Dour Scotsmen and the Courage to Speak

It was not Lady Jane’s fault that she lost her head.¹

When Edward VI, the teen-aged Protestant king of England was ill and dying, those around him plotted ways to retain their power after his death. Religion was in the conversation, but at stake was power. Arrangements were made to wed Guildford Dudley to Lady Jane Gray, unwilling though they were, and to manipulate Edward’s genuine faith to ensure that Dudley would be king should anything happen to Jane. Once having tasted power, those with it were not about to let it go.

And still, in the midst of these dark manipulations, the powerful have appearances to keep. For the powerful in 16^th Century England (not unlike our own day) that meant a proper religious presence. So, one day in April of 1535, those surrounding Edward trudged to their seats beneath the pulpit at Westminster Abbey to hear a sermon by Edward’s favorite chaplain, a feisty Scot named John Knox, a “dour little man,”^⁠² Knox’s biographer Elizabeth Whitley tells us.

During a time when careless words could mean death and therefore “most men took care to trim their sails,”^⁠³ Knox’s sermon was forthright. He had seen “death in the young king’s face, and the wolfpack was gathering, even bolder.”⁴ Using a text from John 13, “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against me,” Knox spoke directly and courageously, naming these gathered wolves “crafty, covetous, wicked, and ungodly counsellors.” When it was over, Knox managed to keep his head, but not his post. It was Knox’s last sermon as Edward’s chaplain.^⁠⁵

Knox’s courage in that setting, with all that was on the line, has always impressed me. As pastors, we want to be bold, to be driven by the truth and committed to pleasing God even if it means running afoul of others. Knox directly called out the ungodly and hypocritical pretense of these leaders without concern for his own future. I’ve coveted that kind of courage, a courage which may be necessary in simply calling Christians to basic and fundamental standards of Christ-like virtue.

The day after the inauguration of President Donald Trump, the Right Reverend Marianne Budde, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, preached a sermon to the president and others in the National Cathedral.^⁠⁶ Compared to Knox, she was mild. Only once did she speak her words directly to the president, and then not with accusations but with a plea. She was forthright in calling for the embracing of biblical virtue by all, especially by those in power. She challenged us all to mete out our political judgments with mercy, and to treat one another with respect, truth, and humility.^⁠⁷ That she went on to address particular concern for transgender, gay, and immigrant peoples may have been unwise, but to ask for mercy toward those who are afraid hardly seems out of line. Lady Jane, no doubt, would have appreciated such a dose of mercy.

These concerns were hardly progressive nor were they untethered from truth as some have wailed. They were christ-like virtues we should all embrace. That we should count others as better than ourselves, that we should work hard to represent the truth as best we know it, that we should treat all people as created in the image of the true and living God, and that we should find ways to act on our politics with the deepest possible heart of mercy are not wild, radical, or progressive pleas. The prophets called for such things, Jesus modeled them, and Paul saw them as the Spirit’s fruit. We all, not just the powerful gathered in the National Cathedral, need to hear her appeal to repudiate the spirit of contempt that characterizes our age and to hear once again the call to love, not despise, our enemies.

It should not take courage to say such things. But the backlash from other Christians, the contempt heaped upon her, reveals that it in fact does. And that should grieve us.

Yes, I understand that Knox himself would have been apoplectic at the thought of a woman delivering this message. But it is still truth. We should be able to hear truth from one with whom we differ. Some with agenda to pursue have dismissed the whole and labeled her an “apostate priestess” with no right to speak.^⁠⁸ But, at the very least, Balaam’s experience should make us cautious. Even though one judges the speaker as one who is supposed to be mute, it is unwise to on that account dismiss the message. Even I occasionally get things right.

As preachers we obviously have to make judgments when we speak. We balance what we can say with what we must say. We measure the ability of our hearers to hear so that we can speak what they are able to receive. We need wisdom to make those judgments, and sometimes we need courage. Judging by the virulent protests leveled against Rev. Budde’s message, a message so necessary for our time, it seems we have come to a day when challenging Christians to love their neighbor, to eschew contempt, to act with mercy, and to speak truth, takes courage. Perhaps its always been that way.

If that is so, then may many more of us be so bold. Even if it means we lose our heads, or other such valued possessions.

1. You can listen to this post here or here.

2. Elizabeth Whitley, Plain Mr. Knox, (London, England: Skeffington & Son, Ltd., 1960), p. 17.
There is much to admire and even emulate about Knox. Being dour, that is “relentlessly severe, stern, or gloomy in manner or appearance,” should not be one of them. Many, I fear, confuse being disagreeable with being courageous. That is not what we are after.

3. Whitley, p. 51.

4. Whitley, p. 63.

5. Whitley, p. 64, 65.

6. I urge any who have heard her message criticized but who have not heard her message to take the fifteen minutes necessary to listen to it. Many of the inflammatory responses do not, in my opinion, adequately represent her tone and spirit.

7. It’s worth noting that there is no reference to Christ’s embodiment of these virtues, nor of the cross. These are grave omissions. But their absence does not negate the validity of her fundamental claims.

8. So asserts Denny Burk of the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” As with his previous criticisms of author Aimee Byrd, he seems unwilling to fairly represent Rev. Budde’s comments or to directly engage them, no doubt because she is a woman.