Support the Café

Search our Site

Reporting on sermons: NYTimes and the Presiding Bishop

Reporting on sermons: NYTimes and the Presiding Bishop

by Dan Schultz

We’ve heard a lot about controversial sermons in recent years: there was the whole Jeremiah Wright thing (and to a lesser extent the Michael Pfleger thing). That same election cycle John McCain had trouble with John Hagee, and then in 2011 Rick Perry ran into a spot of bother with Robert Jeffress. This year Luis Leon gave Obama a bit of a headache on Easter Sunday, and though Sr. Laurie Brink technically delivered addresses, not sermons, to a convention of nuns, it was enough to create some mishegas at the Vatican’s doctrinal offices.

The latest, via the New York Times’ Mark Oppenheimer, is that Katherine Jefferts Schori misinterpreted the book of Acts in a sermon preached to an Episcopal congregation in Curaçao, and this has traditionalists hopping mad, and how.

Now, full disclosure: Oppenheimer and I have some history, which you’re welcome to google if you want. That being said, I’ll only knock him for picking up uncritically the perspective of knee-jerk opponents of the Episcopal church. Like Jim Naughton said on Twitter the other day, the Presiding Bishop could say “Pass the ketchup,” and some of these people would respond with lengthy diatribes on the centrality of tomato imagery in the writings of Gnostic heretics. There’s actually nothing wrong with noticing a minor controversy like this and using it to reflect on the struggles of a denomination: everybody knows TEC has and will have its share of struggles over the coming years. But journalists need to be careful in analyzing church fights. It’s rarely black and white, and sometimes, as in this case, the same people complaining are actively trying to submarine the church. You might want to take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

That’s a relatively minor concern, however. What seems more worrisome is the continued pattern of journalists and political activists taking sermons out of context to drive some kind of narrative, whether political or about divisions in the church. Bishop Jefferts Schori almost certainly did get Paul’s intentions wrong in her sermon, but that’s not the point. Sermons are primarily for the people who hear them, meaning the people of God who have gathered to hear the word of God in the context of a particular community gathered at a particular place and a particular time. They are very seldom meant for a wider audience than their immediate setting, and they are—or should never—be for the purpose of scoring political points.

Religious leaders can and should be held accountable for the words they preach. But before reporters go ripping passages out of sermons to slap down in a news report, they need to ask themselves some hard questions:

do I fully understand the context in which this sermon was given?

Do I understand how it might serve the needs of the community to which it was delivered, and how those needs might be different from those of the wider society?

Do I understand the damage that reporting on this sermon might to do to the religious community?

Does reporting on it contribute to the manipulation of religious discourse for partisan ends?

Is reporting on worth the risk of cheapening the words that some people literally hold sacred?

If journalists are going to respect religious faith, as they’re always being encouraged to do, they will take those questions seriously and look for a compelling reason to lift a message out of its particular setting and place it into a general context. “Pastor preaches sermon” may be the oldest story in the church, but “Some people are unhappy with Pastor’s sermon” might just be the second oldest. It is by itself an insufficient cause for a column.

One last word, by way of fairness: preachers must also accept some responsibility here. Anybody who’s been in the pulpit understands that even the most innocuous sermon can be easily bent out of shape by somebody who wasn’t there, and even sometimes by the people who were. The best sermons aren’t necessarily the least controversial, but they are as a rule the ones that respect both the intelligence of the congregation and its particular, peculiar need to hear the word of God in a new way. Preachers and journalists could learn from that notion.

Daniel Schultz, known as “pastordan” around the internet, is a writer and teacher in Wisconsin.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
William R. MacKaye

Schulz has forgotten the principle enunciated originally I believe by the legendary Sam Goldwyn: “I don’t care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right.” Oppenheimer’s interesting piece in the New York Times served to call again to widespread attention that the Episcopal Church is neither asleep nor irrelevant.

It’s silly to think that the Presiding Bishop was preaching a quiet little sermon to an obscure congregation in the Dutch Antilles. As an earlier commenter correctly pointed out, everything she says is aimed at as wide an audience as she can attract.

On this sermon she hit a home run. Why she even got people talking about the significance of Acts and whether it is a reliable source on Paul.

Tom Sramek Jr

To say that the Presiding Bishop’s sermons are only meant for a local context displays a striking lack of appreciation for both her position in the church and the nature of the Internet and social networking. Like it or not, the Presiding Bishop is Primate and Chief Pastor of The Episcopal Church. As a result, her public speeches, whether sermons or lectures, are received by a worldwide audience and assumed to be the de facto theological positions of the Episcopal Church. No journalist, much less the average person, is going to slow down to hear the disclaimer that only General Convention can state official church positions. If the Presiding Bishop says it, the church is assumed to believe it–perhaps because the Archbishop of Canterbury is assumed to speak for the Church of England and the Pope for the Roman Catholic Church.

Like scripture, sermons are always the union of scriptural interpretation and congregational application. In reading the questions you posed, it occurred to me that they are a lot like questions I ask when reading scripture: Who was it intended for? What was the social reality at the time? How would the people have heard the words?

I think what bothered me most about the Presiding Bishop’s interpretation of the passage was the assumption that St. Paul was essentially just a bully who was clueless about multicultural and spiritual realities. The assumption is that the woman’s “spirit of divination” was simply an unrecognized gift of God rather than a demonic possession in which she was in spiritual bondage seems tailor-made for a modern Gospel of inclusiveness that assumes supernatural things have easy non-spiritual explanations or are simply misunderstandings. What if the woman was actually in spiritual bondage and was being exploited by others? Wouldn’t that have had some application to the modern world?

Regardless, Katherine Jefferts Schori, who I deeply respect, needs to assume that any time she makes any public statement and either communicates it or allows it to be communicated, people will assume that it represents the opinion of at least a majority of Episcopalians, if not the church as a whole. If that is a problem for her, she only has two years to go until it is no longer true.

John B. Chilton

Only she knows for sure, but my projection is that the PB is delighted to have a sermon actively engaged. Yes, there are have misunderstand her and those whose purpose is to undermine her and the denomination she leads. But mostly, I am happy to see we’re debating the substance and the various interpretations of the living word.

As far as seeing it in the NYT, why not? The only issue is that Oppenheimer made it sound like this particular sermon is of some significance to the fracture lines that exist in our denomination. It just isn’t that big a deal. That’s where Oppenheimer fell short as a reporter.

Rev. Kurt

Darn it, I meant to say:

Having preached on the same lessons, I was curious to see what our Presiding Bishop said.

Rev. Kurt Huber

Rev. Kurt

Oh good grief.

Some people will get upset at anything.

Having preached on the same lessons, I was curious to see who our Presiding Bishop did.

What she said, which is a paragraph in her sermon, fits well with what she was preaching on and does not in any way compromise the biblical text.

Disagree with her sermon, go right ahead. Engage her sermon. Don’t just call her names.

Heretical, hardly.

Rev. Kurt Huber

St. Peter’s, Monroe, CT

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café