Dame Sarah Mullally, Archbishop of Canterbury, Spoke for a Christianity of Love and Kindness - How Radical!

Sarah Mullally, 2019

“In the midst of such profound global uncertainty, the possibility of healing lies in acts of kindness and love.”

How does a Christian defend kindness and love against their deadliest enemies: fear, indifference, and vengeance? On October 3, 2025, in her first major speech after becoming the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverand Sarah Mullally spoke for a Christianity of love, compassion, and mercy. Throughout her speech, she reached out with a larger lesson! She looked to the big picture. She spoke, not just for rejecting fear, but for the larger moral principle – the principle of hope:

“Hope is made of the infinite love of God, who breathed life into creation and said it was good. Hope shimmered in the courage of Abraham and Sarah and the challenging call of the prophets. … Hope is found in Christ’s triumph over sin and death.”

In an era dominated by right-wing rage, love is suddenly controversial? Apparently it is. Conservative Reverand Paula White prayed against “every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose and calling of President Trump.” Baptist minister Russell Moore reports that conservative congregations are telling their ministers not to preach from the Sermon on the Mount, because they find it “weak” and too “liberal.” Are such views in any way consistent with Bishop Mullally’s vision of hope and compassion?

Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies

Mullally neither named leaders of the right-wing movement, nor did she shame them. Instead, she stood up for the biblical message. She focused on the positive, ignoring the negative: instead of refuting other social trends, she sought to uplift the issue. For example, she said:

"In every church you will encounter Jesus Christ, and his teaching to love one another: our source and our standard. This is both gift and responsibility. Jesus Christ is the life-changing hope that brings us together as church, even in our own brokenness and messiness – and sends us out into the world to witness to that Love."

After praying about God’s “generous mercy” from the Book of Common Prayer, Mullally stated her life’s mission:

“Washing feet has shaped my Christian vocation as a nurse, then a priest, then a bishop. In the apparent chaos which surrounds us, in the midst of such profound global uncertainty, the possibility of healing lies in acts of kindness and love.”

The speaker never mentioned the politicians who seek power by spreading racism and greed. She didn’t need to! Instead, she wisely recognized that those politicians merely symptomize a society that thinks small while clinging to false ideals:

“In an age that craves certainty and tribalism, Anglicanism offers something quieter but stronger: shared history, held in tension, shaped by prayer, and lit from within by the glory of Christ.”

As she pointed out the risks of “certainty,” of course, she implicitly attacked the false feeling that we can overcome strife by clinging to dogma. The evil of “tribalism” arises when we blame our misfortunes on persons outside of our own community or group. 

Antisemitism may be the oldest tribalist evil. So, continuing to oppose antisemitism, Mullally drew a moral lesson from a recent synagogue shooting. Not only did she sympathize with the victims, but she also emphasized the larger point, that we must overcome the “fractures” that separate us instead of uniting us. That larger point reinforced her theme:

“Mindful of the horrific violence of yesterday’s attack on a synagogue in Manchester, we are witnessing hatred that rises up through fractures across our communities.”

Communities, tribalism—Mullally urged the world toward unity. To see the bigger picture, to care about one another with love and compassion.

We do, I have noticed, live in an era when too many people misuse the Christian faith, and other faiths, as weapons to divide us. People express bigotry against those whose faith differs from their own. People too often wish to destroy other faiths rather than to live by the principles of their own faith—principles of love and kindness. 

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

Pope Francis' Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Throughout this quiet but thought-provoking speech, Mullally repeatedly examined society’s practical and moral failings. Yet she appealed to solve them, not by nuts-and-bolts politics, but by renewing Christian principles: faith, compassion, and service. The big picture is often the best.

by William D. Harpine   

____________

Note: in the Anglican Communion’s structure, the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises direct authority only over her own church region. However, the worldwide Anglican community considers her to be “first among equals.” Her leadership comes not from authority, but from the force of her wisdom, combined with the respect that believers give to her office. What better way is there to lead, then to lead by moral power?  

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Most Reverand Sarah Mullally: 

Roger Harris, public domain, some restrictions, via Wikimedia Commons

George Whitefield's Sermon about the “Flaming Preacher”

George Whitefield

“Enoch,” preached Anglican priest George Whitefield in the mid-1700’s, “in all probability was a public person, and a flaming preacher.” 

Often credited as one of the Methodist movement’s founders as well as among the first American evangelicals, Whitefield mixed historical information with fiction to persuade his audience to “walk with God.” However, if we mix fact with fiction, what lesson have we learned? What does it mean to walk with God? For the idea of a “flaming preacher” is for raw, flaming, emotion to leave logic and tradition equally in its wake. Doing so, Whitefield set the stage for the 21st Century’s emotion-driven evangelical speaking. The reader might ask, is that good, or bad? Or some of both? As Whitefield’s emotional outburst, which evoked strong feelings while he stretched biblical devotion past any reasonable limit, offers the reader little functional guidance.

In his sermon “Walking with God,” Whitefield highlighted the obscure biblical character Enoch, a “flaming preacher.” Maybe, however, it was Whitefield himself who was the flaming preacher! Whitefield spun a moral narrative around a stunningly imaginative depiction of Enoch. Forsaking a scholarly exposition, Whitefield’s sermon resembled a modern infotainment program, in which he randomly intermixed documentable points with wild speculation, while making little effort to distinguish one from the other. Just as modern media often intermix fact with fiction, so Whitefield created a make-believe version of Enoch to make a point. Accordingly, the listener learns to “walk with God,” but never learns just what that means in their own lives.

