One of my least favorite parental duties is swimming lessons. They are tedious and trying and the teachers are far too patient. When I was a kid we took swim lessons everyday for two weeks. They dumped us in the pool. We gasped for air. And then we swam.
Nowadays, you take your child to a Swim School. They let the kids “acclimate to the water” as though they are encountering an alien substance. We are on lesson three and still have not put our head in the water. And by “we” I mean my daughter. But it kind of feels like me too.
She is especially against swimming lessons. She screams, clings to me, I promise her 8755 Barbie dolls and a singing unicorn. I threaten her with, “You won’t be able to swim with us! You’ll have to watch!” To which she replies, “DAS OKAY. I WIKE WATCHING.”
It’s going swimmingly.
This past week we did our negotiation dance. I was bent over whispering the entire contents of the toy store in her ear. She was leaned into me, pulling my shirt down to her for comfort. I was in full mom mode, no thought to what I looked like, just determined to get her in the water. She finally relented. I could have done a victory dance.
Except that my joy got immediately stolen.
You see, there is a giant panel of glass behind the pool. Think wall to wall. The parents sit on the other side of it to observe (translation: mouth GET IN THE POOL to) their kids. As I victoriously walked to sit among my peers a mother pulled me aside and said, “I wanted to knock on the glass and tell you something! When you were bent over we could all see your underwear!”
(Lord Jesus.)
“And then!” she cheerfully continued, “When you bent over to put everything back in her swim bag, I’m sure all of the people in the pool saw your underwear too! Poor them!”
I felt deflated and humiliated all at once. I had almost felt relief. I had almost felt joy. I had almost felt like I had done right by my child. But there I was with my behind on display for the world. And I was being told this “helpful news” by and in front of the very people I would be sitting with.
I could say that this is a thing that mothers do to one another. Or maybe, more controversially, this is a thing that women do to one another. But that would be to minimize a very common, incredibly human sin. We love to steal joy. We love to correct. Everyone does this.
This week the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Michael Curry, has been all over the place. He was on The View, The Today Show, and (even) TMZ. He’s talking about Jesus. And he’s preaching love. It is truly remarkable. Watching a leader of a mainline Christian denomination on television being joyful in the Lord makes me wonder if this is how my great grandmother felt the first time she saw a car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWgPiUeXrVo
I find myself astonished and relieved. There is Good News! There is joy!
And then, along come the thieves.
We need to correct the joy. As soon as the news coverage wave began to crest, the churchy correction squad WENT TO WORK. When most news sources said that Bishop Curry was from Chicago, people flipped out. Apparently, he was just born in a suburb of Chicago. When the media could not get his title right, folks would post a clip and say, “Well, he’s more than just a minister.” When commentators said his sermon went on for too long we (who should be busy making our own sermons better) got all up in arms about why the general public is ill informed on average sermon lengths.
Then there’s a whole host of church folks dedicated to tearing down Bishop Curry’s sermon theologically. I’m Team Can’t Even with that whole conversation.
Do y’all need a hug?
I wish I knew why joy and relief are so often met with suspicion and correction. We tell ourselves if the media is going to talk about the church they need to do more research. We tell ourselves that we are being helpful. We tell ourselves that the mom at the pool should know that everyone has seen her old Target underwear. We tell ourselves that we are detail-oriented.
Of course, we all know who lives in the details.
At moments such as these, I wonder if we can even handle the joy of Jesus. I wonder if we all aren’t base level Pharisees (still) walking around looking for someone to correct. Even a loving and pastoral bishop of the church. Even our fellow Christians. Even Jesus Himself.
Maybe we can’t handle it on this side of heaven. We have to point out the missteps to make the happiness and hope just crooked enough to fit in our broken hearts. Perhaps godly happiness is just a fish out of water on this earthly plane. Lord, I hope not.
I realize you may not see a lot of parallels between what Bishop Curry preached and me living the #momlyfe at swim lessons. But I sure felt them. I was just trying to get my daughter in the water of the pool. He was just trying to call God’s children towards the Living Water of Jesus Christ. And joy stealers (however well meaning they may be) are just more noisy correction in a world hell bent on following the rules.
