Prince Harry and Meghan Markle: Church Service, Carriage Procession - May 19, 2018

[Rudolph]

Okay, 1828 as opposed to 1776. But my point is that’s it’s highly reputable can’t be denied. It’s as reputable as anything in journalism. It’s as likely to criticise the royals as praise them. They publish without fear or favour.

[Missy-]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I think the style of Reverand Curry's delivery of his sermon was so unfamiliar to some people that they lost sight of or didn't understand his message. The Antebellum South and MLK had broad meaning if you actually listened for the message.
I admit, I had to listen to his sermon a second time to "get it" all.

Exactly, I think he took for granted that his audience was going to automatically understand what he was getting at. I can imagine it's really hard for the British side of the family to switch gears from the CoE sermons that they're used to, to a sermon such as Reverend Curry's. For HM to have such a stormy look on her face, and for the other royals to look so uncomfortable, grimacing and eye rolling meant he had missed the mark. You can't deliver a message if your audience has tuned you out. And say what you want, the problem is with the Reverend, it was his job to deliver a message and he apparently failed to do his job with a lot of people.

[Curbside]

Originally Posted by Missy-

Exactly, I think he took for granted that his audience was going to automatically understand what he was getting at. I can imagine it's really hard for the British side of the family to switch gears from the CoE sermons that they're used to, to a sermon such as Reverend Curry's. For HM to have such a stormy look on her face, and for the other royals to look so uncomfortable, grimacing and eye rolling meant he had missed the mark. You can't deliver a message if your audience has tuned you out. And say what you want, the problem is with the Reverend, it was his job to deliver a message and he apparently failed to do his job with a lot of people.

Or maybe he knew it would be a challenging sermon for some. It's okay to be challenged by a sermon, even at a wedding.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Missy-

Exactly, I think he took for granted that his audience was going to automatically understand what he was getting at. I can imagine it's really hard for the British side of the family to switch gears from the CoE sermons that they're used to, to a sermon such as Reverend Curry's. For HM to have such a stormy look on her face, and for the other royals to look so uncomfortable, grimacing and eye rolling meant he had missed the mark. You can't deliver a message if your audience has tuned you out. And say what you want, the problem is with the Reverend, it was his job to deliver a message and he apparently failed to do his job with a lot of people.

The BRF isn't his only audience. His audience was a global one. And obviously some will like it, some won't. I've long given up on trying to read HMQ's expression. The woman is more trained than MI6. What I will say is we all know she was inspired by and liked Billy Graham, who is not exactly your run of the mill COE preacher. He was dramatic and exaggerated. So I wouldn't bet money on it being his style.

ETA: Just wanted to add that Bishop Curry's sermon wasn't my cup of tea. But then again, I'm not terribly religious, so that probably would've been my bathroom break even if it was the AOC. My point is that I'd be careful putting assumptions on what HM is thinking. At the end of the day, everyone looked happy that the couple got hitched and waving them off on their carriage ride. I know there were comments made before about what Princess Anne would think of Meghan in a way that's meant to say Anne wouldn't approve. Anne looked plenty happy while waving them off, and her husband has certainly had nice things to say about Meghan.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Denville

They wrote the sermon????/

I don't think they sat down and wrote it word for word but suggested to Bishop Curry to take the Song of Solomon and work from that.

The main gist of the sermon, to me, was elucidating that taking an age old discovery like fire and seeing how it spread and changed things in our world over the eons would be so wonderful if the same was done with love. Love was the glue that held the people together in the antebellum south and love was the glue that fired MLK's speech about having a dream and overcoming. Love was what brought each and every person to that chapel on May 19th to celebrate and vow to support a marriage.

If everyone religiously adhered to the greatest command that was made in the New Testament and it spread like wildfire, our world would really be a whole lot different. I loved how Bishop Curry also added onto it the all important thing called loving oneself. For me, the whole sermon was one that I actually listened to word for word and I am not a church goer nor identify myself as Christian.

"Jesus was asked: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments,"

Love conquers all.