Whitefield, a major figure of the Great Awakening in England and North America, preached heartfelt, energetic sermons to enormous, often outdoor crowds.

In “Walking with God,” Whitefield's theme was, ‘And Enoch walked with God’ (Genesis 5:24 KJV). By creating a metaphorical image that believers should “walk with God,” Whitefield personalized what could otherwise have become a dry, well, shall we say, “preachy” kind of sermon. Since the Bible says little about Enoch, Whitefield felt free to expand poetically to show how a fictionalized Enoch could symbolize the believer’s righteous path.

Tyler Perry at the 2019 BET Awards: "Helping Someone Cross" as a Metaphor for Reaching Out to Help


Enoch’s Imaginative Path

Right from the outset, Whitefield expounded on Enoch’s obscurity, while simultaneously creating a biography for him:

“Who this Enoch was, does not appear so plainly. To me, he seems to have been a person of public character; I suppose, like Noah, a preacher of righteousness. And, if we may credit the apostle Jude, he was a flaming preacher.” [italics added]

“I suppose?” “I suppose?” So, Enoch became, in Whitefield’s powerful imagination, a symbol of how believers can “walk with God.” Lacking evidence, Whitefield created Enoch as a dramatic character. Nothing prevented Whitefield from admitting the obvious, which is that almost nothing is known about Enoch. That, however, would be stunningly unimaginative. Whitefield chose a different, far more creative rhetorical path! For, instead of analyzing what the Bible says, Whitefield preached on what he supposed. Oddly, that tactic seemed to work.

Indeed, to make his point clear, to assuage those listeners who were anxious to live a Christian life, Whitefield showed how Enoch demonstrated, in his own life (about which the Bible says almost nothing), how piously walking with God is the way to heaven:

“… there is a heaven at the end of this walk. For, to use the words of pious bishop Beveridge, ‘Though the way be narrow, yet it is not long: and though the gate be strait, yet it opens into everlasting life’. Enoch found it so. He walked with God on earth, and God took him to sit down with him for ever in the kingdom of heaven.”

On the one hand, yes, Whitefield is expounding on Enoch’s obscure story to the extent of near-fabrication. That is, from the brief statement that Enoch “walked with God,” a brief mention in the biblical Letter of Jude, and the account in Hebrews that Enoch ended up in heaven (Hebrews 11:5), Whitefield derived an important moral principle for his listeners. That principle is that we should walk with God. On the other hand, although the argument is strained, Whitefield’s premise does imply a certain amount of internal logic: 1) The Bible teaches a Christian life, and, 2) Enoch got to heaven. Whitefield reached a speculative conclusion from those two clues. Whitefield’s conclusion seemed so reasonable, at least to believers, that a listener could easily overlook his failure to offer meaningful textual evidence.


Personalizing the Doctrines

As his exposition reached its end, Whitefield continued to personalize Enoch, developing from Enoch’s character a lesson of Christian devotion:

“I observed at the beginning of this discourse, that Enoch in all probability was a public person, and a flaming preacher. Though he be dead, does he not yet speak to us, to quicken our zeal, and make us more active in the service of our glorious and ever-blessed Master? How did Enoch preach! How did Enoch walk with God, though he lived in a wicked and adulterous generation! Let us then follow him, as he followed Jesus Christ….”

The imaginative speculations with which Whitefield started have now, astonishingly, become moral principles. Was Enoch a preacher at all? Much more, was he “a flaming preacher?” The Bible seems to be strangely silent on those questions. Instead, Enoch’s personality was, in large part, a speculative creation of Whitefield’s creative impulses.

Yet, Whitefield was not preaching as a scholar. His method was to preach to, and from, the heart. He wanted his listeners to “walk with God.” From two simple biblical points, that Enoch walked with God and then went to heaven, Whitefield created a narrative frame, a character study, if you will, to inspire his listeners. Whitefield’s fictionalized Enoch seemingly helped listeners grasp his moral, religious perspective, with accuracy being, at best, a minor inconvenience.

In particular, it is astonishing for Whitefield to say, that Enoch “followed Jesus Christ,” when there is no scriptural support whatsoever for that claim. Indeed, I suspect that many rabbis would rightly find that connection to be obscure, if not offensive. In his conclusion, however, Whitefield was more concerned to inspire his audience, and less committed to informing them.

_____________

Here are two present-day evangelical preachers. Does the reader see similarities to Whitefield, in their enthusiasm, or their tendency to speculate? Or not? 

Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate

Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents: Religion Becomes a Political Tool

_____________

Conclusion

So, Whitefield personalized his theological narrative by spinning out a semi-fictionalized version of an obscure person from the Hebrew scriptures. In Whitefield’s sermon, Enoch became a character in a moral drama. Interesting. Controversial. Emotional. Probably quite convincing. Strongly suggestive of preaching techniques that sometimes crop up in the present day. As we listen, today, to the preaching of Franklin Graham or Paula White, or the prosperity preachers, we still experience the Great Awakening’s rhetorical techniques.

