For me, an Ash Wednesday service should focus on liturgy, prayer and penitence. There should be a lot more of these things than in a regular service, which means there certainly shouldn't be time for a sermon, especially not one on a topical scientific and political issue.
I want to reflect on my own sin and penitence, not be harangued for buying a petrol-engined Volvo instead of a Nissan Leaf.
You don't think your failings in stewardship of the earth and its resources might involve sinfulness that requires repentence?
Ash Wednesday is about all the sins. A mandatory group focus on one particular one is only going to distract from others, which for each individual present, might be far more pressing. You could equally argue for an Ash Wednesday service focusing on paedophilia or violations of the Sabbath, but if I were there I'd be thinking STFU and let me reflect on the way I treated my father who died in January, or something.
For me, an Ash Wednesday service should focus on liturgy, prayer and penitence. There should be a lot more of these things than in a regular service, which means there certainly shouldn't be time for a sermon, especially not one on a topical scientific and political issue.
A service is not complete without the reading and reflection on Scripture, and thus if a service doesn't include a sermon then that's a sin that needs to be confessed and penitentially corrected. Obviously (well it's obvious to me) on Ash Wednesday that sermon should form part of our reflection on our sins and confession thereof, and the commitment to try better. Equally obviously, it's not going to focus on the individual sins of the congregation - I hope we're well passed the practice of having some sins of individuals in the congregations denounced from the pulpit. That leaves a focus on sins that are common enough that everyone will feel the sermon prick their conscience, and collective sins are a particularly apt topic for an act of collective penitence. At present, our abuse of the planet is one of those collective sins and also one where the urgency of addressing that before too many more people suffer the consequences of our action. But, I'd agree that a sermon on consumerism, on placing our good above others (in a collective sense that would address nationalism, for example), the worship of the Market, the international trade system that effectively enslaves millions of people to make the shirt on our back etc could be equally appropriate.
For me, an Ash Wednesday service should focus on liturgy, prayer and penitence. There should be a lot more of these things than in a regular service, which means there certainly shouldn't be time for a sermon, especially not one on a topical scientific and political issue.
A service is not complete without the reading and reflection on Scripture, and thus if a service doesn't include a sermon then that's a sin that needs to be confessed and penitentially corrected. Obviously (well it's obvious to me) on Ash Wednesday that sermon should form part of our reflection on our sins and confession thereof, and the commitment to try better. Equally obviously, it's not going to focus on the individual sins of the congregation - I hope we're well passed the practice of having some sins of individuals in the congregations denounced from the pulpit. That leaves a focus on sins that are common enough that everyone will feel the sermon prick their conscience, and collective sins are a particularly apt topic for an act of collective penitence. At present, our abuse of the planet is one of those collective sins and also one where the urgency of addressing that before too many more people suffer the consequences of our action. But, I'd agree that a sermon on consumerism, on placing our good above others (in a collective sense that would address nationalism, for example), the worship of the Market, the international trade system that effectively enslaves millions of people to make the shirt on our back etc could be equally appropriate.
Why does it need to focus on any particular sin at all? Are there really clergy that don't have the ability, for one day of the year, to talk about the meaning of sin and penitence in a general sense? Sermons about what the sermon-giver considers to be the specific ills of society can surely be given on any number of other days in the year.
But surely we all need to be reminded of our role in causing societal sin?
And we can be reminded of that throughout the year. But surely we also needed to be reminded at some point about the concepts of sin, penitence, repentance etc in a more general sense, otherwise the sermons railing against specific sins will have no context. What better day to to this than Ash Wednesday?
I'm sure they have the ability to talk about many things. That doesn't mean they should.
For hundreds of years the church has focused on people's individual sins, with the result that societal level injustices either continue or are addressed purely secularly with the church dragged along in the wake.
But surely we all need to be reminded of our role in causing societal sin?
And we can be reminded of that throughout the year. But surely we also needed to be reminded at some point about the concepts of sin, penitence, repentance etc in a more general sense, otherwise the sermons railing against specific sins will have no context. What better day to to this than Ash Wednesday?