[Rudolph]

Billy Graham and Bishop Curry deliver two different messages with different styles. Because HMQ was a fan of the former doesn’t translate to the latter.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Billy Graham and Bishop Curry deliver two different messages with different styles. Because HMQ was a fan of the former doesn’t translate to the latter.

Never said that she was a fan of Curry. Just saying that I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly for HMQ as she has clearly showed in the past that she has no issue with a more dramatic approaches to preaching.

[Somebody]

So, how long was his sermon supposed to last and hpw long did it last?

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

So, how long was his sermon supposed to last and hpw long did it last?

I was reading the royal correspondents' twitter, and there seems to be a disagreement on that. Some thinks it was supposed to be about 8 minutes. So he went over by slightly more than 5 minutes. But they only left 3 minutes later than scheduled for the carriage. So either, it was supposed to be 10 minutes or they made up some time later.

[Osipi]

Y'know, I have to softly laugh with a thought I just had. I don't remember, for the life of me, of any sermon given at a service with the royal family in attendance that has generated as much discussion as Bishop Curry's has.

He preached, we all listened. Mission accomplished. We're looking at his sermon from all different angles and even the length of it and also registering the congregation's reactions to it. Some appreciate Bishop Curry's words while some didn't. In the long run, it hit the mark though as we all did pay attention to it and remember it well enough to discuss it weeks after the event itself.

In that regards, I think I'd call the good bishop's sermon a success.

[Cocoasneeze]

@Osipi,

Very good point. Bishop Curry's sermon will be remembered for a long time, and that was his goal, right? To get people to lists and hopefully reflect.

[Rudolph]

To each their own I guess. I’m partial to “Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire” as opposed to “taking a hammer into the basement of the master and slowly destroying the house brick by brick”

[Dman]

I hope folks remember that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the one that called Bishop Michael Curry participate in this celebration and the couple are the ones that him the sermon, The Song of Solomon, to preach. The Bishop did his job. It’s just some folks aren’t used to this style of preaching. That’s okay. The whole ceremony went the way the couple wanted it.

Bishop Curry knew that he saw some Amen’s in the family eyes and Harry and Meghan truly enjoyed it. They held hands, smiled, laughed and was enchanted by the message that was delivered. That’s the whole idea. Not that he went a few minutes over.

[wyevale]

My point is that the CoE is essentially English in character [quelle surprise], undemonstrative, reticent and contemplative in character [reliant on ritual for its effect], so the strident, loud oratory [of the Rev Curry's variety] with its more spontaneous feeling, makes many uncomfortable.

I cannot help it if that is perceived as 'anti-American', any more than those who call people like me 'pearl clutchers' can help it when I consider them 'anti-British'.

[Empress Merel]

I think a lot of users could do with reading this think piece± This Black Royal Wedding was very complicated for me as a black woman

To me, being uncomfortable by his sermon has everything to do with with white supremacy. And I know this will get people groaning because raising this issue seems most sensitive, but it needs to be said.

THE SERMON. I was not prepared. According to The New York Times, Bishop Curry is the “presiding bishop of the American Episcopal Church and its first African-American leader.” He took all those stuffy British royals TO CHURCH. He cited slavery and the negro spiritual “There Is A Balm in Gilead” to drive home a point about looking to love even in the darkest times. He quoted Martin Luther King Jr. about the power of love to “lift up and liberate when nothing else will.” A radical black civil rights leader and slavery were brought up at an event established by an institution of people who were instrumental in the slave trade and built their power and fortune on the backs of black bodies. DAMN. I was not prepared.

While many members of the royal family were looking at Bishop Curry in bewilderment, anyone who has ever been to a black church (especially a black American church) knows that this kind of passion and sincerity is standard. It is WORSHIP. It is to be expected and respected. The reactions to Bishop Curry’s sermon in that church were not respectful. The mouths agape and the stifled laughter were proof that this is the closest any of these people (I refuse to acknowledge the offenders by name) have come to a black church. Their reactions made me uncomfortable but they were a perfect indicator of how disconnected from black culture this monarchy has been and still is.