_____________

Two other preachers from the Great Awakening

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God:" Proof-Texting as a Rhetorical Tactic

_____________

By William D. Harpine

Historical Note: Although Whitefield never left the Church of England, he often counts as one of the founders of the modern-day Methodist Church, and, later in his career, the American divisions of the Presbyterian Church. It might be more accurate to suggest that Whitefield rarely tied himself to any one religious authority. Indeed, “Walking with God” also presages the Dispensationalist perspective that would come to influence evangelical theology in the next century. In colonial America, Whitefield was known for operating an orphanage. Good for him. Although he insisted that slaves should not be treated harshly, Whitefield enslaved Africans on his American properties. How cruel. Moral complexities are nothing new, are they?

Biblical Note: Jude 1:14-16 KJV in the Bible says only this about Enoch, never mentioning a “flaming preacher:”

“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.”  

However, an ancient writing called the First Book of Enoch, which is not in the Bible, talks repeatedly about “flaming” (“Its ceiling also was flaming fire;” “The flaming fire was round about Him;” “And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire,” etc.). That may account for Whitefield’s claim that Enoch was a “flaming preacher.” Who knows?

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image, public domain, from Project Gutenberg

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about Mountains

Metaphors push people to see hidden insights, to uncover difficult truths, to investigate our own minds. As people, we can move away from old mountains and build mountains. People face challenges and sometimes abandon traditional evils. Speaking at Temple Israel Hollywood, a Reform Jewish synagogue, on February 26, 1965, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about the mountains we all face. In this sermon, King’s metaphor of mountains told us about challenges that the world faces, obstacles that humanity needs to overcome, magnificent goals to seek, and triumphs to achieve, as, King explained, people work toward a biblical Promised Land of love and justice. This magnificent speech presaged 1968’s triumphant culmination, “I Have Been to the Mountain Top.” 

____________

Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Mountaintop in Memphis, Tennessee: A Speech for the Ages

____________

Mount Sinai

A skilled rhetorician, King used the mountain metaphor to make one point after another. He posed moral challenges that still confront us, as too many Americans seek to turn back to the old mountains of oppression and indignity.

King’s thesis connected his powerful metaphor to the scriptural story of Israel escaping from Egypt, a story that reminded the congregation of their shared history of human bondage:

“Tonight I would like to have you think with me from the subject, Keep Moving from this Mountain. I would like to take your minds back many, many centuries into a familiar experience so significantly recorded in the sacred Scriptures. The Children of Israel had been reduced into the bondage of physical slavery.”

Let us look at all the twists King gave to the mountain metaphor.

First, mountains pose terrible obstacles, which must be faced and overcome. As they fled slavery in Egypt, the people of Israel, King said they:

“… had to realize that before they could get to the Promised Land, they had to face gigantic mountains and prodigious hilltops.”

This challenge divided the people into three camps. The first two groups feared the challenges:

“One group said in substance that ‘We would rather go back to Egypt.’ They preferred the flesh pots of Egypt to the challenges of the Promised Land. A second group that abhorred the idea of going back to Egypt, and yet they abhorred the idea of facing the difficulties of moving ahead to the Promised Land and they somehow wanted to remain stationary and choose the line of least resistance.”

The third group, however, after the Promised Land was spied out, decided, according to King, that the land would be a difficult goal to reach, but they could achieve it all the same:

“There was a third group…who admitted that there were giants in the land but who said, ‘We can possess the land.’”

That last group saw the challenges, but determined to overcome them:

“This group said in substance that ‘We will go on in spite of...,’ that ‘We will not allow anything to stop us,’ that ‘We will move on amid the difficulties, amid the trials, amid the tribulations.’”

By now, King was not just talking about physical mountains, but about dangers and conflicts that awaited the people. The metaphor had grown.

Second, King explained that people sometimes must stop climbing one mountain and turn to another:

“The first chapter of the book of Deuteronomy said, ‘Ye have been in this mountain long enough. Turn you and take your journey and go to the mount of the Amorites.’”

In King’s interpretation, God always wants us to look ahead, not behind. This means to face new and different mountains:

“Whenever God speaks, he says, ‘Move on from mountains of stagnant complacency and deadening pacifity.’ So this is the great challenge that always stands before men.”

Third, advancing on the Hebrew scriptures, King talked about mountains that America faced in his own time:

“Tonight, I would like to suggest some of the symbolic mountains that we have occupied long enough and that we must leave if we are to move on to the promised land of justice, peace, and brotherhood.”

Toward that end, King said that, instead of pursuing crass materialism and greed, we must aim at spiritual goals:

“We must move on to that mountain which says in substance, ‘What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world of means -- airplanes, televisions, electric lights -- and lose the end: the soul?’”

Moving toward the mountain that leads us to our souls? That might be the steepest of all climbs. We must, he said, move away from the “mountain of racial injustice:”

“Now the other mountain that we’ve occupied long enough, and certainly it is quite relevant to discuss this at this time when we think of brotherhood -- we’ve been in the mountain of racial injustice long enough. And now it is time for us to move on to that great and noble realm of justice and brotherhood.”

King then spun the globe to discuss world-wide injustice. He found yet another mountain that faced the world: “the mountain of indifference:

“And we’ve been in the mountain of indifference too long and ultimately we must be concerned about the least of these; we must be concerned about the poverty-stricken because our destinies are tied together.”

Nearing his sermon’s end, King said that we must leave “the mountain of violence and hatred.” He said that “violence is both impractical and immoral.” Indeed, he warned, “We’ve been in the mountain of violence and hatred too long.”