Don't those reminders come weekly through the liturgy, whereas the specifics will only ever come through the sermon?
I'm sure they have the ability to talk about many things. That doesn't mean they should.
For hundreds of years the church has focused on people's individual sins, with the result that societal level injustices either continue or are addressed purely secularly with the church dragged along in the wake.
So they should never talk about what sin is and what it means to sin, and what the sinner is to do about it? What's the point in talking about the specific societal sins if you can't take one day in the year to talk about sin itself?
Yes, but, with all due respect, that doesn't quite answer my question.
How do you define 'sin', in this context (an Ash Wednesday sermon)?
Broadly.
My point is that Ash Wednesday sermons should be about concepts of sin (societal and/or personal) and penitence, not specific sins of any type. The rest of the year can be used to address specific sins (from murder through to failing to sufficiently help rough sleepers or whatever).
Do you think there might be some mileage in the idea of a formal confession, where a penitent sinner goes privately to a priest (or other minister of ghostly counsel), unburdens him/herself of 'personal', rather than 'conceptual', sins, and is reassured of God's forgiveness?
This would seem to be appropriate at the beginning of Lent, whether one regards it as an official 'sacrament' or not.
I'm not sure that sermons over the rest of the liturgical year would be very popular if they kept on focussing on various specific sins...though the opportunity might arise if, for example, something was mentioned in (say) the day's Gospel.
A congregation which is constantly being browbeaten about the murders they've committed, or their lack of support for the local Food Bank, will very quickly dwindle...
A sermon on climate change would fit nicely in Climate Week or on Earth Day or some such relevant secular event.
I am sure there are plenty of opportunities over the year, especially around Lent, for a penitent sinner to speak with a priest privately.
But when I go to an Ash Wednesday service, I probably have my most heinous Sin of the Year foremost in my mind at some point. A sermon about the general concept of sin, confession, penitence and all those things is likely to be helpful. A sermon about some particular random societal sin that the person giving the sermon feels strongly about is likely to be so.
The problem is that when we talk in terms of general concepts we end up saying stuff that it's easy to categorise into "that's what someone else does". Produce a nice concrete example, and it's much easier to see what the general concept is - and, how we're all guilty. And, certainly for those of us in the so-called developed world, our lack of care for the world we've been given is something we're all guilty of.
The problem is that when we talk in terms of general concepts we end up saying stuff that it's easy to categorise into "that's what someone else does". Produce a nice concrete example, and it's much easier to see what the general concept is - and, how we're all guilty. And, certainly for those of us in the so-called developed world, our lack of care for the world we've been given is something we're all guilty of.
A sermon on the general concepts of sin and penitence appropriate to Ash Wednesday with reference to appropriate examples is a very different thing from a sermon on climate change.
On Christmas Day would people prefer a sermon that contained some reference to the life of Jesus and why he was born, or would they rather hear a rant against the global financial system?
But, a reminder that Jesus was born in poverty, in a cattle shed. And, that as most of us spend Christmas in conspicuous consumption it's appropriate for us to remember those in our own communities, nations and the wider world who still live in poverty. Global trade means many toil in poverty to produce the gifts we give, and much of the food on our table ... should that not also be remembered on the day when we give and receive those gifts, when sit and eat to excess? Should we not remember those who do not enjoy the riches we so conspicuously demonstrate? That as we remember the greatest gift of love God can possibly have given, His Son born in Bethlehem, we should consider what gift we could give in return - to work for His Kingdom where none face poverty, where each is paid a fair and living wage for the work they do, where all are equal regardless of race, nationality, or wealth. That sounds like a perfectly good Christmas Day sermon to me.
A sermon on the general concepts of sin and penitence appropriate to Ash Wednesday with reference to appropriate examples is a very different thing from a sermon on climate change.
Yes, but it's not exactly easy to preach about general concepts of sin and penitence, and at the same time to refer to appropriate examples.
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but I hope you see what I mean.