The reactions to the pastor´s sermon were disrespectful, flat out.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by wyevale

My point is that the CoE is essentially English in character [quelle surprise], undemonstrative, reticent and contemplative in character [reliant on ritual for its effect], so the strident, loud oratory [of the Rev Curry's variety] with its more spontaneous feeling, makes many uncomfortable.

I cannot help it if that is perceived as 'anti-American', any more than those who call people like me 'pearl clutchers' can help it when I consider them 'anti-British'.

I have to say, I don't think it's comment like this one that's seemed anti-American. It was comments like Spectator has been around longer than your nation.

I have no problem with what you said above, and I agree, it definitely isn't what some are used to. And that's fine. But let's not let that erode the words of the bishop, which is the power of love. And really, so what if he's not what the English expected. He's there for one special occasion, and then he's gone. The COE will go back to the way it's always preached. It's not like he's about to take apart the COE from within.

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

I think a lot of users could do with reading this think piece± This Black Royal Wedding was very complicated for me as a black woman

To me, being uncomfortable by his sermon has everything to do with with white supremacy. And I know this will get people groaning because raising this issue seems most sensitive, but it needs to be said.



The reactions to the pastor´s sermon were disrespectful, flat out.

Here we go. The get out of jail free card. We’re all white supremacists

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by wyevale

My point is that the CoE is essentially English in character [quelle surprise], undemonstrative, reticent and contemplative in character [reliant on ritual for its effect], so the strident, loud oratory [of the Rev Curry's variety] with its more spontaneous feeling, makes many uncomfortable.

I cannot help it if that is perceived as 'anti-American', any more than those who call people like me 'pearl clutchers' can help it when I consid)er them 'anti-British'.

“Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.” Had a standard CoE type sermon been given, no one would have remembered it, even five minutes later.
I am not a Christian, but I have attended hundreds of services in various churches. Very few do I specifically remember, but the ones I don’t remember likely did me no harm.

No one was harmed by the sermon, many were probably delighted and inspired. And anyone who was offended, that’s too bad, even if it was a comfortable person of high status. Harry and Meghan were pleased.

The Bishop did not ascend to his high status within the American church by offending or discomfiting his flock, and he was under no obligation to change his ‘style’ to suit the congregation. And people think an extra 5 minutes of religious talk was a bad thing? (I will except Zara Tindall from that 5 minute tolerance.).

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

The reactions to the pastor´s sermon were disrespectful, flat out.

I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

I'm going to rely on a quote by a man I truly admire and turn to a lot of times when I need him. Ralph Waldo Emerson. He says ""No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature." We rely on what we believe to be true to us to guide us through our lives. We react spontaneously to people and events as they occur. We are not sheeple that bind us to be programmed to smile, frown, laugh or cry on an external cue.

The reactions of the people in the congregation listening to Bishop Curry were their own unique, spontaneous reactions. Some were surprised by a method of preaching they were unaccustomed to. Some reveled in the good bishop's words and enjoyed them. Some were obviously uncomfortable and seemed confused as how to react such as a deer being caught in the headlights of an approaching car. Some probably in the global community watching the sermon clapped and shouted "Amen!" at certain points. Some found it not to be their cup of tea at all and actually went in search of their preferred tea as the man preached. The point being that Bishop Curry, for the most part, held his audience and evoked spontaneous reactions from his congregation.

Isn't that the goal of a good sermon to garner reactions to it? To reach the people he's preaching to? I'm sure there were giggles and rollings of eyes by some that could be deemed disrespectful and that, to me, is a personal reaction. I've yet to hear of or see mentioned anyone in that chapel that actually dozed off during the sermon.

[Dman]

I maintain that I didn’t find some members of the royal family smiles and giggles disrespectful. I was glad to see them smile at the Bishop. Lord knows it’s better than those stiff, bored and space out looks we usually see from them at church celebrations. Who could ever forget those pictures from The Queen’s 90th Birthday Service at St. Paul’s? Everyone looked like they’re most precious best friend ghosted them.