Returning to scriptural themes, King concluded by quoting the prophet Isaiah. The prophet said that every mountain must be leveled, and every plain must be raised. Metaphorically, everything evil that society praises must be laid down, and justice must rise, and only then will be see God’s glory:

“Every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill shall be made low. The rough places will be made plain and the crooked places straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”

King’s metaphors pushed his audience to face deep, even frightening, moral challenges. He spoke of how people move away from old mountains; people build mountains; people face challenges, and, most important, how people can abandon traditional evils. In this speech, King challenged the world’s moral foundation (or lack thereof). Such powerful truths. Truths that emerged from the metaphor of mountains. Is it any wonder that so many people hated and feared the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? For truth is the most terrifying threat of all.

Quotations from this speech are from AmericanRhetoric.com, an outstanding website established by my  former classmate, the late Martin J. Medhurst. Marty was one of the top scholars in the history of United States public speaking, and his remarkable contributions are deeply missed. 

____________

Earlier Posts about Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Rhetoric 

Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" Made Biblical Morality a Public Imperative

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech, "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience:" The Civil Rights Movement’s Philosophical Foundation

Did Donald Trump Turn Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. into a Conformist Right-Wing Fanatic? I Don’t Think So, but He Tried. Let’s Look at the Mount Rushmore Speech

"The Law Can't Change the Heart, but It Can Restrain the Heartless:" Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about Church and the Struggle for Justice

For a complete list, enter "Martin Luther King" in the search box on the right. 

By William D. Harpine

Copyright © William D. Harpine

Image: photo by Mohammed Moussa, Creative Commons license, not edited 

An Artificial Intelligence Preached the Gospel. Can We Humans Do Better?

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) preacher modestly began by saying “Dear friends, it is an honor for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year’s convention of Protestants in Germany.” During a 40-minute church service, various AI personalities were projected onto a screen near the altar as their artificial voices came from loudspeakers. The avatars took on the appearance of different men and women. The congregation of more than three hundred worshippers filled historic St. Paul’s Lutheran Church on Dr. Martin Luther King Square in Fürth, Bavaria. The church's glorious architecture stood as a monument of human creativity, while the congregation heard a computer lecture them about the Christian faith. It was a truly historic event.

Jonas Simmerlein, a theologian from the University of Vienna wanted to see whether he could produce an artificial worship service. According to news reports, “the believers in the church listened attentively as the artificial intelligence preached about leaving the past behind, focusing on the challenges of the present, overcoming fear of death, and never losing trust in Jesus Christ.” A bunch of platitudes similar to those heard at Christian churches every week.  

So, yes, okay, it finally happened. An artificial intelligence (AI) with four or so avatars delivered a sermon on a general Christian topic.  The IT specialist/programmer/theologian gave the AI a few prompts and let it rip. (There wasn’t just a sermon; apparently there were also AI hymns, testimonies, and whatnot.) The artificial sermon sort of worked. People laughed only occasionally. Is that because technology is grand? Or is it because people expect little from their sermons, and thus are hard to disappoint? I suspect that the latter is the genuine answer. The AI succeeded, to a degree, because human preachers aren’t consistently setting a high bar. Let’s look at that.

Another Lutheran pastor who attended the event commented that, “I had actually imagined it to be worse. But I was positively surprised how well it worked. Also the language of the AI worked well, even though it was still a bit bumpy at times.”

To no one’s surprise, the worshippers complained that the avatars spoke with no feeling or emotion. I’m sure that a vocal variety plug-in could correct that.

The fact that this experiment worked at all represents, not only a triumph of artificial intelligence, but also a condemnation of the inconsistent state of Christian preaching. Too much of what Christian worshippers typically hear on Sunday morning (or Saturday evening) is a collection of recycled platitudes, often only tangentially related to holy scripture or ancient traditions, which simply repeat trite words that previous generations of pastors have droned on about. “Overcome fear of death?” “Never lose trust in Jesus Christ?” Although that message is fine, as far as it goes, it is no wonder that an AI could do the job.

Now, I don’t mean to denigrate the thousands of enthusiastic Christian ministers who take the time to learn their subject and to speak about it with sincerity and interest. The fact remains, however, that there has long been a hidden underbelly of lazy approaches to preaching.

For one thing, religious bookstores have long carried entire volumes of pre-written sermons. Ministers, elders, or priests can simply go to the bookstore, spend a few hundred dollars on books, and be ready to preach for the rest of their career. Each Sabbath, all you need to do is photocopy the day’s sermon and read it word for word. Of course, this has become easier and cheaper in the Internet age. Today, any number of websites provide sermons ready for ministers and priests to print up and read aloud to their congregations. An old trick is for the preacher to start with, “As John Wesley once said, and I quote, …” and let their congregation assume that the quotation ends after the first sentence rather than after the first hour.

No, I’m not going to give links or citations to any of those sources. I have no wish to give lazy or dishonest preachers any help whatsoever.

Is there an alternative? Surely there is! Allow me, a public speaking teacher, to offer some suggestions for giving good, truly human sermons. These are general comments that can be adapted to various religious traditions. Indeed, different religious traditions call for sermons that might be conversational or energetic, loud or quiet, personal or intellectual. All of those options are fine. What is important is to educate and exhort the congregation in their religious tradition and faith. 