But, a reminder that Jesus was born in poverty, in a cattle shed. And, that as most of us spend Christmas in conspicuous consumption it's appropriate for us to remember those in our own communities, nations and the wider world who still live in poverty. Global trade means many toil in poverty to produce the gifts we give, and much of the food on our table ... should that not also be remembered on the day when we give and receive those gifts, when sit and eat to excess? Should we not remember those who do not enjoy the riches we so conspicuously demonstrate? That as we remember the greatest gift of love God can possibly have given, His Son born in Bethlehem, we should consider what gift we could give in return - to work for His Kingdom where none face poverty, where each is paid a fair and living wage for the work they do, where all are equal regardless of race, nationality, or wealth. That sounds like a perfectly good Christmas Day sermon to me.
It is a self-evident fact that global trade has lifted billions of people from poverty. Any attempt to preach against that on Christmas day isn't likely to go down well with me. The rest of what you say is a sermon on poverty relating it to the condition in which Jesus was born, which seems appropriate to me, if a little hackneyed.
A sermon on the general concepts of sin and penitence appropriate to Ash Wednesday with reference to appropriate examples is a very different thing from a sermon on climate change.
Yes, but it's not exactly easy to preach about general concepts of sin and penitence, and at the same time to refer to appropriate examples.
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but I hope you see what I mean.
If you can't distinguish between a sermon on climate change in the manner of a sermon on any number of sins which might be heard day in day out, and a special annual sermon on the very concepts of sin and penitence, then I'm sorry.
It is a self-evident fact that global trade has lifted billions of people from poverty.
Except, it isn't self evident. It's lifted the majority in the UK and Europe out of poverty (though, we still have an obscene level of poverty in the UK thanks to 10 years of Conservative mis-management and deliberate acts to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few - we shouldn't have 20-25% of our children living in poverty). But, there are vast numbers of people in the world in abject poverty - working to produce consumer goods for the west which they can't sell at prices above the costs of production, or with livelihoods destroyed for the benefit of western interests - including as a result of environmental degradation, both local and global. If you wish to make such a claim for global trade against all the evidence, feel free to start a new thread.
It is a self-evident fact that global trade has lifted billions of people from poverty.
Except, it isn't self evident. It's lifted the majority in the UK and Europe out of poverty (though, we still have an obscene level of poverty in the UK thanks to 10 years of Conservative mis-management and deliberate acts to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few - we shouldn't have 20-25% of our children living in poverty). But, there are vast numbers of people in the world in abject poverty - working to produce consumer goods for the west which they can't sell at prices above the costs of production, or with livelihoods destroyed for the benefit of western interests - including as a result of environmental degradation, both local and global. If you wish to make such a claim for global trade against all the evidence, feel free to start a new thread.
Hundreds of millions in China have been lifted out of poverty directly by global trade to give just one example, enabled by their government embracing capitalism. I get the feeling that certain Christian circles in the UK would prefer the developing world to remain as poor farmers albeit on a Fairtrade wage than working to make iPhones for ten times the money. Perhaps more a topic for an academic lecture than a Christmas day sermon though.
Relative vs absolute poverty is another issue. I'm sure Jesus would have a view on that, which it might be nice to hear a sermon on, but I never have. But again not at Christmas please.
Yes, maybe a sermon about a month before the next general election. Make sure Christians go to the voting booths (or, fill out their postal ballots) with "love your neighbours" ringing in their ears. I wouldn't advocate a preacher telling people how to cast their vote, but there are some parties advocating killing the poor and needy who it would be difficult to vote for in those circumstances.
Hundreds of millions in China have been lifted out of poverty directly by global trade to give just one example, enabled by their government embracing capitalism.
And yet the level of state control of industry in China is something Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't even dream of.
And yet Corbyn is a Stalinist disaster and China shows how capitalism works.
Hundreds of millions in China have been lifted out of poverty directly by global trade to give just one example, enabled by their government embracing capitalism.
And yet the level of state control of industry in China is something Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't even dream of.
And yet Corbyn is a Stalinist disaster and China shows how capitalism works.
Obviously my knowledge of China's economic growth since the nineties would benefit from listening to a few sermons by Anglican clergy, preferably all referring to Jeremy Corbyn.
