Seroquel tabletten Everyone agrees that modern homilies are terrible. Nor has it changed much in recent history – C.S. Lewis, who otherwise seemed a rather contented Christian, talks about how insufferable the homilies were in the Anglican Church. Catholics often envy even the terrible homilies the Anglicans have.
I cannot say how many times I have left church in the middle of a homily, though it certainly is fewer times than I have wanted to. When I get to the twentieth minute without hearing anything of significance I consider myself justified in leaving. Nor am I alone. I know other Catholics who go through a family debate every time they want to go to church. “So, what do you think about going to church? I’d like to.” “Do you think you can put up with Father so-and-so’s telling you about his visit to his shrink for a half-hour?” “God, you’re right, forget about it.” I’ll bet a pope could double church attendance by mandating sixty-second sermons.
That won’t happen soon – the priestly hierarchy still feels it needs some power it can abuse – so let me offer at least one improvement. Let’s abolish the accursed homiletic “we.”
I don’t know who came up with the homiletic “we”; all I know is that it has become a universal feature of mainline-Church preaching. It may even be taught in “homiletics” at the seminary. All the priests seem to do it. I define the homiletic we the use of the first-person pronoun to describe a state of sinfulness which is supposedly normative but really, in the preacher’s eyes, should be corrected. You hear it all the time: “We get caught up in our daily lives and don’t think about God.” “We think Christmas is just gifts and wreaths and Santy Claus.” “We say to ourselves, ‘God won’t mind if I do this one little thing.’” “We like to go to church and sing all the hymns but we don’t get involved in Gospel issues like poverty and social justice.”
You can see one of the major problems with the homiletic we. Often it’s not sincere. The “we” in this context does not include the speaker. The priest does not himself think that Christmas is all about Santa Claus. His use of the first-person pronoun is a pose. Really what he means by “we” is “you stupid unserious people, you sheeple in the pews.” He’s saying what he thinks you do or you think, and he’s going to try to correct it.
So his inclusion of himself is usually disingenuous. Sometimes, of course, it’s sincere. I remember one time when a priest I would consider bitter and judgemental said in his homily, “Too often, we’re bitter and judgemental,” and I felt he was in fact confessing something he knew was a real weakness. I can respect that to some extent. But I’m not certain he really needed to include other people in his confession.
That’s the other sin of the homiletic we: besides the fact that it is usually a lie, it is also often libelous. I presume that when someone uses the word ‘we’ in church, that we is probably supposed to include me as well. But in fact people vary greatly as to their sins. And so when I hear priests saying, for example, “We don’t want to make sacrifices for our religion,” I think to myself. “That’s not true. I do.” When he says, “We think Easter is about dressing up and getting together with family,” I say, “no I don’t.”
One of these days I’m going to start vocalizing these responses. But first I figure I have to give fair warning. If you agree with me, share your distaste with a preacher. Maybe if they become aware of how condescending this practice is, they’ll actually stop it.
Post a Comment