First, the true preacher’s usual method is to ponder the day’s Bible lesson, do in-depth research, explain what the text means, and give historical context.

This is why ultra-conservative Bible scholar Henry Halley, author of Halley’s Bible Handbook, is absolutely right that Christian congregations never tire of learning about the Bible. Why do so many pastors forget that? Of course, long and careful study, regardless of whether it is in seminary or the library, is the necessary and sometimes tedious prerequisite. The preacher should certainly know the subject, and the congregation has every right to expect to learn something new and important every time the preacher speaks. Instead of just repeating what the congregation has heard before, the preacher can dig into the day’s subject anew, endowing the lesson with historical and theological context. The AI presented boring platitudes. A real speaker can and should do better.

Second, congregations often expect the preacher to apply the daily lesson to everyday life or current events. Most people attend religious services because they hope to improve themselves. Accordingly, the preacher should give them a boost. It is, however, a mistake to use the sermon as an excuse to impose one’s own personal political prejudices or bigotry on people. If a preacher uses a captive audience as an opportunity to claim divine inspiration for his or her ridiculous political opinions, well, that’s worse than an AI.

Finally, a preacher must prepare sermons with care. Dr. Rev. Jack B. North, the inspiring minister who married my wife and me 45 years ago, routinely spent three days preparing each week’s sermon. That was not overkill. Good results require hard work. Indeed, no matter how confident a speaker is, the preacher should rehearse the sermon three or four times, out loud, with feeling. Silent practice is no practice at all. Indeed, to override artificial intelligence, the preacher must speak with enthusiasm, compassion, and a caring attitude. Follow those simple steps, and then no one will mistake the preacher for a computer.

Yes, many preachers already do those things. To those who don’t, perhaps an AI computer can remind us that we need a change.

How can you detect a human preacher who is not better than an AI? It’s not often hard. If your minister, priest, or elder reads sermons word for word, droning along, stumbling over big words that he or she has never seen before (because he or she didn’t write them), you might be tempted to engage in uncharitable and unworthy suspicion of the preacher’s level of preparation. 

We have not reached the point where an AI can duplicate the thoughts and feelings of a speaker who has sincere religious faith. The AI in Bavaria could, however, easily duplicate the platitudes of a typical Sunday morning presentation. That is sad, not because technology should scare us, but because many congregations have come to expect trite, banal sermons. 

Let me wish peace and blessings for all my readers, regardless of whatever religious views you do or do not hold. Thanks for reading!
_________________________

By the way, here are blog posts that I’ve written about sermons that I think were admirable.

“Somebody Must Have Sense Enough to Dim the Lights:” Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon about the Power of Love

Pope Francis’ Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

_________________________

Also, by the way, I am always looking for worthy sermons to analyze on this website. The preacher does not need to be famous. I would need an accurate transcript. If applicable, a video link would also be appreciated. You can post it in the comments below, e-mail me at wdharpine@hotmail.com, or tag me on Twitter at @WHarpine.

"Do We Want to Be Healed?" A Sermon of Hope and Promise by Father Gabriel Bilas

Do we even want to be healed?

• Gun violence wracks the United States of America.
• On January 6, 2021, a violent crowd tried to overthrow the presidential election.
• Bizarre conspiracy theories obstruct basic public health measures.
• Indeed, people around the world suffer from problems that are, often, easily solved.

In the face of these sorrows, do we want to be healed? That is the question that Father Gabriel Bilas of Saint Mary Magdalene Orthodox Church of Fenton, Michigan wants us to answer.

In his May 18, 2022 sermon, Father Gabriel recounts the story of a paralyzed man who, according to the Gospel of John (5: 1-15), sat next to a miraculous pool at Bethsaida (Bethesda) in Jerusalem, waiting for someone to put him in the water and heal him:

“Before this incredible miracle, we hear a rather strange question escape our Savior’s lips. It is one that should leave us all a little puzzled. Christ goes up to this man, who has spent 38 years at this miracle working pool, trying to persuade a passer-by to help him into the waters when they are stirred by the angels, and asks: ‘Do you want to be healed?’”

The question should, Father Gabriel comments, puzzle us. Of course the man wants to be healed! He's been sitting there for years waiting to be healed! Why does the question even come up? Maybe, Father Gabriel wonders, the man has given up. Maybe he has grown so accustomed to his misery that he no longer tries to change:

“He may have become invalid in spirit as well as body, finding satisfaction when others catered to him. He may have just wanted to settle for the existence and the way of life that he had become accustomed to.”

Father Gabriel points out that, in many ways, we, too, often give up in our personal lives. We often forget to feed our own spirits. This leads him to ask:

“Do we want to be made well, brothers and sisters?”

He continues:

“What earthly comforts, or illogical doubts, or anger, or malice, or passion is holding my arms back from taking the outstretched hand of God?”

The question goes however, far beyond even that worthy point. Human beings are social creatures. We live in communities, nations, churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. We live in businesses, schools, and farms. No matter what our secular ideas tell us, no one—no one—succeeds alone. Are we to be healed of the divisions that threaten to tear the United States of America to pieces? Do we choose to be healed? For the first step in healing is to desire it. The paralyzed man could (according to the Gospel story) be healed easily if only someone would put him in the pool. Indeed, many of today’s problems could be solved—easily—if we would only help one another. Therefore, we ask the simple, surprising question: “do we want to be healed?” We must decide whether our “earthly comforts, or illogical doubts, or anger, or malice, or passion” can reach such depths that we neglect to accept healing.

