TRINITY
XV 2007
“Keep, we beseech
thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy … and lead us to all things
profitable to our salvation” (Collect for Trinity XV).
The duty of a
preacher is to expound the Gospel, to teach the faithful from Holy Scripture. Many preachers today seem to spend more time
doing social commentary; and while such may have its place, the pulpit should
not be that place. Having said that, I
am now going to begin by launching into that same morass. If you will bear with me, I should like to
read an entire article by Robert Sibley, whom I have quoted before, that was
run recently in the Ottawa Citizen.
“In the movie The
Queen, the Tony Blair character berates his staff for their
disdain of Her Royal Majesty, Elizabeth II, in the days following
the death of Lady Diana.
“"That woman
has given her whole life in service to her people," says the
fictional British prime minister, "and now we line up baying
for her blood — why? Because she's
struggling to lead the world in mourning for a woman who threw
everything back in her face, and who seemed, in the last few years,
to be committed 24/7 to destroying everything she holds dear."
“I like to think
scriptwriter Peter Morgan captured the real-life Tony Blair's views
because they offer a healthy psychological countervail to all the
hoopla marking the 10th anniversary of Diana's death on Aug. 31.
“In recent weeks
we've been inundated with remembrances of the Princess of Wales —
from the July concert organized by her sons to a book entitled Lady
D that laments how much better the world would be if Diana had
lived. Few commentators, it seems,
have picked up the implications of Morgan's script: that Diana's
elevation to secular sainthood symbolizes the increasing sentimentalization
of Western culture.
“Sentimentality is
an emotional vice of our times. It is
not simply a matter of wallowing in what Edmund Burke referred to
as "pleasing illusions."
Rather, it is a kind of emotional lying to yourself. In his book Sound Sentiments,
philosopher David Pugmire describes a sentimentalist as someone who
"subordinates[s] truth to desired emotional effect." That is to say, a sentimentalist is
less concerned with the actual significance of an object or an event
than they are with the emotional impact of that object or event on
themselves. In short, "sentimental
concern is narcissistic."
“Diana's death was
unquestionably a defining cultural moment. But the mass grief and her subsequent
apotheosis as a cultural icon betray a civilization that has fallen
away from traditions of stoical reserve, rational expression and
public dignity in times of tragedy.
“To be sure, many
who stood outside the gates at
“Perhaps the most
telling evidence of the sentimental vice was the hostility shown
toward the Royal Family for not appearing as mournful as the mob
wanted. This being a democratic age,
the mob got its wish. The Royal
Family had to parade before the teddy bears rather than uphold the
public dignity of the monarchy by being allowed to grieve in
private.
“Such
sentimentalism has unhealthy consequences.
Sadly, Diana, in her role as The Victim — loveless marriage,
lovelorn divorcee, bulimic, desperate devotee of therapy — came
to symbolize a society in which self-restraint too readily gives way
to self-indulgence, personal responsibility too often surrenders to
victimhood and duty is a dirty word.
“Increasingly,
Western society seems to be driven by sentimentalists. For every ribbon there's a cause, for
every donation a victim. Too
many believe that when anything bad happens to them, there must be
someone else to blame. We grab a lawyer
to sue those who trespass on our egos. We turn to politicians who'll assure us
we've been victimized. We run to a
therapist who'll tell us we aren't lazy or stupid or greedy, but
victims of a syndrome or a neurochemical malfunction.
“The greatest
danger is at the political level.
Sentimentalists reject the world as it is, in favour of a
wished-for world. And that
makes them a threat. A society of
sentimental citizens no longer has the will to confront its enemies
because they are convinced that everyone is fundamentally like them
— you know, decent, tolerant, compassionate, broad-minded. Sentimentalists fall into the trap
of thinking dialogue and displays of empathy will clear up all
misunderstandings between nations. In
this way, sentimentalism infects and weakens the institutions —
legislatures, churches, the military, etc. — that require reason,
restraint and, sometimes, ruthlessness to keep the ship of state
afloat.
“As some character
in The Queen should have said: "Sentimentality threatens
to sink everything we hold dear."”
Well, whether
we agree with him or not, that’s certainly stated rather plainly isn’t it? His article reminded me of something that I
referred to in a sermon some 10 years ago about the state of emotional
confusion in which our society finds itself.
A school teacher somewhere in
What about us in the
Church? Although, again it is not seemly
for preachers to state personal opinions, I am going to do just that. In listening to people in our own parish, in
other parishes across the country and around the world in the TAC, there seems
to be a very broad spectrum in terms of attitudes. On the one extreme, there are the
sentimentalists to which Robert Sibley refers.
Failing to recognize that truth, when it comes to Jesus Christ, is in
fact absolute, they are more than willing to engage in somewhat dreamy-eyed
inter-faith dialogue with others who summarily reject Christianity, even
somehow managing to convince themselves that 2+2 can equal not only 4, but a
variety of other numbers. Which is to
say, holding to the indefensible position that all religions and philosophies
are equally true.
Many Christians who fall
into this area feel absolutely that they are fulfilling Jesus’ teaching that we
must exercise compassion, love of neighbour, in all circumstances. But here, let us draw a line between compassion
- helping someone who is truly in need, and equally also not engaging in
violence against one’s neighbour regardless of their race, colour, creed etc. -
vs. the kind of sentimental emotionalism to which Robert Sibley refers.