I'm not sure a sermon is required on Ash Wednesday, anyway - the liturgy and readings (for Anglicans, and Roman Catholics, at least) say it all.
The service I attended this year (the lunchtime slot at the Cathedral) included the liturgy of penitence, a brief period of silence for reflection, and the imposition of ashes. No sermon.
Granted, for those from a different tradition, a sermon might be thought to be necessary.
Insisting that Ash Wednesday should only discuss sin in abstract and generalities is basically a way of avoiding any danger that the sermon might force you to identify a particular sin you're guilty of, apart from little ones that you're comfortable admitting to.
If you're preaching a sermon on sin that doesn't leave you uncomfortable then you've not done a good job, and that includes the choice of the particular examples you use to illustrate the general.
Insisting that Ash Wednesday should only discuss sin in abstract and generalities is basically a way of avoiding any danger that the sermon might force you to identify a particular sin you're guilty of, apart from little ones that you're comfortable admitting to.
I'd be happy for sermons forcing me to "identify a particular sin you're guilty of, apart from little ones that [I'm] comfortable admitting to." on almost any day of the year. So clearly insisting on doing something different for Ash Wednesday is not a way of avoiding that.
Perhaps insisting that Ash Wednesday can properly discuss some specific topical sin rather than confront ALL the sins you've done and what that means is a way of avoiding danger?
I'm not sure a sermon is required on Ash Wednesday, anyway - the liturgy and readings (for Anglicans, and Roman Catholics, at least) say it all.
The service I attended this year (the lunchtime slot at the Cathedral) included the liturgy of penitence, a brief period of silence for reflection, and the imposition of ashes. No sermon.
Granted, for those from a different tradition, a sermon might be thought to be necessary.
Yes, I've never heard an Ash Wednesday sermon, although perhaps that's mainly because I can't go to church on weekday mornings - the AW evening services I attend never feature sermons.
This argument seems, to me, to be going round in circles. Yes of course there is a need for sermons which say something about the nature of sin, especially as it's so often misunderstood. I think I'm right in saying that the most usual term for sin in the NT doesn't refer to "breaking (God's) laws" or even "self-indulgence" but "missing the mark" which suggests either failing to achieve God's perfect standards of holiness or simply making a total mess of things - or, as Francis Spufford memorably put it in his book "Unapologetic", 'The Human Propensity to F**k Things Up'.
However a sermon isn't an abstract theological treatise: it has to relate to the lives of its hearers. And while I'd agree that a sermon which concentrated entirely on "the human sin which causes climate change" would be inappropriate, the use of examples of sin, ones which we commit both knowingly and unthinkingly, are very much needed. Furthermore I think it is entirely right that those examples go beyond the realm of personal morals and habits (drinking to excess, adultery etc., which many listeners may easily dismiss in terms of , "I don't do that") and into the area of societal ethics in which we are all complicit to some degree. It's at this point that a challenge to our sinful use of the planet could well be in order.
Last year, FatherInCharge gave us a short homily at the evening Ash Wednesday Mass, simply encouraging us to observe a holy Lent, and, if we were fasting/abstaining/giving alms/praying more etc. etc. to keep that strictly between ourselves and God.
I'm not sure a sermon is required on Ash Wednesday, anyway - the liturgy and readings (for Anglicans, and Roman Catholics, at least) say it all.
The service I attended this year (the lunchtime slot at the Cathedral) included the liturgy of penitence, a brief period of silence for reflection, and the imposition of ashes. No sermon.
Granted, for those from a different tradition, a sermon might be thought to be necessary.
Yes, I've never heard an Ash Wednesday sermon, although perhaps that's mainly because I can't go to church on weekday mornings - the AW evening services I attend never feature sermons.
I wouldn't expect a sermon at a morning Ash Wednesday service, other than perhaps a VERY brief reflection on, say, the Gospel. I do, however, recall an AW evening Sung Eucharist at the Cathedral, where the (now retired) Bishop gave us a very scholarly exposition of the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Alas, it was a good 30 minutes' worth, and the service didn't start until 8pm, so it was very nearly Ash Thursday by the time I got home...