For, as Father Gabriel reminds us, we must want to be healed. We must choose healing. Yes, surely, we should feel puzzled that the question even arises. Maybe we fail to answer it because of our “illogical doubts.” Worse, maybe we answer “no” because it is more important to win, to triumph at someone else’s expense, than to heal ourselves. Maybe we have indeed become so comfortable with our divisions and our vindictive sicknesses that healing may seem like too much of a change. Healing may be more than we can contemplate. Or so we think. Indeed, we sometimes choose failure because healing seems like too much to expect.

Father Gabriel offers a message of hope and resolution. From a local preacher at a small-town church, the basic question for our times: “Do we want to be healed?” Can we make the right choices? I think we can. What do you think?

_______________  

Do you have suggestions? This post is part of a series about sermons from various eras and religious traditions. Some were famous; others not. All pose challenging moral questions. I'd love to hear your suggestions for sermons to write about. I especially want to write more about sermons by women, as well as sermons from other nations or additional traditions. Peace to all! 

Earlier posts:

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

“Somebody Must Have Sense Enough To Dim The Lights:” Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon about the Power of Love

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

“What, They Demand, Is Your Christianity?" Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice

Pope Francis' Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Rev. Witherspoon and the Christian Right in the Revolutionary War

Father Ioann Burdin Cited Christian Values to Oppose the Invasion of Ukraine

Father Ioann Burdin Cited Christian Values to Oppose the Invasion of Ukraine

Do Christian leaders speak according to the principles of the “Prince of Peace?” Or do they bow to public authorities who are often violent and wicked? Father Ioann Burdin, a small-town Russian Orthodox priest, was recently arrested for breaking a newly-enacted Russian law that prohibits anyone from discrediting the armed forces. Both online and in a sermon to his parish, Father Burdin criticized Russia’s war against Ukraine. Standing up, not only against his own government, but also his church’s patriarch, he called for Christians to resist evil.

There is more to this than we might think. Let us never forget that Adolf Hitler was a Christian Nationalist who rose to power with strong support from Christian conservatives. Religious people of any doctrine face constant temptation to twist religion to evil. Yes, government leaders can use religion to strengthen their own power. Nevertheless, religion is at its best when it challenges wrongful governmental actions.

And, in fact, challenging government is exactly what Father Burdin did, and in no uncertain terms. In translation, his website said:

“Brothers and sisters! In the early morning of 24 February, Russian troops attacked Ukraine. There is shelling of Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities. Russian soldiers are killing their brothers and sisters in Christ. We Christians do not dare to stand aside when a brother kills a brother, a Christian kills a Christian. Let us not repeat the crimes of those who hailed Hitler’s action on 1 September 1939. We cannot shamefacedly close our eyes and call black white, [or] evil good, [or] say that Abel was probably wrong in provoking his older brother. The blood of the inhabitants of Ukraine will remain on the hands of not only the rulers of the Russian Federation and the soldiers who carry out this order. Their blood is on the hands of each of us who approved this war or who simply remained silent.”

A Progression of Moral Ideas

Father Burdin began by stating the facts, reminded his congregation of Christian moral principles, brought up historical precedents, and concluded with a universal call.

First, he described the Russian military’s attacks against Ukraine in cities. He pointed out that many Ukrainians are Christians.

Second, Father Burdin said that Christians should never look away when “a brother kills a brother.” In fact, he said “dare:” Christians should not “dare to stand aside.” It requires courage to resist earthly authorities. In contrast, “dare” suggests that only great arrogance causes one to stand against God’s laws.

Father Burdin was not saying that it is all right for Christians to go to war against non-Christians. Instead, he chose words carefully to help his congregation identify with the war’s Ukrainian victims.

Third, he compared the Ukraine-Russia war with the horrors of World War II. Hitler’s army invaded Ukraine during that horrible conflict, spreading devastation while committing horrible massacres in Ukraine itself. That army, as Russians well remember, soon swept into Russia itself. Father Burdin reminded his congregation that many people “hailed Hitler’s actions on 1 September 1939.” That bold statement implied that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was equally wrong. Furthermore, it implicitly condemned people of today who praise Putin’s actions. We all know that Hitler was evil. Since we don’t always recognize evil in ourselves, Father Burdin showed the similarities between Hitler in 1939 and Putin in 2022.

 

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

Fourth, Father Burdin pointed out that the entire nation is responsible. Not only are Russia’s rulers and soldiers guilty of shedding Ukrainian blood, but also “Their blood is on the hands of each of us who approved this war or who simply remained silent.”

Russia is a constitutional republic only in name, as Vladimir Putin rules the nation with an iron fist. Yet, Father Burdin said that anyone who endorses the war, even by silence, is morally responsible. (How much more are Americans responsible if they stay silent in the face of evil?)

The Russian authorities arrested this troublesome priest and sentenced him to pay a fine, which was covered by his parish’s donations.


Moral Courage Is Rare

Yet, not much earlier, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, the spiritual leader of Russian Orthodoxy, praised Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He supported Putin because he wanted to avoid moral deterioration and Gay Pride parades. (Doesn’t that sound like the American Christian right?) Patriarch Kirill’s pro-war stance is sparking stark divisions in the Russian Orthodox Church.


