Michael Denton
May 13th, 2003
St. Paul UCC, Palatine
Acts 16:9-15
9During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them.
11We set sail from Troas and took a straight course to Samothrace, the following day to Neapolis, 12and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district£ of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city for some days. 13On the sabbath day we went outside the gate by the river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and spoke to the women who had gathered there. 14A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. 15When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us.
- Greeting
- Prayer
Some of friends, if they’re trying to be polite, have been told me I have a somewhat unusual mind. At less polite moments, they just let me know they think I’m weird. So, yeah, I know I’m kind of a stream of consciousness type of guy and, if you get me at the right moment, I can go on for a bit about, well, anything. Frequently, somewhere in a conversation a story may come up that may or may not seem to be related, at the time. I kind of think in stories and, at about the same time I open my mouth, they seem to tumble out. Granted, when I start to tell the story, I confess I don’t always know exactly where it’s going to go but it usually helps me get around to a point. Now, this can mean a really strange conversation with me on occasion but it’s really handy when writing sermons.
So, while marinating on the lectionary text from Acts this week, I was thinking a lot about a certain bacteria than lives in the stomach called helicobator pylori (more commonly know as h-pylori). OK, maybe not as much the bacteria itself, but there is a great story about h-pylori. . . Oh, if I had a quarter for every time I’ve said that.
Anyway, it goes something like this: H-pylori was discovered in the late 1800’s but no one really knew what it did. It was nearly impossible to grow a culture of it outside the stomach so people kind of ignored it; assuming that it was either some benign or even helpful little stomach creature.
In 1979, it was “rediscovered” by an Australian researcher by the name of Robin Warren and a couple years later, he was joined by another guy named Barry Marshall. They figured out how to grow this stuff outside of the stomach in a Petri dish and, in their study of it, came up with an idea. Up to that point, it was pretty well accepted that stress, spicy foods and grease consumption were the cause of ulcers and chronic heartburn. If you went to any doctor up to this point, they’d subscribe antacids, relaxation and changes in diet in order to at least feel better but, overall, these were seen as a chronic condition that required lifetime monitoring and lifestyle changes.
Warren and Marshall had another idea. They were convinced that h-pylori was the cause of these gastric conditions and that stress, spicy foods and grease consumption simply exacerbated the problem. To say the wider medical community disagreed with this assumption was an understatement. First of all, what “really” caused these medical problems were “common knowledge.” Secondly, everyone “knew” the stomach was way too acidic to support bacteria. Thirdly, well, they were from Australia and there appeared to be the assumption that Australia was pretty much all Outback and crocodiles and very little else. Warren and Marshall were laughed at, derided and insulted. The more persistent they were, the more they were insulted as quacks and eventually, threatened with having their credentials yanked.
So, in and effort to prove a point, Marshall drank a Petri dish of h-pylori. Yum. Soon afterwards, as they predicted, he developed symptoms of gastritis. The researchers also experimented with treatments for a couple other patients and discovered that antibiotics seemed to take care of the problem. They published another paper. This time, the medical community took notice and began to regard their theory as probable. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology.
Although more extreme than most, this is almost a story we may have heard before. It’s practically formulaic. Slightly offbeat discovers a new idea/way of doing things. Idea/way of doing things is presented to experts in field. Experts in field reject idea/way of doing things and are even threatened by it. The slightly offbeat scientist/artist/musician/entrepanur persists with new idea/way of doing things against great odds. Eventually, the idea/way of doing things catches on or is proven correct and everybody lives happily ever after. Outside becomes insider. It all makes a great story. It speaks to something in us. Its one of the reasons the story of Christianity is so compelling to so many. We relate to it as one of these outsider stories.
And, of course, Jesus was clearly an outsider. Although called “rabbi” by some, he said some pretty crazy sounding stuff. Love your enemies? Really? Turn the other cheek? Are you serious? Considering tax collectors and Roman soldiers redeemable? Really? This is clearly outsider thinking. Jesus, the outsider, took these disciples, other outsiders and called them to build a movement of yet still more outsiders. The religious experts of the time rejected the teachings and the organizing plan of this offbeat Messiah and derided him in public. In the most extreme example of rejection of a new idea, Jesus was killed. But the story doesn’t end there. Jesus is resurrected proving that there was something to this Jesus guy, after all. Jesus, in fact, turns out to be so right that, today, there’s folks calling themselves Christian running all over the place. The outsider has become considered the insider.
