Readings: Nehemiah 8.9-end, John 16. 1-11
As you may know this year and this Sunday, we are celebrating 150 years of Reader Ministry in the Church of England and closer to home, 25 year of that ministry by Handley. It makes me feel a bit of a new boy and I confess, rather an ignorant new boy, as until Handley told us this morning, I knew very little about the origins and history of the order of Readers. In this church being a Reader is principally, although by no means only, a question of preaching, and that is what I want to talk about this evening.
We have a glimpse of what was I suspect, the origin of a sort of Reader Ministry, in our lesson from Nehemiah. Ezra and the priests read from the Law, and the purpose of the reading was to make the listeners understand. Initially, this understanding has an unfortunate effect; it depresses the people who weep and mourn. We are not told why, but I assume it is because having the Law read out to them, and its implications, at least its superficial implications, explained- they realise their own shortcomings. They are conscious, I suspect of their failures and of how apparently hard it will be to live according to the Law in the future. But they are wrong; in fact they have achieved a state of holiness induced by understanding and they should be celebrating that state in gratitude and in generosity to those in need. The point, I think-it is not explicit- is that living according to the Law is not a burden; paradoxically living as God means us to live is actually freedom, freedom to be fully ourselves. And freedom comes from understanding scripture.
So one task for Readers is to create that state of understanding; in a word to reveal the love and so the joy which is sometimes hidden under the surface of the biblical text.
The reading from John’s Gospel throws rather different light on the matter; while John’s gospel of love is deeply comforting, inspiring and challenging, there is also a thread of introspection, exclusivity and judgement in his Gospel which I find uncomfortable. The essence of salvation in the verses we heard from Chapter 16, is knowing God, and recognising Jesus as his son. This is the recognition of the sheep who know their shepherd. It implies a community, a flock, and a sheepfold in which to shelter from the dangerous world around; the world that will not recognise Jesus for what he is. That sense of community also implies some judgement on the world outside, and it will be the function of the Holy Spirit, the Counsellor, “to convince the world concerning sin, and righteousness and judgement”. That convince, could also be translated convict, but either way, in teaching or judging there is a tension or even an hostility; the is task putting the world outside right before it can be allowed into the sheepfold or of pointing out its errors and abandoning it in its error.
The task of the preacher, in this model, would be in a small way to carry out that role of the Counsellor. It’s a task that many preachers have undertaken with enthusiasm. It’s not, however, one, that many occupants of this pulpit would relish. And yet, there is some need for it; we may not adopt the exclusive view of the church that John seems to promote, but there needs to be some sense of community, one open to all who are prepared to share and express perhaps in different ways, its mission of love. But that means acknowledging that there is an “outside” and it may mean speaking out about the injustice, cruelty or intolerance in the world around us, if only to recognise where our mission of love should be directed. I suggest, however, that even if the concepts of judgement and conviction, even punishment, lurk necessarily under the surface, theirs is not the vocabulary to use in preaching about it.
So what pattern should preachers adopt? Here is one suggestion from James Boswell’s London Journal.
Erskine and I sauntered up and down for some hours. I should have mentioned some time ago that I said to him that if venereal delight and the power of propagating the species were permitted only to the virtuous, it would make the world very good. Our pulpits would then resound with noble descriptions of conjugal love. Preachers would entice the audience to goodness by warmly and lusciously setting before their imaginations the transports of amorous joy. This would render the pleasures of love more refined and more valuable, when they were practised only by the good. Whereas at present it is the common solace of the virtuous and he wicked, the man of taste and the man of brutality.
Let me reassure you- possibly disappoint you- I am not now going to expatiate on the fantastic sex you can look forward to in heaven, if you behave yourselves. You would certainly be disappointed if I tried to do that. But in less lubricious ways that is what many preachers have done, that, or perhaps more often, the same thing in reverse; warning of the horrors of hell awaiting those who misbehave.
Here again I find the task uncongenial. I rather doubt whether telling people to be good, even with sticks and carrots is ever very effective, even if you are absolutely certain that you know what is good. Perhaps especially if you are absolutely certain you know. Insouciance is surely the most unattractive, and off putting, characteristic of any preacher. Far more effective, as St Francis advised, is to act well, to live out the Gospel, only using words when absolutely necessary. That was all very well for someone as obviously good as St Francis; it’s a bit more of a challenge for ordinary mortal preachers, not least because it almost inevitably entails a charge of hypocrisy as we fail to practise as we preach. Nevertheless, despite all these obstacles, I do think that it is the task of the preacher, with humility and caution, to encourage her or his congregation to do good; in this Dedication Month, for example to think how each of may contribute to the life and mission of this church.
So three ways of approaching preaching; interpretation of the Bible, and in particular revelation of its message of love and joy; commenting, if necessary forcefully, on the world we live in, to understand where we are and how as a church we should respond to need; and then trying to identify what is right for each of us- trying, in a word- to interpret salvation and describe the Kingdom of God. I would say, the choice is yours, but it’s not actually- it’s mine, and Handley’s and Diana’s and Jan’s. But I for one would like to know your preferences, and of course, I realise that these models are far from mutually exclusive. In fact they are each just different ways of expressing the same Gospel; that God loves us and has enabled us to respond to that love. Amen.