Post by Rabbi Neil on Jun 16, 2017 19:42:19 GMT
Do you remember years ago when Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were duking it out for the nomination, and Hillary’s people picked up on the sermons by Obama’s pastor? Jeremiah Wright was the pastor of the church, and he gave some sermons which were branded as extremely controversial. Interestingly, though, when you look back on those sermons, which are available online, they’re really not that controversial. In his sermon called “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall,” people were horrified by the fact that Reverend Wright said that “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.” Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that America’s involvement in the affairs of other countries has an effect today on the country today. In a sermon called “Confusing God and Government,” some of the most controversial statements were that governments lie. He said, “[The United States] government lied about their belief that all men were created equal. The truth is they believed that all white men were created equal. The truth is they did not even believe that white women were created equal, in creation nor civilization. The government had to pass an amendment to the Constitution to get white women the vote. Then the government had to pass an equal rights amendment to get equal protection under the law for women.” He went on to say that they lied that a woman has rights over her body and that legislation was coming to try to remove that further. And he added that governments lie about why they want to go to war. He also added that they lied to the Native American population. I don’t have much of a problem with any of that. Where he did upset people was when he said the following, “…Not God Bless America. God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America, as long as she tries to act like she is God, and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent.” The Clinton camp at the time seized on this and suggested that a Presidential candidate who listens to that kind of sermon is not fit for office. Obama, in turn, spoke eloquently about the historical and social context of the sermon and condemned the statements but, of course, the right-wing elements of the media were having a field day with an African-American presidential candidate who listened to a sermon saying “God damn America,” as, indeed, was his opponent. Indeed, she said quite pointedly that “you don’t choose your family but you choose what church you want to attend.” She later added that “I think given all we have heard and seen, [Wright] would not have been my pastor.” Interestingly, one person came to the defence of Obama was John McCain, who quite wisely said that supporting someone doesn’t necessarily mean supporting every single thing that they say.
Why, nine years on, am I talking about this? I was reminded this week of a difficult sermon I gave a number of weeks ago about President Trump’s missile strike on Syria in retaliation for Assad’s gas attack on civilians. I gave a sermon that was deliberately trying to challenge the established liberal narrative that all military action is wrong. Of all the sermons I’ve delivered here at TBS so far, which comes to around 150, that was the one that really split opinion. There are only three sermons I’ve given in my life – and that’s out of over 700 sermons – that I’ve regretted and that was one of them. In all three times, it was because the sermon was approaching a sensitive subject with some degree of lack of nuance, or because I inserted my own emotions into the sermon.
And this got me thinking about the role of the sermon. I vaguely remember someone once telling me that the sermon is designed to unsettle the settled, and to settle the unsettled. The challenge is to achieve both in one sermon. In fact, that’s such a challenge that I think it’s usually impossible. So, should a sermon just be to help settle people, to tell them nice words that leave them feeling better about the world? No, I don’t think so. Sometimes a sermon should be unsettling, but then what do we do with that after we hear it? Back in 2008, one answer was made very clear – if you find the sermon unsettling, don’t go back. And I think that statement is mistaken, because it suggests that religion is about making people happy. I don’t think it is. I think religion should be about pushing people beyond their normal lives. Religion should be challenging.
But there’s a problem with that. Pushing people, challenging people in the context of a discussion is fine because they can respond immediately, a dialogue can be established and there can be a meeting of minds. With a sermon, that’s not entirely possible though because it’s not a dialogue (although that does remind me that I do want to start doing Dialogue sermons here at some point in the future). After a controversial or difficult sermon, not everyone may feel comfortable engaging in a dialogue about it over the oneg. Or they may have too much to process to want to talk about it yet. Or they may just not feel comfortable approaching the Rabbi and saying, “I think you’re wrong.” I understand all of those. All this got me wondering about setting up some kind of discussion group. Given time constraints, it’s best online because then we can comment at any time of day or night. The idea is that I post the sermon on Friday just before Shabbat and then during that week members who log in can comment and we can have an interesting discussion. This would take the sermon not as the final word on a topic but as the start of a conversation. And I would rather have it that way, actually. I’m just a guy who knows quite a lot about Judaism so sometimes when I talk about politics, or America, or other faiths, sometimes I may not be correct and it’s right that that’s not the final word. So, I’m going to try evolving the sermon and seeing whether community members are interested in this discussion. If you go to oursermondiscussion.boards.net you’ll find this sermon and, once you sign in, for free, you’ll be able to comment. If you like a sermon, you’ll be able to share that. If you don’t, you’ll be able to share that. If you have questions, you’ll be able to ask them. The point is that this sermon, and no sermon, should be the final word on a topic. They should be the start of a conversation, and we’re now making it easier for members to be part of that conversation.
That way, if a sermon challenges, I want to hear. If a sermon comforts, I want to hear. If a sermon seems mistaken, I want to hear. And then we can all grow together in discussion. So, may we all come together in dialogue, may we not flee from difficult topics or from being challenged, but embrace being challenged within the context of a loving community of open dialogue, and let us say, Amen.
