Bishop Michael Curry's Sermon

No shame, he was wrong to rabbit on about poverty and hungry children at a wedding service, he took advantage of fifteen minutes of centre stage to preach a sermon unrelated to marriage , any shame lies with him.

Any sermon I 've heard in CofE has been staid and formulaic. Much prefer the less formal non-conformist approach.
Why say you felt he was preaching at you? That's his job!
I enjoyed the fresh, less ritualistic and more passionate sermon!

Preaching is not acceptable in a marriage service, the guests are not attending to be preached at, they cannot walk out being guests. Anyone who wishes to hear his type of preaching are free to attend a church for that reason.

At a marriage an address I should given , not a sermon, that is the job of a priest. Would it be acceptable at a baptism or a funeral service ?

Why say you felt he was preaching at you? That's his job!

At a wedding?

People who attend weddings expect to have the importance of love referred to by whoever is taking the service. They wouldn't be there if they weren't celebrating love.

I don't think a 15 minute sermon was really necessary.

Well, there will no reason to hear him again. ?

Clearly your services are very different.
In the CofS a sermon is certainly expected at a christening - the baptism is an integral part of the main service.
His sermon was apposite and relevant ( albeit a bit long!) The fact that the RF were rude and unfocused is what should be criticised.

I enjoyed it and although not religous myself, I am aware that the type of churches that are thriving and growing in my part of the UK are non traditional ones with a more american style so I think that a lot of british christianswill have thoroughly enjoyed seeing a more familiar and less antiquated style of sermon that they can relate to their own church experiences

Annibach non religous wedding ceremonies ARE readily available. This wasnt ever meant to be one!

In the Church in Wales if a baptism takes place during matins of evensong then naturally a sermon is part of the service. Certaintly no sermon given if just a baptism .

The priest was rude to have his five minute address approved then extend it .

Dear Annie, its not "The Queens Chapel











Dear Annie, its not "The Queens Chapel" it belongs to the
Lord, the Queen is a custodian. +

Sorry notanan, do you mean it was intended to be a non religious ceremony ?

oops in the gloaming here

We rarely do ',just a baptism'.
As I said a baptism is part of the main Sunday service.
No matins or evensong either.
Less formal and in a good kirk with a minister who's forward-looking, very inclusive.
It's clear that I was not alone in finding his sermon refreshing and 'less antiquated'.

silverdarling, I understand what you mean. I see it as The Lord is the Church not owns the church, otherwise anyone who holds church services in their homes do not own their homes. Hope this makes sense

Sorry mcem, I missed ‘main service, Mattins and Evensong are main services too. Just Anglican speak

I agree with Annie the bishop was a windbag.
He could have given a great address, indeed he started really well, but then went off the subject altogether and became ranty and preachy and quite frankly, boring.Also went on far too long, it was cringeworthy.

Bishop Michael has nothing on the Free Presbyterian Church in Scotland.....3 hour services and thundering fire and brimstone sermons!

To be Christian is not to judge.
I understand he was invited by H & M to be there so I am sure they had an idea of what to expect?
I thought he was fabulous!
Our village church sadly is about to close (one vicar nine parishes!) I wish for just one day we could have a sermon by someone as charismatic as Bishop Michael !!!

I enjoyed his speaking at the beginning but he did go off track and kept repeating himself. He was supposed to speak for 6 minutes he actually spoke for 13. He had lost most of the guests by the end, he actually said at one point he must stop and then continued for several more minutes, that is taking advantage. I loved the Gospel choir though they sung beautifully.

Merlotgran wrote:
^Later on there was a report from LA from people who had been watching at 4am. Apparently, after the ceremony, somebody remarked, 'This wedding is going to change the world!'

Now, that really did make me laugh.^

Merlotgran, when a man points out that romantic love can take its place within universal love that is appropriate at a wedding. Little matter if many of the royal family failed to understand the message of universal love, perhaps many of the billion or more people watching the wedding on TV understood and were fed spiritual food as was this old atheist Alexa.

The world is badly in need of change, and maybe this justly famous sermon as hosted by by by a nice young couple will make a paradign shift come true.

Errata:

by

paradigm

To be Christian is not to judge says Lynnebo

If only that was true.

Cherrytree59 wrote:
Zara Tindall face was a classic.

I noticed that too and I felt afraid that such a successful , privileged, and young woman was so haughtily uncomprehending.

It's sad, but understandable, that a lot of old grans who are set in their conventional ways failed to comprehend how the establishment of worldly power needs to be aligned with reality.

It isn’t racism to name some Churches as ‘black. One eight year old African asylum seeker asked me if I knew where ypthe black churches were. Apshe and her family had initially been placed in a city where they made friends and were supported within their (black) Church community. They were ‘disperssed’ to a small town with largely white British population. They tried a number of Churches but the services were so different, they travelled the twenty miles back to the city to go to Church.
Bishop M brought some of Meghans origins to the wedding. Her ancestors in her mothers side were slaves. The black American community enjoy sermons like the one he gave.

Well put alexa. A very different approach to make people sit up and take notice.
I wonder if we'd be discussing a standard address from a typical cleric!
For once the RF were tested by a thought-provoking sermon and clearly some of them failed to engage. Maybe they couldn't focus on something other than the usual bland fare and didn't seem to make much effort. As someone said upthread, maybe a few Hallelujahs would have been welcome too!
Without asking for a lengthy explanaton, I don't see any intrinsic difference between delivering a sermon and preaching, but maybe there's a rule for that too.

(As far as the Free Kirk's fire and brimstone goes, I certainly don't buy into their philosophy!)