When we pick up the story in Acts, we’re reading about the disciples and their challenge to follow through on this Jesus directive and they’re finding themselves on the margins of traditional Jewish ethnic and religious culture. Last week, the lectionary reading from Acts talked about Peter tossing off centuries of tradition after having this vision that no one was unclean; this vision that all people were worthy of being reached out to and invited to become a part of this movement. This vision changed a reform movement within Judaism into something more radical. There is this other vision of another kind of faithfulness that takes the religious ideals of the time and, out of them, expands them and forms new ideas. This week, Paul’s has a vision.
Paul’s vision isn’t nearly as grand as big sheet with all the animals of the world in it but, still, some guy appearing in front of you, pleading with you to come to Macedonia is pretty good. That word, “pleading,” does make me laugh a little. You have a vision of some guy in the middle of the night and he has to plead? I mean, come on. But, then again, this is Paul and, well, he had an issue or two. . .
Anyway, so Paul has this vision and takes off for Macedonia. If Paul was there early enough, he probably did what he usually did when visiting a new place and found some of the city’s Jewish folks and spent some time with them. If there was a synagogue, he probably had spent some time there, too; getting to know people and sharing words about Jesus and the movement of the Holy Spirit among these disciples of Jesus.
Somewhere along the way, Paul heard about this place of prayer outside the city gates. Now, we really don’t know why there was this place of prayer outside the gates of the city. Scholars have lots of guesses but no one’s really sure. Some think that this was possibly a meeting place for those who’d been rejected by the authorities residing within the walls. Others scholars, knowing that there is a tradition of something like baptism in early Jewish practice, suggest that maybe this was a place for prayer and baptism. A few have suggested that maybe this was a place outside the city that those who had been considered unclean (because of something they did) had to go when they were in the process of fulfilling certain purification rituals. It was a gathering of women and women weren’t welcome in every synagogue. Some suggest that maybe these women started and established a gathering place of their own. Maybe it was just a really pretty, quiet place for these women to gather, look at the river, look at each other, pray together and be together without the same pressures of the common culture of the city bearing down on them. Heck, no one’s really sure any more. We don’t know.
All we know for certain is that for some reason, these folks either had to meet there or chose to meet there. Even though we don’t know why they were there, we do now that they were somehow outside the understood boundaries of a differently ordered kind of life.
We don’t really know specifically why Paul wanted to meet the women gathered here, either. The scripture just isn’t clear. Again, some there are a variety of reasons that have some have suggested he decided to be present. Maybe it was because he’d heard that these folks were more open minded than most. Maybe he’d received some sort of invitation. Maybe it had been made clear to him that he wasn’t really welcome at the synagogue after what he’d said in the city and he didn’t have anywhere else to go. Maybe, there may have been reasons that would have been clear to those who heard this story but those reasons have been lost over time. We don’t know. Regardless, for whatever reason, he met with this group of outsiders and, obviously, Lydia stood out.
Purple cloth was good money and Lydia was probably well off, financially. Purple cloth was the cloth used by royalty. The fact that she was named without a relationship to a husband means that she probably was without one. Again, more conjecture: maybe she was widowed, maybe she was never married but her family business bought her enough privilege that she was OK. Maybe, simply because she was connected to royalty, she got a pass on many social conventions. We don’t know. We don’t know why she was by this place of prayer by the river, either. Maybe, she was from another city and passing through to sell her wares or pick up something she needed. Maybe she was there to meet other women whom she considered to be similar to her. Maybe she just happened to stumble across this place. Again, we don’t know for sure why she was at this place at this time.
We do know that she was, apparently, quite convincing; a good salesperson. I mean, Paul was not always an easy man to convince. Remember, at the beginning of this story, someone who appeared in a vision had to plead with Paul to come to Macedonia. Now, this woman was standing in front of him and we all know from others writings attributed to Paul that this society’s relationship to women was complicated, to say the least. This woman heard the story Paul told, these words of Paul, and found something in them she found important. This woman, the presumably rather well off business woman, was with several members of her household and was so moved by Paul’s message that she and her entire household were baptized by Paul in that river. This woman, so moved by what happened that day, invited Paul and those traveling with Paul, to stay in her home. In Paul’s acceptance of this invitation, he wasn’t just recognizing Lydia’s acceptance of him, it was also his acceptance of her and his acknowledgment of Lydia as a sister in this new movement.