In the good old bad old days Holy Week evening services were a preaching extravaganza, at my home place. The services would've been typical of whatever was normal for Irish Anglican churches in those days for that time of year. I really can't remember if Thursday would've been a Holy Communion. It might've been. Of course, those where the days of twenty-plus minute sermons. People attended to hear the speaker.
I am curious how Yohan and those responding to him see sin/sinning because I'm not sure they are seeing it the same way.
To me, speaking as a non-Christian, the thing that's bad about sin and sinning is that your actions, however convenient or even well-intentioned they are, have a detrimental effect, however removed and however indirect, on someone, something, someplace, else.
Therefore, it's subject to the Golden Rule and you should stop causing harm on the basis that you want to live in a world where other people's actions are not detrimental to you.
Therefore a sermon on climate change or any 'green' concern is useful because it reminds people how subtle sin can be.
On the other hand--and this I think is where I think Yohan is coming from--a Christian might believe that sin is bad because it offends God and harms the believer's relationship with God.
In which case a sermon on climate change may not resonate as much as a sermon on a more personal, more relatable sin.
Both aspects of sin are important - sin damages your relationship with others by causing them harm, and your relationship with God as it offends Him (because, at least in part, it harms others). There may be some things which offend God but cause no harm to others, which fall into the realm of "none of my business" - especially if I'm the preacher.
To me, speaking as a non-Christian, the thing that's bad about sin and sinning is that your actions, however convenient or even well-intentioned they are, have a detrimental effect, however removed and however indirect, on someone, something, someplace, else.
In Buddhist spirituality as I understand it our fundamental problem is that our desires continually create for us more dissatisfaction while desiring than the satisfaction we get from their fulfilment. To desire is to be out of fit with reality as it is.
I think the concept of sin is not disanalogous to the Buddhist concept of desire: there is an element of personal spiritual displacement in it that is missing from a non-spiritual concept of morality as the ruleswe obey to restrain the detrimental effects our actions might otherwise have on each other. It is true that Christianity prefers to see fundamental reality as a sentient being(*) who enforces laws but that isn't the whole of Christian spirituality.
(*) I'd say metaphorically, but that's not quite right, as metaphorically suggests that there is a literal way of expressing the same thing that is clearer if less deep; and Christian theology doesn't think that there's any more literally accurate way of taking about God.
Comments
I want to reflect on my own sin and penitence, not be harangued for buying a petrol-engined Volvo instead of a Nissan Leaf.
Ash Wednesday is about all the sins. A mandatory group focus on one particular one is only going to distract from others, which for each individual present, might be far more pressing. You could equally argue for an Ash Wednesday service focusing on paedophilia or violations of the Sabbath, but if I were there I'd be thinking STFU and let me reflect on the way I treated my father who died in January, or something.
A short sermon would, of course, be appropriate, along the lines Alan suggests.
Why does it need to focus on any particular sin at all? Are there really clergy that don't have the ability, for one day of the year, to talk about the meaning of sin and penitence in a general sense? Sermons about what the sermon-giver considers to be the specific ills of society can surely be given on any number of other days in the year.
And we can be reminded of that throughout the year. But surely we also needed to be reminded at some point about the concepts of sin, penitence, repentance etc in a more general sense, otherwise the sermons railing against specific sins will have no context. What better day to to this than Ash Wednesday?
For hundreds of years the church has focused on people's individual sins, with the result that societal level injustices either continue or are addressed purely secularly with the church dragged along in the wake.
Don't those reminders come weekly through the liturgy, whereas the specifics will only ever come through the sermon?
So they should never talk about what sin is and what it means to sin, and what the sinner is to do about it? What's the point in talking about the specific societal sins if you can't take one day in the year to talk about sin itself?
A general definition could well include societal sins, but are you perhaps referring to more personal sins?
That's exactly the sort of thing a decent Ash Wednesday sermon would cover.
How do you define 'sin', in this context (an Ash Wednesday sermon)?