I am grateful for the momentary joy that Michael Curry has given, not just the church, but this suffering, sinsick world. I am thankful that he offered it in the name of Jesus. I am also grateful that my final joy does not rest on my ability to keep my rear end covered.
Humiliation, correction, and helpfulness are short lived, but the joy of a God who loves us despite our shortfalls never fails.
COMMENTS
27 responses to “Correcting Joy in Swimming Pools and Pulpits: Do Y’all Need a Hug?”
Leave a Reply
While I appreciate the need to ratchet down intra-Christian acrimony in our current context, I do think that a fair assessment of the Bishop’s sermon was that it was simply a sermon of the Law. “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart. . .etc., and so forth” is a summary not of the Gospel, but of the Law. It’s not surprising to me that the whole world is enamored with his sermon, because we are not only slaves to the law, but we think that we of all people have fulfilled it, particularly when it’s the law of “love” (undefined, as it is in the world, but not to us, since it’s spelled out in 1 John “and this is love, not that we loved God but he loved us and laid down his life as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” Had that been the definition of love “preached,” we might have had a different reaction! Sermons that can be affirmed by anyone woke enough to know that “all we need is love,” aren’t really Christian sermons, or at least are not sermons that take either the demands of the Law or the radicality of the Gospel with any seriousness. At any rate, as 1st Peter enjoins us, “be prepared in season and out with a ready defense for the hope you have,” so I see many of the negative comments against the Bishop’s sermon as just that, because “love” is not the Gospel and the good news of God for the world is not that his love can change it, but that because of his love he has saved it.
Well, that comment certainly served to correct any joy we might have been feeling after this mother’s story! Thank you so much for getting us back on the right track…
Yep, joy-stealers.
Ok, so there’s some judgement here being lobbed at JDK, but what about his argument? What about what he’s actually saying? Is the substance of his comment worth exploring before it’s dismissed?
I appreciated both Sarah’s piece and Jady’s reply, and maybe that’s because I’m a little torn — and for me, this torn-ness is not principally because of the sermon itself, but because of the man who preached it and what he represents in relation to the Anglican Communion, ethics, litigation, and other factors. It’s hugely complicated for me, and semi-unprocessed, which led me to react (too quickly and thudishly!) on social media about the sermon. (I have subsequently deleted those posts.) I want to mull things over before I write anything further about it, and I probably won’t write anything further about it.
Sarah’s words are a helpful rebuke to my reactivity related to complex ecclesiological/personal issues regarding Michael Curry himself and to a lesser degree his ‘Royal Sermon.’ I need to be more cautious than I generally am regarding ‘guilt by association’ dynamics, and I’m grateful for her words of caution. Also, JDK is being helpful, as Mbird endorses a Law-Gospel hermeneutic and homiletical method, and thus he isn’t wrong to ask whether or not a particular sermon has clarified the Gospel according to those standards (if it hasn’t, maybe the preacher didn’t intend for it to do so, or doesn’t adopt that method). Pointing out that a sermon didn’t really clarify the Gospel (a debated point, I know) according to a particular model isn’t the same thing as being full of – to quote Mary J Blige – ‘hateration’. JDK has yet to steal my joy. And he has in the past given me bourbon, so …
I wonder if there is present in others — as there certainly is with me — other factors at play in REALLY liking or REALLY dis-liking this particular sermon. Let’s be careful (as I originally wasn’t) not to lambaste with red-eyed-glee one particular sermon, nor should anyone who raises a question or concern regarding that same sermon (or the personality behind it) be lambasted as (to quote Michael Scott) ‘a thief of joy.’ It’s just not that simple.
It is a fool’s errand to criticize that sermon in any way, shape or form. “Haters gonna hate” is all you will get in return. Better to sit back, relax, and enjoy the moment in willful suspension of disbelief. Then go read some Philip Roth to get the sweet taste out, reconnect with what human love really is in all its biological realities, and try to comprehend why Jesus loved, raised some harsh, holy hell and died… for us… the perverse human lovers.