There was a change. There was this outsider’s message shared with an outsider community that was another part of this story of outsiders. One of the reasons this story is so appealing to the Church and is told so many times is that it fits right in to the idea of this outsider to insider transition. Conversion and the story of the growth of the church becomes the ultimate way to tell the story of an outside faith, first rejected by many, becoming more and more accepted. This outsider faith is justified by the acceptance of its ideals. It’s a story that gets told a lot from lots of pulpits. Outsider faith becomes insider faith and, eventually, one of the largest movements in the entire world. It’s the perfect outsider story.
Or, maybe not. Maybe its not that easy. When I look at this week’s text and last week’s text, maybe it was actually the disciples who were converted. In both this week’s and last week’s text, it was those who the disciples really didn’t see as part of the community who invited Paul and company or Peter and company in to their homes. Today’s scripture talks about the opening of Lydia’s heart to this message that Paul brought but maybe it was Paul’s heart that was opened Lydia. It was Lydia that asked Paul to judge whether or not she was worthy. Sure, there can be a level of humility seen in this but imagine it another way.
If you were someone, like this saleswoman who sold cloth for executives, you would have figured out how to convince people of a thing or two. When you add to this the fact that Lydia was not in a relationship with a man, she’d probably had to frequently struggle to be accepted. She was a survivor. She knew she had to do things differently sometimes.
So, here she is, a strong woman among a group of women and she doesn’t tell Paul she’s worthy to be recognized as faithful by him, she makes it up to him – in front of her household and this group of women – to say whether or not she’s worthy. If he said “No,” he might lose credibility with this group of people. If he said “Yes,” he had the opportunity of starting a whole new base community in Macedonia as well as Lydia’s city, Thyatira. I’m guessing Lydia had a pretty good idea what Paul was going to say before he said and, by doing so, at least two new communities were formed.
Sisters and brothers, we in the church frequently talk about “sharing the gospel” in a spirit of outreach and evangelism with the idea that those “out there” are in need of what we have “in here.” I think that’s true but it’s really only half the story. We who are in the church are desperately in need of the conversion that is offered and suggested by those who outside the church. Where are those places that the outsiders, the rejected, the forgotten, the marginalized and the doubted go? We really need to be there both to offer what God’s given to us as well as to receive what God continues to offer in other places, in other ways.
There are ways we continue to be in need of conversion. It’s not a one time thing that we consider, accept and finish but a lifetime process that means seeking out God in all those places God may seem to be hiding. The saddest part about some in the church insisting that there are those among us who are not worthy to be within the church is that this very thought makes us less worthy and more in need of not praise for uprightness, but mercy for our small mindedness and diminished faith. The invitation to become a part of our communities of faith shouldn’t just be a gift that is seen as being offered but a gift that we’re pleading for, that we’re welcoming, that we’re accepting. Moving beyond the gates of our own cities and walls, those places where there is this sense of being protected and safe, needs is an opportunity for our churches and the members of our churches that needs to be encouraged, expanded and explored. We all know that God is present in more places than just this one. We have to seek out those places faithfully and carefully.
As much as we may try to put our faith in the context of a story that is typical, God just doesn’t act typically. God is bigger than any definition and any absolute model of our understanding. This God loves us, deeply, constantly and fully in ways that far, far beyond human understanding. Regardless of whether or not we see ourselves as inside or outside our communities love and car, we’re always in the love of God. Always and this God is always offering us ways for some of the most unexpected conversions through some of the most unexpected people. This God of stomach bacteria, mystery, hope and every single one of us. . .
Monday, May 14, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Michael Denton
May 6th, 2007
Acts 11:1-18
Glenview Community Church
1Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God. 2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, 3saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” 4Then Peter began to explain it to them, step by step, saying, 5“I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. There was something like a large sheet coming down from heaven, being lowered by its four corners; and it came close to me. 6As I looked at it closely I saw four-footed animals, beasts of prey, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8But I replied, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9But a second time the voice answered from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ 10This happened three times; then everything was pulled up again to heaven. 11At that very moment three men, sent to me from Caesarea, arrived at the house where we were. 12The Spirit told me to go with them and not to make a distinction between them and us. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13He told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; 14he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved.’ 15And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” 18When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
- Greeting
- Prayer
Most biblical scholars agree that the same person who wrote the Book of Acts was probably the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. Not only that, but many guess that, because of the abruptness with which Acts ends that this person’s intent was to write, at least, one more book that talked about the early Christian community. We really don’t know if this book just wasn’t written or if the book was lost or even if the book was deemed so controversial or impolitic that those who decided what would go what we now know as The Bible just decided to leave it out. We really don’t know but it was one of those things that helped spark my interest in these accounts. Somehow, this idea has made me pay attention to Luke and the Book of Acts in a different way. The book of Acts, in particular, is this interesting amalgam of social commentary, theological rationale, legend-telling and travel log. These texts have become more real to me and I find imagining what was going on when these texts were written in a more vivid way that’s just different than when I read some of the other scriptures. Within these pages are some really good stories and, as I imagine the real people that inspired them, I find myself considering not only the obvious message of the text, but also the possible subtext, as well; the possible story behind the story.