Broadly.
My point is that Ash Wednesday sermons should be about concepts of sin (societal and/or personal) and penitence, not specific sins of any type. The rest of the year can be used to address specific sins (from murder through to failing to sufficiently help rough sleepers or whatever).
Do you think there might be some mileage in the idea of a formal confession, where a penitent sinner goes privately to a priest (or other minister of ghostly counsel), unburdens him/herself of 'personal', rather than 'conceptual', sins, and is reassured of God's forgiveness?
This would seem to be appropriate at the beginning of Lent, whether one regards it as an official 'sacrament' or not.
I'm not sure that sermons over the rest of the liturgical year would be very popular if they kept on focussing on various specific sins...though the opportunity might arise if, for example, something was mentioned in (say) the day's Gospel.
A congregation which is constantly being browbeaten about the murders they've committed, or their lack of support for the local Food Bank, will very quickly dwindle...
I am sure there are plenty of opportunities over the year, especially around Lent, for a penitent sinner to speak with a priest privately.
But when I go to an Ash Wednesday service, I probably have my most heinous Sin of the Year foremost in my mind at some point. A sermon about the general concept of sin, confession, penitence and all those things is likely to be helpful. A sermon about some particular random societal sin that the person giving the sermon feels strongly about is likely to be so.
A sermon on the general concepts of sin and penitence appropriate to Ash Wednesday with reference to appropriate examples is a very different thing from a sermon on climate change.
On Christmas Day would people prefer a sermon that contained some reference to the life of Jesus and why he was born, or would they rather hear a rant against the global financial system?
But, a reminder that Jesus was born in poverty, in a cattle shed. And, that as most of us spend Christmas in conspicuous consumption it's appropriate for us to remember those in our own communities, nations and the wider world who still live in poverty. Global trade means many toil in poverty to produce the gifts we give, and much of the food on our table ... should that not also be remembered on the day when we give and receive those gifts, when sit and eat to excess? Should we not remember those who do not enjoy the riches we so conspicuously demonstrate? That as we remember the greatest gift of love God can possibly have given, His Son born in Bethlehem, we should consider what gift we could give in return - to work for His Kingdom where none face poverty, where each is paid a fair and living wage for the work they do, where all are equal regardless of race, nationality, or wealth. That sounds like a perfectly good Christmas Day sermon to me.
Yes, but it's not exactly easy to preach about general concepts of sin and penitence, and at the same time to refer to appropriate examples.
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but I hope you see what I mean.
It is a self-evident fact that global trade has lifted billions of people from poverty. Any attempt to preach against that on Christmas day isn't likely to go down well with me. The rest of what you say is a sermon on poverty relating it to the condition in which Jesus was born, which seems appropriate to me, if a little hackneyed.
If you can't distinguish between a sermon on climate change in the manner of a sermon on any number of sins which might be heard day in day out, and a special annual sermon on the very concepts of sin and penitence, then I'm sorry.
Hundreds of millions in China have been lifted out of poverty directly by global trade to give just one example, enabled by their government embracing capitalism. I get the feeling that certain Christian circles in the UK would prefer the developing world to remain as poor farmers albeit on a Fairtrade wage than working to make iPhones for ten times the money. Perhaps more a topic for an academic lecture than a Christmas day sermon though.
Relative vs absolute poverty is another issue. I'm sure Jesus would have a view on that, which it might be nice to hear a sermon on, but I never have. But again not at Christmas please.
And yet Corbyn is a Stalinist disaster and China shows how capitalism works.
Obviously my knowledge of China's economic growth since the nineties would benefit from listening to a few sermons by Anglican clergy, preferably all referring to Jeremy Corbyn.
e.g.
https://www.sherborneabbey.com/sermon/a-sermon-for-ash-wednesday/
https://lancasterpriory.org/sermons/archived-sermons/sermon-on-ash-wednesday-2018/
https://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/sermons/dean-060319.pdf
I haven't found one about climate change or global trade yet.
