Preaching the Impossible in the Face of the Unthinkable: Nonviolence, Love, and Thanksgiving in a Coptic Easter Sermon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The scandal of the cross comes through clearly in this analysis of Fr. Boules George's passionate Holy Monday Sermon. The article is well thought out. For those of us who do not dwell in a world of constant persecution, martyrdom, and loss of loved ones through violence, it is a stark reminder of what Christian faith ought to look like. The courage to thank an enemy "for killing us" is profound. The call to repentance and to pray for the killers in such a situation is as unsettling as it is transformational.

I appreciated the section on the context of the sermon which provided a stronger understanding of the results of constant persecution on a Christian population.

I wonder if the other context, the fact that it was broadcast, might also be worth exploring. For a preacher who is being recorded has the homiletic challenge of deciding to which audience he is speaking - to those who are listening right here and now in the pew or to those who will hear this address online. To my ears, this was largely delivered to those outside the church. And what does that do to the liturgical celebration within which it is situated? Is the homily intended to be integral to the Coptic liturgy? Where is the line between a courageous address (which this certainly was) and the intimate pastoral care of the flock in the pews (of which there was little). As you say, "the brevity of this consolation might be startling, particularly in a time of such powerful grief." And yet it is grace which brings consolation, the prayers of the communion of saints (to which he does allude), and the guts given by God which make repentance, non-violence and love of the enemy possible. Perhaps the "visceral negative reaction" that the sermon elicited was a theological and pastoral one? As much as a "soft Christianity" response?

Much to think about here. Thank you for working with this sermon walking alongside of Brueggeman and Schmemann.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful feedback! You are spot on in observing that more could be said regarding the questions that arise when preaching for multiple audiences. Having considered this excellent suggestion carefully, I would prefer to address it in greater depth in a separate paper that examines the phenomenon of Coptic preaching that is offered to both an in-person and a global-digital audience more broadly. I am deeply grateful for your time and your assistance with this project. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very interesting from its content. All methodological assumptions, distribution of the material, structure are not questionable. From the point of view of contribution to the development of homiletics and theology - it must be said that it does not bring some new accents. It is an analysis of a particular sermon, which, although important in terms of content, does not represent some kind of complete novelty. The arguments point to the validity of the essential substantive, theological assumptions of the sermon in question, rather than to its particular formal or substantive content. In other words, I believe that the very choice of the subject of analysis should be better justified. 

In the same way, moreover, the choice of dialogants should be better justified. 

The bibliography is quite limited. It could be supplemented at least with more general studies of homiletical theory. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful review. I appreciate your feedback and have considered it carefully. Many thanks for your time and and your assistance with this project.

Reviewer 3 Report

This essay does what it sets out to do and should be published. I appreciate the care with which this author recognizes how those with Western ears may receive the sermon and explains why it may sound quite differently to those in the preacher’s own context. The author reveals the clear biblical grounding the preacher stands on that points the hearers to the hope of eternal life with God in Christ that changes everything about how Christians can live now with their enemies. Readers may have their hermeneutical lenses expanded and be left pondering what a faithful response to such violence would be in their own contexts.

Thank you for this thought-provoking essay that points readers to the cross of Christ.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback. Your thoughtful response to the paper, and your affirmation of the key points of the argument are very helpful. This particular project has taken quite a while to reach fruition, and it is encouraging to know that the paper is ready for publication. I am profoundly grateful for your time and consideration!