In today’s reading, the obvious message is couched in perspectives that may seem a little odd to most of our modern ears but, when considered in the context of the day, they touch on some deep issues. As we know, this was written about a time before there was the idea of a “Christian community.” At this point in the story, the disciples were part of Jewish reform movement that was seeking out a different way to be faithful. Jesus had cracked open some of the socio-religious norms and expectations of his day and, now, the disciples were carrying on this iconoclastic this tradition.
When we join the story in today’s text, Peter is in trouble. In the eyes of some, he’d really messed up. Within Judaism of the time, there was a clear in group and a clear out group. The idea that Jewish folks were those who were chosen by God for a special relationship and a special task was more than just prominent; it was pretty much accepted as true. The idea that Jesus may be the Messiah and had come to liberate the Jewish people was what was being preached and taught by those mentioned in Acts. Their understanding was that he had come to renew Israel and move religious practice beyond something that was done simply because it had always been done that way before and reinvigorate this message and this law with love; what Jesus believed had been its holy intent. This early reform community was growing in strength and message and purpose as an alternatively faithful, but essentially traditional, ethnically and religiously Jewish community.
Then Peter comes along and messes this all up a bit. Peter was traveling from place to place, preaching to his Jewish sisters and brothers about the promises of this Jesus guy just as he and the disciples had been sent out to do. But then the Gentiles – the non-Jews – also started to gather, listen and be interested. They showed up. And they got it. They really, really got it. They were moved by the Holy Spirit and embraced it with wonderful and beautiful passion and Peter had a choice to make, as the story was told. He saw this. He was moved by it and, in opposition to so much he had been taught, Peter baptized them. Not only that, but he recognized them as full members of this new community and stayed with them in their homes. He lived in their homes for a few days and, we can probably assume, ate the food they prepared.
Peter was breaking some pretty serious, long establishes rules. The rule was that if a man – because this particular situation really focused on the conversion of men - wanted to be accepted in to the Jewish community he needed to be circumcised and, among our early church predecessors, this was also a prerequisite for baptism. It was just understood to be one of those things you did. The fact that Peter didn’t go by the rules was something he was being criticized for.
Still, Peter wasn’t stopping there. Peter was shrugging off another idea, too. His behavior was a clear violation of the purity codes. This violation, in and of itself, not a sin as much as something they you needed to be cleaned from. In and of itself, it wasn’t a sin to eat with a Gentile but it was considered pretty disgusting. There was a whole list of these things in Leviticus.
The online theologian and bible scholar Dan Clendenin writes this (quote):
By one count there are 613 mizvot or "commandments" in the five books of Moses (the Torah). The purity laws of Leviticus chapters 11–26 specify in minute detail clean and unclean foods, purity rituals after childbirth or a menstrual cycle, regulations for skin infections and contaminated clothing or furniture, prohibitions against contact with a human corpse or dead animal, instructions about nocturnal emissions, laws regarding bodily discharges, agricultural guidelines about planting seeds and mating animals, and decrees about lawful sexual relationships, keeping the sabbath, forsaking idols, and even tattoos. These purity laws encompassed every aspect of being human—birth, death, sex, gender, health, economics, jurisprudence, social relations, hygiene, marriage, behavior, and certainly ethnicity, for Gentiles were automatically considered impure. (unquote).
Again, in and of themselves, to be in contact with any one of these things was not considered a sin. They were seen as disgusting things that made you unclean, and therefore, there were rituals and actions that needed to be taken to make you whole, or clean, again. However, these actions did move in to the realm of sin if you did them intentionally and refused to be cleansed; to be made right.