Religion and Government

It’s not just Christians. Will religious leaders, of whatever sect or denomination, stand up for what is right? Or will they let the lust for power corrupt their sacred teachings? History gives us many examples of both paths. In the United States, our own Christian Right continues to seek political power, often abandoning their own religious principles in the process. In 2014, Rev. Franklin Graham did not exactly praise Putin, but did speak favorably of Putin’s anti-gay-rights philosophy. He used that opportunity to attack Barack Obama for defending gay people’s rights. Christian Right author Eric Metaxas blamed the Ukraine war, not on Putin, but on an American Deep State conspiracy. 

So, at risk to himself, Father Burdin stood up to a ruthless dictator. He reminded his congregation about Christian values of peace; of brotherhood and sisterhood. He warned them not to repeat the mistakes of those who supported Hitler. He urged them not to watch evil deeds in silence. Furthermore, he reminded the world to speak up to do the right things. If religion and government become too close, both inevitably become corrupted. Father Burdin, a small-town priest, spoke up for what is right. So far, his government isn’t listening. Are we?

Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents

In Warsaw, Biden Warned the World of "The Long Fight Ahead"

“What, They Demand, Is Your Christianity?" Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice

Of all the places that should (in principle) be open to everyone, rich and poor, regardless of background or race, should not Christian churches (and, indeed, all religious institutions) be foremost? Yet, almost two centuries ago, Rev. Theodore S. Wright complained bitterly when his fellow ministers locked out African-American worshipers.

Wright, an African-American Presbyterian minster, spoke against racial prejudice. In his 1837 speech to the New York Anti-Slavery Society, he said that it was not just slaves who faced intense discrimination. Even free African-Americans were forbidden to study trades, locked out of colleges, and, he added, “oppressed by a corrupt public sentiment.” Wright pointed out the mistreatment that African-Americans often received in churches, complained that prejudice affected their ability to save their souls, and proposed to rectify the problem by shaming racist clergy. He noted that in evangelical revivals, “which have been blessed and enjoyed in this part of the country, the colored population were overlooked.” Wright explained:

“But sir, this prejudice goes further. It debars men from heaven. While sir, slavery cuts off the colored portion of the community from religious privileges, men are made infidels. What, they demand, is your Christianity? How do you regard your brethren? How do you treat them at the Lord’s table? Where is your consistency in talking about the heathen, transversing the ocean to circulate the Bible everywhere, while you frown upon them at the door? These things meet us and weigh down our spirits.”

We can allow Wright a bit of hyperbole. Obviously, his own church welcomed African-American worshipers. It remained true, however, that African-American worshipers were, as was the custom, often consigned to the balcony. Even worse, they were, as he explained, sometimes excluded from churches entirely.

Having shown the problem, Wright offered a bold solution. His idea was to awaken the consciences of White pastors. On one occasion, Wright himself went around to other church elders to inquire about this failing of theirs. He literally went door to door:

“We went and they humbled themselves. The Church commenced efficient efforts, and God blessed them as soon as they began to act for these people as though they had souls.”

Yet, he noted that even when African-American worshipers were allowed into the churches, they were relegated to the balconies, as if “the value of the pews would be diminished if the colored people sat in them.”

Wright gave his speech at a time of religious upheaval. White and Black churches tended to separate in the 1800’s in The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, was originally created as an act of racial discrimination. My own Methodist denomination split in the 1800s, after African-American worshipers were often rejected or consigned to the balconies. For example, Rev. Richard Allen founded the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in 1816. Like many African-American Methodist churches, the AME shares doctrines, rules, and rituals with other Methodist Churches. The AME church formed because church ushers in Philadelphia literally dragged Allen off of his knees in the middle of prayer. And yet, even today in 2022, churches sadly remain among the most segregated institutions.

Thank you, Rev. Wright, for pointing out the monstrous injustice and hypocrisy that afflicted the Christian churches in 1837. How lamentable that the issue has not disappeared. Yes, today, it is rare for White-majority churches to expel people of color. Not universal, however, is to welcome them, not as guests, but as brothers and sisters. Rev. Wright was correct when he complained that “These things meet us and weigh down our spirits.”

Indeed, we cannot say today that African Americans are generally debarred from Christian churches. Furthermore, I enthusiastically praise denominations like the AME Church or African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, which offer so much community and spiritual support. That is no excuse for churches that restrict themselves, however unconsciously. We might want to ask why churches, of all places, often remain highly segregated. 

Can speeches help with these problems? Speeches such as Wright’s might affect people’s attitudes and actions. Their effect is greatest if the message is repeated over, over, and over. Wright spoke a long time ago. Do we need to hear his message, updated to suit our times, repeated again?

Among their other functions, public speeches help people recognize social problems. We continue to recognize Black History Month because we look to the past for lessons. Wright complained about discrimination in employment, education, and most of all, religion. What has changed since 1837? What has not changed? If Wright spoke today, what would he say? Would he tell us that everything is fine? Would he complain that prejudice still restricts African-Americans? I think we all know the answer to that question. Don’t we?

______________________  

Earlier Posts:

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon on the Power of Love

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

Pope Francis' Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Rabbi Cahana’s Sermon on the Power of Love

______________________  

P.S. Wright spoke in cosmopolitan New York City. More western parts of New York state were called the “burned over district” in 1837 because of all the fire and brimstone preaching. Wright’s speech was probably tame compared with what his audience may have heard around the state. I may look into New York’s historical evangelism in upcoming posts. What do you think?