I'm not sure a sermon is required on Ash Wednesday, anyway - the liturgy and readings (for Anglicans, and Roman Catholics, at least) say it all.
The service I attended this year (the lunchtime slot at the Cathedral) included the liturgy of penitence, a brief period of silence for reflection, and the imposition of ashes. No sermon.
Granted, for those from a different tradition, a sermon might be thought to be necessary.
I'd be happy for sermons forcing me to "identify a particular sin you're guilty of, apart from little ones that [I'm] comfortable admitting to." on almost any day of the year. So clearly insisting on doing something different for Ash Wednesday is not a way of avoiding that.
Perhaps insisting that Ash Wednesday can properly discuss some specific topical sin rather than confront ALL the sins you've done and what that means is a way of avoiding danger?
Yes, I've never heard an Ash Wednesday sermon, although perhaps that's mainly because I can't go to church on weekday mornings - the AW evening services I attend never feature sermons.
This argument seems, to me, to be going round in circles. Yes of course there is a need for sermons which say something about the nature of sin, especially as it's so often misunderstood. I think I'm right in saying that the most usual term for sin in the NT doesn't refer to "breaking (God's) laws" or even "self-indulgence" but "missing the mark" which suggests either failing to achieve God's perfect standards of holiness or simply making a total mess of things - or, as Francis Spufford memorably put it in his book "Unapologetic", 'The Human Propensity to F**k Things Up'.
However a sermon isn't an abstract theological treatise: it has to relate to the lives of its hearers. And while I'd agree that a sermon which concentrated entirely on "the human sin which causes climate change" would be inappropriate, the use of examples of sin, ones which we commit both knowingly and unthinkingly, are very much needed. Furthermore I think it is entirely right that those examples go beyond the realm of personal morals and habits (drinking to excess, adultery etc., which many listeners may easily dismiss in terms of , "I don't do that") and into the area of societal ethics in which we are all complicit to some degree. It's at this point that a challenge to our sinful use of the planet could well be in order.
Last year, FatherInCharge gave us a short homily at the evening Ash Wednesday Mass, simply encouraging us to observe a holy Lent, and, if we were fasting/abstaining/giving alms/praying more etc. etc. to keep that strictly between ourselves and God.
I wouldn't expect a sermon at a morning Ash Wednesday service, other than perhaps a VERY brief reflection on, say, the Gospel. I do, however, recall an AW evening Sung Eucharist at the Cathedral, where the (now retired) Bishop gave us a very scholarly exposition of the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Alas, it was a good 30 minutes' worth, and the service didn't start until 8pm, so it was very nearly Ash Thursday by the time I got home...
They were usually shorter than 30 minutes, tbf...
Of course there are places north of the Border (and south, actually) which would consider them to be scandalously short.
But yes - those old pulpit hourglasses were meant to be used...
'And sixty-fifthly, my dear friends...'
To me, speaking as a non-Christian, the thing that's bad about sin and sinning is that your actions, however convenient or even well-intentioned they are, have a detrimental effect, however removed and however indirect, on someone, something, someplace, else.
Therefore, it's subject to the Golden Rule and you should stop causing harm on the basis that you want to live in a world where other people's actions are not detrimental to you.
Therefore a sermon on climate change or any 'green' concern is useful because it reminds people how subtle sin can be.
On the other hand--and this I think is where I think Yohan is coming from--a Christian might believe that sin is bad because it offends God and harms the believer's relationship with God.
In which case a sermon on climate change may not resonate as much as a sermon on a more personal, more relatable sin.
I think the concept of sin is not disanalogous to the Buddhist concept of desire: there is an element of personal spiritual displacement in it that is missing from a non-spiritual concept of morality as the ruleswe obey to restrain the detrimental effects our actions might otherwise have on each other. It is true that Christianity prefers to see fundamental reality as a sentient being(*) who enforces laws but that isn't the whole of Christian spirituality.
(*) I'd say metaphorically, but that's not quite right, as metaphorically suggests that there is a literal way of expressing the same thing that is clearer if less deep; and Christian theology doesn't think that there's any more literally accurate way of taking about God.