So what Peter was doing was incredibly radical. Not only was he admitting openly that he’d been in very close contact with “unclean” people, he was also denying and disagreeing with this idea that Gentiles, by their very nature, were unclean in the first place. Peter was insisting that God had shown him something - revealed this vision to him - that simply insisted that the idea that anyone was unclean was a fallacy. He was insisting that, in fact, to continue with this prejudice was an attempt to hinder the work of God in the world. He was insisting that all were included by God’s grace and that all had access to God’s love and mercy.
He was resisting a previous, fundamentalist interpretation of scripture that had suggested conditional inclusion and, instead, he was substituting it with the idea that anyone could dedicate their lives to God. He was resisting ideas that had cast some as less than fully human and spiritual beings and insisting that God wanted all people treated a different way. At this moment, he was resisting centuries of religious teachings and, well, it was a good thing for us he did because we have to remember that, for the most part, those of us sitting here are the Gentiles.
Although science has DNA science has taught us we’re all related and we all have connections to each other genetically, very few of us may actually be able to say that we’re considered ethnically Jewish and, because we’re in a church, its probable that even is one of us were ethnically Jewish, we would probably would not self-identify as religiously Jewish. If it weren’t for this liberal spirit of Peter, we may have never had the opportunity, the opportunity, to consider Christianity. Those of us who come from a family background that’s Christian would probably not have a relationship with the church. We would have still been considered unclean and unworthy of being invited to participate in this church service, in this time and place, today. It’s an amazing thing to think about; there is a direct link between Peter’s actions and rebellion that helped bring us here together on this day in Glenview, Illinois.
Needless to say, there is a challenge for us in this, too. We who would not be in church together if it weren’t for Peter’s faithful actions need to challenge ourselves to move beyond those comfortable boundaries we may have, very unintentionally, set on some our own outreach and evangelistic efforts. In the same way Peter resisted the idea of some being clean and some being unclean; some being acceptable and some being unacceptable; some being welcome and some being unwelcome; we have to resist this same idea within our church in this place and time. If we’re in a church where everyone looks pretty much like us, sounds pretty much like us, thinks pretty much like us, and has experienced life pretty much like us, we need to do some serious, serious praying and be open to new visions, new behaviors and new practices. Most of the social and religious expectations of this time and place are a little – a little – more subtle than some of the rules in Peter’s day and some are just as vivid. Still, I think we’re no less called to violate these rules – our own purity standards – than Peter was.
And, we really need to push this. Simply being willing to be open and welcoming is good start but simply not enough. If we take the example of Peter and notice our own selective evangelism or exclusive practice, we have to change it. The strange thing about this faith journey is that it stagnates in the face of too much comfort. If the only thing our faith does is give us comfort, there’s a really good chance we’re not actually being faithful. When we look at our lives, we have the ongoing task of not just celebrating how far we’ve come but asking God where we are to go next. In a life of faith, change is the only constant.
This applies to our church life in some very real ways. One of the things were called to do after finding a church home is continue to seek out ways to attract and invite those who aren’t there yet. In the same way that our church may have been a welcoming place for us, we’re called to make it a welcoming place for others. The irony of this is that in the course of this faithful action we may eventually find ourselves in a church that does things quite a bit differently than the church we were initially attracted to. It is a task of balancing recognition with celebration. In helping our church faithfully offer the Good News, there may be parts of the practice of liturgy that we simply don’t relate to at some point but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate. It may mean that there is music we don’t know or music we’re not used to but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate. It may mean that there is language we haven’t heard before or language that’s different than what we grew up with but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate. It may mean that the sermon may not always be a message that we relate to but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate. It may mean that there are programs in the church that we don’t find we fit in to but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate.
Part of our faith life is to realize that our church life really isn’t as much about our needs and desires. This isn’t our church, its God’s church. In fact, part of our commitment to our faith and our faith community means giving a part of that up for the sake of the whole church and taking responsibility for our own faith development while celebrating those who are in the beginning stages of finding their way to similar commitments and responsibilities. The church is something we hold in common and we are called to work for the health of the whole. It is not about any one individual’s or group’s self-interest. Although the offering of a way salvation is a far bigger opportunity than any of our difficulties, there are still challenges for us as we work to be faithful to this call.
At the beginning of this sermon, I spoke of this idea of the obvious message and the possible subtext. Obviously, I believe that the primary message is about inclusion. The subtext is within the story itself. It’s where the story leaves off and, quite frankly, my imagination takes off.
