Bishop Curry exemplifies that addage that the British and Americans are two people divided by a common language. The preaching style was probably seen by traditionalists as vulgar (too much direct eye contact and moving about, never mind the American accent), inappropriately familiar (using the second person!), and was too replete with references to slavery, which makes the people who were its biggest promoters in the new world deeply uncomfortable. The impenetrable layers of royal tradition is supposed to stop This Sort of Thing.

    But what a lovely idea to link the particular love of two youngish people with the love that God has for the world. Even if a message of love is given to a groom in an army uniform and a woman with a failed marriage behind her. I don't know. Maybe that makes it even more appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I liked the linking of the love of the couple to the love of God for the world. I thought that Harry and Meghan looked genuinely happy.
      About slavery, I wonder if any of them even remember that the Brits were its biggest promoters in the new world. I'd bet that all some remember is that the Americans came late to the realization that it was wrong, and that it took a civil war end it.

      Delete
    2. Jean, I agree with you re: Meghan. She is now immersed in the greatest role of her career: Duchess of Whateveritis.

      The linkage you talk about between married love and God's love for us is really the foundation of the theology of marriage; I suspect that's why it's considered a sacrament. If people came away thinking about that, then the homily was a rousing success.

      Delete
    3. Ideally, marriage provides a haven (like a monastery) from which two people support each other to become the people God wants them to be. I still believe in that notion with all my heart, though we all fall short of it. Raber and I were talking about that the other day. We have never made any fuss over our anniversary. I have to use the calculator to figure out how long we've been married (34 years). But we take more time now to verbalize appreciation for some small kindness or encouragement. We pray more together. Illness does have a way of focusing the mind on how little time there is to offer those things.

      And I am not sure that extended families, parishes, or the culture in general really supports any of this.

      Sussex. Duchess of Sussex.

      Delete
  4. I noticed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was wearing a cope for the ceremony. Which is funny because we had previously been commenting that copes seem to be a thing lately for Catholic weddings which don't take place at a Mass. We attended my niece's wedding a week ago and the priest wore an ornate red cope. It was a small wedding on a Saturday morning, so not particularly formal. I looked at our wedding pictures, since we had not been married at a Mass. The priest wore a cassock and surplice, with a stole, which was how l had remembered it. My husband has officiated at a few weddings, and he has worn an alb and stole. I assume a deacon could wear a cope if he wanted to. Just a shift in custom; in our parish the cope had been used mainly for Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a deacon can wear a cope, but I've never seen it. I don't know that I've ever seen a cope, period. If there is one in our parish, it's news to me. I don't say this to brag, but simply to report a gap in my formation and my spiritual life: I've never actually witnessed benediction. One of my fears is that someone will ask me to do it some day and I won't have a graceful way of bowing out.

      Delete
    2. Jim, if it hasn't happened yet, it probably won't. Seems to be one of those devotions that are a bit regional. But if you ever do need to do it, there's youtube videos.
      As for marriages, I think my husband won't be wearing a cope for them. If he does any more of them. He's a bit discouraged in that two out of the four he's done have ended in divorce rather quickly. Fortunately the two that didn't are our kids.

      Delete
    3. Re: benediction: way back, before I became a deacon, I was on our liturgy commission, and a young 'un, probably in his early 20's and fresh out of Steubenville or some such, came to the commission to request that our parish adopt perpetual adoration. He assured us that, if we did so, he would organize the schedule of parishioners to be present. This would have been in the early 1990s, when the influence of EWTN and the whole reform-the-reform/roll-back-the-clock movement was at its zenith. We kicked it around and ended up declining the request for perpetual adoration, because we don't have a separate chapel for this sort of thing and didn't want to undertake getting one; but we decided to institute a holy hour of adoration in the church to see whether it would catch on. There were some parishioners who were interested. At first it was weekly, on one of the weekday evenings, and there was benediction at the end of it. At that time I wasn't a deacon and not sufficiently interested in the proceedings to make room for it in my schedule, so I gave it a pass. A few years later we got a new pastor who thought every week was a bit much (we paid the organist to play Holy God We Praise Thy Name at benediction), so it was dialed back to a monthly thing and happened on a weekday during the daytime so the director of music, who was salaried, could provide the music. Whether that continues today, I've frankly lost sight. But since it was during the workday, I'd never been asked to lead it.

      During formation, one of our summer-vacation assignments one year was to lead a devotion at the parish. They didn't actually teach us to do it; we were sort of on our own in that regard. It was kind of a mini-crisis for me, because we didn't really have anything at our parish except for benediction, and it was at a bad time and I knew nothing about it. I ended up finding an occasion to lead a rosary; I knew slightly more about that than benediction; at least I knew Hail Mary and Glory Be To The Father.