Perhaps, I might have been less judgmental of the bishop’s sermon if it had not essentially matched up with my expectations. I regret having to say that, but I really don’t “get” sermons for which I must strain to find the gospel message. I think it is fair to expect a preacher to yield a message that is incremental to what I hear daily from my employer, nightly news, my own proud heart, etc.
Otherwise Sarah, don’t worry. Exposure of crack will only worsen as you age! Unfortunately, I prove that each morning that I swim.
Wonderful article! But, you should NEVER have started with the Barbie dolls!
Thanks for your response, Ethan. You put your finger on what a lot of us dealt with throughout the whole process of receiving this sermon. A lot of “woke” people have “wokesplained” things to me this week about what a big deal this sermon was. But I find they have no awareness of how that sermon looks within the global context of the way the American Episcopal Church has treated the Anglican Communion (i.e. ecclesiological wokesplaining on a global scale).
BUT the great thing about your comment is that it’s a reminder that we can all eventually get to a place of receiving joy. We all get the chance over and over again to see error – whether actual or perceived – and place it in the context of Jesus’ love. And remarkably, in that context error becomes merely a common human frailty which I can accept and even identify with.
I think sharing the message of the crucified Christ is Grace. Whatever your dialectic approach, I think it’s a rare thing to hear a sermon about the power of love as the only hope for humanity and a future based on truth and the blessing of all life. He made clear links that this love comes from Christ who Died for Us…That God is Love and Christ is the visible image of that Love, the Son of God. He was talking to the most powerful people on the planet. He was challenging materialism. Jesus may not have always preached Law-Gospel, sometimes he just turned over the tables and told the money changers, or St. Peter for that matter, to get out of the way of God and His truth and love. His Life was Grace, the Gospel answer to our profoundly humiliated selves in the face of the Glory of His Law. Similarly Bishop Curry’s ”joy in the Lord” is contagious to contemporary first-world citizens, and a Gospel answer to the silencing of the Law’s demands. He’s sharing the gospel through his being, and he stated plainly the truth about our world and that the only potential for healing and a brighter future is Love. I was amazed that anything like that could come out of the dog-and-pony show of a Royal Wedding, and it seems disingenuous to criticize his sermon with the “law” of a theological rubric that only a few Christians actually stick to. Kudos to Mockingbird for sticking to it, and kudos to Bishop Michael Curry for sharing the message of God’s love with a sin-sick world. Both are serving Christ. Amen?
There was a whole lot of imperative and very little indicative. Yes, within a few short sentences, he stated that Jesus died for us all. But wasn’t that detail a bit downplayed in comparison to his emphasis that love can change the world?
His sermon emphasized love and somewhat used Jesus as an example. Thus, it seems to glorify a human work, rather than glorify Christ from which love graciously flows.
Our comments and mixed feelings make me thankful that our Savior prays for our unity, truth and love. It is only by the power of God that such will ever be.
“Law” is not simply anything that feels bad, it is anything the human being uses to prop themselves up before God (and man for that matter). Therefore, love, with all its great feelings and cool vibes, is the Law. And a sermon expounding the virtue of love (with a nod to the work of Jesus thrown in, for sure) is still a sermon of Law.
Humiliation, correction, and helpfulness are short lived, but the joy of a God who loves us despite our shortfalls never fails.
Thank you, Sarah, for a reminder I need constantly. Amen!
Out of the park, pure, unadulterated faithful genius brilliance.
Someone dear to me recently said, “I never knew grace could be so damn rigid.” Not trying to get preachy but as “low anthropology” humans sometimes we can get a little bit too rigid about grace. Grace is grace is grace. Just as love is love is love. I love this article of Sarah’s because I’ve been the lady at the pool trying to just get my kid in the water and then finally experiencing a “victory” only to find that really my “ass” was on display. I also loved Bishop Curry’s royal sermon because he reminded me that love is nothing if it’s not about God. Luckily even when we’re inadvertently exposing our own ass, Jesus still loves us anyway.