I’m sure that Peter just didn’t come up with this vision all on his own. I’m sure this conversation about inclusion had been going on for awhile. These folks who questioned Peter’s actions were some of those who’d been involved in this discussion, too. Sometimes, when I read about them in the context of the story, there is a particular niche they fill. They’re the foils for the story. In many of the stories of the New Testament there seems to be this group of questioning people who the protagonist of the story has to explain things to. They’re over simplified figures who, for the sake of the story, either state something out of some sort of ignorance or naiveté and then come around OR figures who never really get it and serve as the foil for an intended message.
In real life, it’s never that simple. In real life, if we take the time to put a face on these folks we know they would be some of those most invested in the life and community of the church. These are the folks who were challenging Peter because he was changing how things how used to be or, in their perspective, were supposed to be. They were working on preserving their community for intentions that were probably rooted in some good intentions. Their words, although maybe discouraging, were usually spoken out of care for their sisters and brothers.
When I came on staff as the Associate Pastor for the church I served in Dayton, Ohio one of the things a mentor of mine suggested I do when I first arrive is request three months to do very little except talk with and interview the members of the congregation I was called to serve. This mentor suggested that I go in to these interviews with two questions of my own and one related to a current struggle that congregation seemed to going through.
Even though this congregation had voted affirmatively to become Open and Affirming (for those of you who aren’t familiar with UCC language this means open and affirming of folks who are gay, lesbian bi-sexual or transgendered), there was still a great deal of tension in this community about this decision. When I started at this church, there were some people suggesting that maybe this decision had been too rushed and was simply not a good idea. Even one of the gay members of the congregation was wondering if this decision had really been a bad idea that church wasn’t quite ready for, yet. So, as one of my three questions, I simply asked the questions “What do you think of this congregation’s decision to become Open and Affirming?”
Starting with the very first few interviews, I noticed a pattern of answers start to emerge. When we got to that that question, the person would almost always say something like this, “Actually, I don’t really have a problem with the decision itself. But I know so and so does and I don’t want them to leave because we’ve made this decision.” Over and over again, I heard – basically – this same statement made and, by the time I reached he conclusion of this series of interviews, I could only find one person in all the interviews who actually said he a problem with it. And even he said that he wouldn’t want the decision reversed because he would want the one gay couple he knew at the church to leave. In private, most folks didn’t seem to really mind the decision of this congregation but, in public, they wanted to support their friends who they were afraid were going to leave because such a decision had been made. Because some spoke out of care for and in solidarity with one of their friends, the assumption that there was a large group of people who believed the same thing became falsely perceived.
A good group of faithful people were questioning this decision not because of their own feelings but because of their efforts to protect those they cared about. They didn’t want to change things because they didn’t want to accidentally ostracize those they cared about from the faith community. They had been saying they disagreed with the decision not because they actually did but out of an effort to protect the church and community of believers they loved deeply.
When I read about those who criticized Peter, I can’t help but to think about same this group of really good people. They weren’t criticizing Peter just out of spite. They probably saw themselves as protecting what must have seemed like a pretty fragile community in its early stages of development. This was a community that was already being criticized by those outside of it and, now, Peter was handing them something to criticize? I’m sure it must have seemed like a bad idea, at first.
In this case, this was something they were able to figure out amongst themselves but this general question continued a theme that’s in almost all The Epistles. These letters almost all include questions of who is in and who’s out. It’s all right there. In some cases these letters were written by someone who is clearly a participant in the debate but, most often, these letters were written by someone from outside that immediate community who was trying to help that group of faithful people figure out the issues were that distracted them so that they could focus, instead, on all of those things that attracted them to community life in the first place. There is this obvious and primary text of inclusion, in today’s text, but there is also this subtext of taking the time to look at our faithful actions to make sure they’re faithful.
Sisters and brothers in just a few moments we’ll have the opportunity to participate in our offering together. This isn’t just an opportunity to give back to God a portion of what God has given to us but it is also an opportunity to remind ourselves that we share a mission together. Sisters and brothers, in just a few moments we’ll have the opportunity to share communion together. This isn’t just an opportunity to be welcomed to Christ’s table in a way that is both extravagant and beautiful but it’s also an opportunity for this community of faith to embrace the reality of the one body and blood that we share. At this table, none are unclean. At this table all our welcome. At this table, Christ’s table, we can celebrate the promise of healed brokenness and welcome that we continue to find so wonderful that we can’t help but to share that welcome with others. Amen and amen.