True compassion in the
Christ-like sense can sometimes appear harsh.
And a distinction that is often missed is that of first, tolerance, and
then, acceptance. In last evening’s
Second Lesson at the Daily office we read how the same Jesus who would not
condemn a woman caught in adultery promptly ordered her to “go and sin no
more”. He showed compassion but then
immediately told her that He would neither tolerate nor accept her continuing
to commit that sin. The same Jesus Who
rode into
Now these words are bandied
about quite freely these days especially by people who have adopted a tactic
that is most popular among liberal humanists - that of insisting things like
“truth is relative,” “if you don’t accept my position then you are an uncaring,
intolerant Neanderthal” missing the point that they, liberal humanists are
often the most intolerant people one is likely to meet. In bringing that mindset and type of tactic
into the Christian forum, we often hear that people who perceive themselves to
have been historically marginalized say things like, “If Jesus were alive
today, because He is so loving, He would accept me”, usually thrown up as a
pre-emptive argument attempting to disarm any response that might be perceived
as contrary. Well, let’s dissect the
misused “acceptance” argument. First of
all, yes, we are all children of God, and our Lord does love all of us. However, again using the example of the
adulterous woman, while he loved her in the compassionate sense (agape), He
definitely did not condone her continuance in that activity. He did not, does not, will not accept sin as
a spiritually justified position.
Now, back to the compassion
vs. sentimentality point on a grander scale.
Another popular trend among Christians is to not only tolerate, but
apparently accept other religions. But I
would ask anyone who may be leaning that way, how can we say the Creed, “I
believe” and then turn around and betray that very statement by accepting
something quite contrary? For example,
tied up within the Creeds and our belief in Jesus Christ is the fundamental
aspect encapsulated in the statement “God is love”, meaning agape, compassion,
charity. How can those of us who are
called to exhibit the same accept the uncharitable practices of philosophies
that hold to variations of karma that preclude compassion towards others? How can we accept other religions whose
stated purpose is to dominate all others into physical submission? George Santayana’s statement comes to mind,
“Those who fail to learn from history….”
Sentimentalism. On the other extreme are those that I would
call “spiritual rednecks” who would like to bomb to smithereens those who are
opposed to orthodox Christianity, including politicians and sociologists who
aren’t card carrying spiritual rednecks themselves. Failing to recognize that even militant
Muslims, mixed up politicians and screamingly effeminate homosexuals are also
children of God, they miss the point of such parables as that of the Good
Samaritan. Fr. David led us through the
important allegorical understanding of that parable two weeks ago in pointing
out that we, represented by the poor man who was robbed and left in the ditch,
are all part of fallen humanity, regardless of current belief.
Whenever we fail to
recognize that each and every one of us is a sinner in need of a merciful God;
that each of us is not destined for salvation and eternal life unless in utter
humility, pleading no merit of our own we place our faith in the Crucified,
Resurrected and Ascended Lord, and rather become altogether too passionately
engrossed in minutiae, or criticizing this or that political leader who clearly
doesn’t understand soteriology* the way that we do,
or criticizing this or that person whose lifestyle rubs us the wrong way, then
we are no better than the Pharisees, we are spiritual imperialists and
rednecks. Yes, they may be grave
sinners, but so are we, and just criticizing them rather than quietly guiding
them - and ourselves I daresay - to orthodox belief is not terribly
helpful.
And nowhere is spiritual
imperialism more rampant than within the Church itself. Look no further than us continuing Anglicans,
especially just to the south where they all believe the same fundamentally
important things, but cannot get along.
Frankly, quite disgraceful.
Sentimentalism, spiritual
rednecks. Today, being in the Octave of
Holy Cross Day, and having heard St. Paul in the middle of today’s Epistle
reading stating, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ”, a few thoughts to ponder in that regard. For the sentimentalists who feel inclined to
believe that people who wilfully deny Jesus, whether they be of other religions
or philosophies, or whether they are just “nice people”, are nonetheless going
to achieve the salvation about which our Lord not only taught, but came to
effect - let us be reminded of a few sayings other than just that of St. Paul. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no
man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14.6). “He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”
(Mark 16.16). “Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
As for the
spiritual imperialists, well we need look no further than
What about the middle
ground, where the real truth most often seems to lie? Well, I suspect and hope that the majority of
our membership is part of that group; but I don’t really know as these people
tend to be more circumspect about blurting out opinions, and just quietly get
on with being children of God. Perhaps
they tend to be quiet, as it is difficult to speak to either the
sentimentalists, who accuse anyone who isn’t prepared to pin on this week’s
latest ribbon of being uncaring, or the rednecks who are quite often guilty of
an almost steroid-induced state of imperialism.
Some of us, and I will include myself as sometimes in this category, can
be seen ofttimes to be chameleons: when with rednecks who are often so
passionate, we tend to agree with them as we want to be seen as being a brave
upholder of tradition; equally when confronted with sentimentalists, we agree
with them as we don’t want to appear to be apparently uncaring.
Yet, as difficult a juggling
act as it is, we all must be prepared to maintain the truths of our faith
against the often misplaced cries of the sentimentalists, while equally
attempting to reel in the anger and misplaced superiority of the rednecks.
“Keep, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy … and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation.”
* Soteriology
– a discourse on health; the science of health, the doctrine of salvation.