I basically agree with the post and all the comments. Man I’m a mess. No back bone? I’m pretty Nazi when it comes to law and gospel… but I also think Curry’s message was useful for its context. Like I’d be like, “okay maybe there will be a better sermon next week,” if it were my local church. But for that context, i think it was damn winsome. Sometimes you gotta mix in the gospel with eh, other stuff (haha) to even get people to listen. Eh who knows.
My favorite thing is when people use the comment section to try argue against what the author is saying but just end up proving the point of the author perfectly. Bravo!
The irony is, I would have absolutely loved the sermon had I not been reading Mockingbird the last few years. Mbird has taught me to have a relentless cynicism towards appeals to “love your neighbor” since they are rooted in a “high anthropology” where I, as the free acting agent, if i’m inspired enough, can love my neighbor and change the world. I think if there’s any pushback on the piece, its simply rooted in a love for Mockingbird and the theological tradition that Mockingbird represents. Even if we’re wrong, we’re all on the same side, so I don’t know if its helpful to lambast as “haters” or “killjoys” those who are offering a critique…if anything, I’m just confused by it all. It feels very “hive mind” and “get in line with the joy train or else” to me.
I still love Mockingbird and I (will) still read everything Sarah writes, btw. In fact, its crazy how much I feel like I have to over-emphasize that I’m not a hater just because I disagree with a single post. Talk about law!
As I look over the comments, I wish that we didn’t have to argue about things that should be a given within the church. The sad reality is that many leaders in mainline denominations don’t value substitutionary atonement, so at the outset, not only are there questions about Christian morality but with the gospel itself. This is why realignment is such a big deal, for the realignment is to move toward associations where they gospel of Jesus’ substitutionary atonement is affirmed. Otherwise, you find people not only denying it but somehow incorrectly implying that to believe in Christ’s atonement is.bad for individuals or against progress in culture. I’m all for realignment to promote unity around the gospel, where there’s no question about what denominational leaders believe and confess about Jesus and the gospel.
I haven’t heard the sermon but I personally would WANT to know that I was exposing my underwear when I bend over. Or if I have spinach in my teeth. Please. Tell me.
I freakin’ love this essay! Well done! Gonna carve it in a wall someplace.
Really enjoying the conversation here, and grateful for everyone bearing with one another. Thought folks might be interested to know that Sarah, RJ and myself talked at some length about the post (and the response) on this week’s Mockingcast, which is up now:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/royal-weddings-vegan-youtubers-and-original-sin/id1224964658?i=1000412331122&mt=2
Context” has been thrown around quite often herein and on the podcast. What exactly is the “context” for which this particular sermon should escape criticism?
If you want to argue that we should never critique a sermon, that’s fair enough. Or even better, if you want to exhort each of us to not criticize others, then Amen. None of us has the true authority and wisdom to know how and when to rebuke another. Yet, we are all guilty of this sin daily and this particular volley was initiated by a post that critiqued others for criticizing a sermon and / or robbing joy.
I’m just in shock that the lady at the swimming lesson said all that about your underwear showing…and was saying it was helpful. Wow. Good job hanging in on the swim lessons, I agree they are brutal.
All this intellectualizing about BP. Curry’s sermon is just words that can only obscure the truth of what he had to say. It’s really very simple. Love one another. Period. Nothing more need be said.
As I was walking down the New York City avenue, a woman came up and told me my skirt was tucked into my underwear. Thank goodness she told me!
Does Sarah Condon expect us to believe she would prefer to be completely unaware of the spectacle she’s making? Does she prefer to spend a party evening laughing with spinach on her teeth? Working all day with her zipper down?
That’s not stealing anything. That’s telling someone what they need to know. Casting aspersions on the woman who didn’t snicker or nudge the others, but told her, is mean. Most of us would think that’s a helpful thing to know.
Bishop Curry was spreading the joy though. Good for him.
Well, as I get older I find that there are just some things I don’t want to know about. Like spinach on my teeth or the fact that my shoes don’t match. Maybe the rest of my outfit is great and makes me feel confident. Knowing that my shoes don’t match may take that confidence down a notch. Maybe…. But my initial thought on all of this was – Hey, Sarah, at least you were wearing underwear!