May 6th, 2007
Acts 11:1-18
Glenview Community Church
1Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God. 2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, 3saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” 4Then Peter began to explain it to them, step by step, saying, 5“I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. There was something like a large sheet coming down from heaven, being lowered by its four corners; and it came close to me. 6As I looked at it closely I saw four-footed animals, beasts of prey, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8But I replied, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9But a second time the voice answered from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ 10This happened three times; then everything was pulled up again to heaven. 11At that very moment three men, sent to me from Caesarea, arrived at the house where we were. 12The Spirit told me to go with them and not to make a distinction between them and us. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13He told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; 14he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved.’ 15And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” 18When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
- Greeting
- Prayer
Most biblical scholars agree that the same person who wrote the Book of Acts was probably the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. Not only that, but many guess that, because of the abruptness with which Acts ends that this person’s intent was to write, at least, one more book that talked about the early Christian community. We really don’t know if this book just wasn’t written or if the book was lost or even if the book was deemed so controversial or impolitic that those who decided what would go what we now know as The Bible just decided to leave it out. We really don’t know but it was one of those things that helped spark my interest in these accounts. Somehow, this idea has made me pay attention to Luke and the Book of Acts in a different way. The book of Acts, in particular, is this interesting amalgam of social commentary, theological rationale, legend-telling and travel log. These texts have become more real to me and I find imagining what was going on when these texts were written in a more vivid way that’s just different than when I read some of the other scriptures. Within these pages are some really good stories and, as I imagine the real people that inspired them, I find myself considering not only the obvious message of the text, but also the possible subtext, as well; the possible story behind the story.
In today’s reading, the obvious message is couched in perspectives that may seem a little odd to most of our modern ears but, when considered in the context of the day, they touch on some deep issues. As we know, this was written about a time before there was the idea of a “Christian community.” At this point in the story, the disciples were part of Jewish reform movement that was seeking out a different way to be faithful. Jesus had cracked open some of the socio-religious norms and expectations of his day and, now, the disciples were carrying on this iconoclastic this tradition.
When we join the story in today’s text, Peter is in trouble. In the eyes of some, he’d really messed up. Within Judaism of the time, there was a clear in group and a clear out group. The idea that Jewish folks were those who were chosen by God for a special relationship and a special task was more than just prominent; it was pretty much accepted as true. The idea that Jesus may be the Messiah and had come to liberate the Jewish people was what was being preached and taught by those mentioned in Acts. Their understanding was that he had come to renew Israel and move religious practice beyond something that was done simply because it had always been done that way before and reinvigorate this message and this law with love; what Jesus believed had been its holy intent. This early reform community was growing in strength and message and purpose as an alternatively faithful, but essentially traditional, ethnically and religiously Jewish community.
Then Peter comes along and messes this all up a bit. Peter was traveling from place to place, preaching to his Jewish sisters and brothers about the promises of this Jesus guy just as he and the disciples had been sent out to do. But then the Gentiles – the non-Jews – also started to gather, listen and be interested. They showed up. And they got it. They really, really got it. They were moved by the Holy Spirit and embraced it with wonderful and beautiful passion and Peter had a choice to make, as the story was told. He saw this. He was moved by it and, in opposition to so much he had been taught, Peter baptized them. Not only that, but he recognized them as full members of this new community and stayed with them in their homes. He lived in their homes for a few days and, we can probably assume, ate the food they prepared.
Peter was breaking some pretty serious, long establishes rules. The rule was that if a man – because this particular situation really focused on the conversion of men - wanted to be accepted in to the Jewish community he needed to be circumcised and, among our early church predecessors, this was also a prerequisite for baptism. It was just understood to be one of those things you did. The fact that Peter didn’t go by the rules was something he was being criticized for.
Still, Peter wasn’t stopping there. Peter was shrugging off another idea, too. His behavior was a clear violation of the purity codes. This violation, in and of itself, not a sin as much as something they you needed to be cleaned from. In and of itself, it wasn’t a sin to eat with a Gentile but it was considered pretty disgusting. There was a whole list of these things in Leviticus.