      There are people of a certain age, especially priests, for whom things like benediction and the rosary were part of their daily or weekly prayer life since they were young tots, and they find it really difficult to credit that for younger people those things are not part of their lived experience. That kind of thing was on my mind a few days ago when I wrote about the old monsignor railing at the schoolkids. The kids live in a world that he doesn't fully understand - at least, that's my takeaway.

      Delete
    4. The only times we have regularly scheduled Benediction here is after Stations of the Cross on Fridays in Lent.
      I don't want to leave the impression that perpetual adoration is some kind of retro, rad-trad, reform of the reform devotion. We have had it in our parish for nearly 20 years now, pretty much 24/7 except during the weekend Mass schedule. We are just an ordinary, liturgically mainstream, parish. I don't want to hijack Jim's post, so later on I plan to write one of my own sharing a little about our parish's effort, and my personal experience of taking part in it.

      Delete
    5. Katherine, I will look forward to that. I'm never sure what I'm supposed to get out of adoration. It's eschewed in the Anglican articles of faith as a "fond thing."

      Delete
    6. Katherine, same here - please do write about adoration at your parish.

      Delete
  5. I read the text on Saturday morning and thought it was really, really good. I saw the coverage of the wedding, including the homily, last night. Recorded it so we could fast forward through commercials and mindless chit-chat as horse-drawn carriages slowly made their way through the grounds of Windsor.

    I was not surprised that Bishop Curry went full-throttle African American in his delivery. Good for him. Even if most of the congregation looked like they were in some kind of trance. How could they sleep through that? I guess they are all trained from the cradle not to betray emotions on their faces. Perhaps Elizabeth wasn't really surprised - and maybe even liked it - apparently she was a huge fan of Billy Graham, who also had a rather flamboyant style when delivering his sermons and speeches. But she always keeps a neutral expression on her face.

    I thought Meghan's mother looked beautiful - and a bit alone. I find it hard to believe that there was not one other relative - even distant - or a friend who could have been with her. Prince Charles stepped up to the plate, both in walking Meghan down the aisle, and having her mother take one arm along with Camilla on the other as they left after the ceremony.

    My husband and I have spent a fair amount of time in England over the years. We have friends there dating back 40 years, when my husband worked on a joint British-American project and became friends with his English counterpart. He made about 4 trips/year to England for years ( joined him about twice/year), and his counterpart would come here also. Their children all spent time with us in DC during summer holidays, and we became fairly close to one of their daughters also, who came several times to stay with us. We visited them in England last spring. They are now in their mid-80s, still in good shape mentally and physically, like the senior royals. One of their three daughters was in a relationship with an African man a few years ago. She had worked in Africa for several years. In India also. Our friends clearly disapproved, but it was expressed very quietly. She eventually broke up with him. I don't know how they reacted to the royal wedding. I think I will email them. We have been to England more years than not for the last 25 years. One of our sons lived there for two years, so we would go even more frequently. My sense is that among the older members of the group Americans would call "upper middle" class, or "professional" class, inter-racial marriage is still frowned upon. (The Brits don't really use the same terms for demographic "class" groups as Americans - it's broken down into a somewhat bewildering set of groups and sub-groups, and people are often characterized into classes based on their accents. Very confusing to a Yank).

    I noticed that the two cousins (Beatrice and ??) chose hats that were conservative in the extreme for this wedding, unlike the crazy concoctions they wore to William's wedding. Perhaps they were chastised for those hats, and so went to the opposite extreme this time. Rebellious princesses, a bit like their mum and dad I guess.

    I was also fascinated by the Queen's personal chaplain, who offered the prayer towards the end - that she chose a woman priest to be her personal chaplain. Not only a woman, but a black woman priest. Good for Elizabeth!

    Finally, as the grandmother of a beautiful and incredibly sweet grandson who has a white father and a black mother, I am very happy to see a bi-racial woman join the royal family of England. I hope that she will be able to help break down some of the racism we see in the US and Europe these days, with the ever growing number of vocal people expressing white nationalist views in Europe and here - while claiming that they are "christians".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Queen Elizabeth has ever shown any race prejudice. Too many Commonwealth dignitaries of color. Prince Philip, OTOH, has been known to fumble into racial gaffes.

      I'm not sure that the queen chooses her chaplain. I think staff is chosen for her--like everything else--and she vetoes very sparingly with her eye on how it will all play out PR-wise. But I looked at the clip of her prayer, and I did like that the Chaplain's prayer echoes some of the sentiments in the sermon.

      Delete
  6. I thought Kimberly Long was very good on this subject at Pray Tell: http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2018/05/20/preaching-the-royal-wedding/

    ReplyDelete