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

“Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate.”  (Amos 6:15)

Choosing that passage from the prophet Amos (6:15), Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana of the historic Congregation Beth Israel in Portland, Oregon, gave a sermon on the topic, “Summer of Love / Summer of Hate – Love is What We Need,” on Rosh Hashana, 5778. (That would be September 20, 2017 in the Gregorian calendar.) His message was simple: that we were seeing an outbreak of hateful right-wing violence, and the answer was not angry confrontation, but love. His claim was deeply rooted in religious tradition. He did not speak for weakness, but for the strength of love and justice. His lesson reaches to us today, four years later, maybe more than ever. For Rabbi Cahana gave a scriptural response to the viciousness of the United States of America’s growing right-wing movement.

 

The Rising Right-Wing Threat

 

Rabbi Cahana commented about “the history of White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis and the KKK” in his own city of Portland, Oregon. He recalled his childhood experiences: his parents needed to protect him and his siblings from “the night phone calls and bomb threats.” He criticized the recent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. He criticized the “Torch-bearing marchers chanting the Nazi slogan of ‘Blood and Soil.’” He was chilled as he heard the white supremacists’ slogan “Jews Will Not Replace Us,” which “made me question our Jewish safety.” He expressed his shock that the Charlottesville police declined  to protect worshipers in the Charlottesville synagogue.

 

People who scream out these white supremacist and Nazi slogans often call themselves “patriots.” Yet, do those so-called patriots really stand for American revolutionary values? In contrast, Rabbi Cahana reminded his congregation of the exact words of tolerance and equality that George Washington himself offered to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. Washington said:

 

“Happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

 

Those words from the United States’ first president assured Jews that, in our country, there was no place for religious prejudice. Yet, Unite the Right did the opposite of Washington’s words. They tried to take the nation along a dark road of bigotry.

 

The Answer Is Love, Not Hate

 

How should good people respond to attitudes like those of “Unite the Right?” The ideals of equality that George Washington promised survive only if people act on them. The rabbi’s answer to right-wing threats was not hostility, but love:

 

“But I am not discouraged. I am optimistic. I know the goodness of this country and I know that the shouted hatred of a few, even when it turns deadly, is far outweighed by the kindness in the hearts of the many.“

 

Describing Naziism as “a dying ideology,” Cahana instead insisted that:

 

“What we need is a little more love.”

 

Concluding his powerful sermon, Rabbi Cahana embellished on the prophet Joel:

 

“Hate evil – be outraged, love the good – bring love, bring optimism, find the good – establish justice in the gate –  make sure that the actions we choose are positive and good and lead to more justice.”

 

Echoing Joel’s ideas, Cahana insisted that anger could lead us nowhere. Anger breeds only more anger, and so the answer is love:

 

“Outrage keeps us in a place of hate. What we need is love. Love, not anger, to confront the hate. Love of each other is stronger than the hate which wants to tear us apart. Love the stranger and welcome them into our midst. Love the other who is different and let them know they are loved. Let those who are the objects of hate feel the love. All you need is love.”

 

No group has ever suffered more terribly from right-wing extremists than the Jews during World War II. Yet, the right wing seems committed to denying history. Recently, a Texas school district told its teachers that they should teach “both sides” of the Holocaust. (They backed down under pressure.) Are there really two sides of the Holocaust? Well, only if you think there is a good side to bigotry, mass murder, slavery, and brutal slaughter. No, unlike that Texas school district, we should not try to justify the Holocaust. We should not excuse bigotry and cruelty. We should not forget the historic horrors of right-wing extremism. To forget is to risk repetition.

 

At the same time, Rabbi Cahana insisted, “The Summer of Hate has ended.” He urged the congregation to “create again the Summer of Love.”

 

Rabbi Cahana’s most positive point, however, was, in the words of the prophet, to “establish justice in the gate.” Powerful forces, not just in the United States, but across the world, are trying to revive the Nazi tyranny. Or, if not Nazism itself, many people support its close cousins like the Ku Klux Klan and the Proud Boys. In the face of that threat, should we not remember that justice, not strength, is the ultimate earthly power?

 

And What about Today?

 

Yet, four years after Cahana’s sermon, the right-wing threat has failed to disappear. Contrary to Rabbi Cahana’s hope, I see no sign that right-wing extremism is dying. People carrying Confederate flags stormed into the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Their futile hope was to use violence to reinstall their hero, who had conclusively lost reelection, as President of the United States. People at political rallies openly wear Nazi emblems on their clothing. A right-wing member of Congress threatened to murder his liberal colleagues – and Republican leaders, instead of condemning him, remain silent.

 

All the same, was Cahana’s sermon too optimistic? I think not. Let us never forget that the ancient tradition of Judaism, as well as most of the world’s great religions, is to do what is right. Can we ever risk thinking that evil will overpower good? To be optimistic and loving does not make either a person or a nation weak. It means that justice is the stronger force. 

________________

Related Posts:  

 

John Wesley’s Sermon Against Bigotry

 

Richard Spencer’s Speech on the End of History: Right-Wing Extremism Finds a New Voice

 

President Trump Speaking about Charlottesville: "Very Fine People" on Both Sides?