The online theologian and bible scholar Dan Clendenin writes this (quote):
By one count there are 613 mizvot or "commandments" in the five books of Moses (the Torah). The purity laws of Leviticus chapters 11–26 specify in minute detail clean and unclean foods, purity rituals after childbirth or a menstrual cycle, regulations for skin infections and contaminated clothing or furniture, prohibitions against contact with a human corpse or dead animal, instructions about nocturnal emissions, laws regarding bodily discharges, agricultural guidelines about planting seeds and mating animals, and decrees about lawful sexual relationships, keeping the sabbath, forsaking idols, and even tattoos. These purity laws encompassed every aspect of being human—birth, death, sex, gender, health, economics, jurisprudence, social relations, hygiene, marriage, behavior, and certainly ethnicity, for Gentiles were automatically considered impure. (unquote).
Again, in and of themselves, to be in contact with any one of these things was not considered a sin. They were seen as disgusting things that made you unclean, and therefore, there were rituals and actions that needed to be taken to make you whole, or clean, again. However, these actions did move in to the realm of sin if you did them intentionally and refused to be cleansed; to be made right.
So what Peter was doing was incredibly radical. Not only was he admitting openly that he’d been in very close contact with “unclean” people, he was also denying and disagreeing with this idea that Gentiles, by their very nature, were unclean in the first place. Peter was insisting that God had shown him something - revealed this vision to him - that simply insisted that the idea that anyone was unclean was a fallacy. He was insisting that, in fact, to continue with this prejudice was an attempt to hinder the work of God in the world. He was insisting that all were included by God’s grace and that all had access to God’s love and mercy.
He was resisting a previous, fundamentalist interpretation of scripture that had suggested conditional inclusion and, instead, he was substituting it with the idea that anyone could dedicate their lives to God. He was resisting ideas that had cast some as less than fully human and spiritual beings and insisting that God wanted all people treated a different way. At this moment, he was resisting centuries of religious teachings and, well, it was a good thing for us he did because we have to remember that, for the most part, those of us sitting here are the Gentiles.
Although science has DNA science has taught us we’re all related and we all have connections to each other genetically, very few of us may actually be able to say that we’re considered ethnically Jewish and, because we’re in a church, its probable that even is one of us were ethnically Jewish, we would probably would not self-identify as religiously Jewish. If it weren’t for this liberal spirit of Peter, we may have never had the opportunity, the opportunity, to consider Christianity. Those of us who come from a family background that’s Christian would probably not have a relationship with the church. We would have still been considered unclean and unworthy of being invited to participate in this church service, in this time and place, today. It’s an amazing thing to think about; there is a direct link between Peter’s actions and rebellion that helped bring us here together on this day in Glenview, Illinois.
Needless to say, there is a challenge for us in this, too. We who would not be in church together if it weren’t for Peter’s faithful actions need to challenge ourselves to move beyond those comfortable boundaries we may have, very unintentionally, set on some our own outreach and evangelistic efforts. In the same way Peter resisted the idea of some being clean and some being unclean; some being acceptable and some being unacceptable; some being welcome and some being unwelcome; we have to resist this same idea within our church in this place and time. If we’re in a church where everyone looks pretty much like us, sounds pretty much like us, thinks pretty much like us, and has experienced life pretty much like us, we need to do some serious, serious praying and be open to new visions, new behaviors and new practices. Most of the social and religious expectations of this time and place are a little – a little – more subtle than some of the rules in Peter’s day and some are just as vivid. Still, I think we’re no less called to violate these rules – our own purity standards – than Peter was.
And, we really need to push this. Simply being willing to be open and welcoming is good start but simply not enough. If we take the example of Peter and notice our own selective evangelism or exclusive practice, we have to change it. The strange thing about this faith journey is that it stagnates in the face of too much comfort. If the only thing our faith does is give us comfort, there’s a really good chance we’re not actually being faithful. When we look at our lives, we have the ongoing task of not just celebrating how far we’ve come but asking God where we are to go next. In a life of faith, change is the only constant.
This applies to our church life in some very real ways. One of the things were called to do after finding a church home is continue to seek out ways to attract and invite those who aren’t there yet. In the same way that our church may have been a welcoming place for us, we’re called to make it a welcoming place for others. The irony of this is that in the course of this faithful action we may eventually find ourselves in a church that does things quite a bit differently than the church we were initially attracted to. It is a task of balancing recognition with celebration. In helping our church faithfully offer the Good News, there may be parts of the practice of liturgy that we simply don’t relate to at some point but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate. It may mean that there is music we don’t know or music we’re not used to but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate. It may mean that there is language we haven’t heard before or language that’s different than what we grew up with but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate. It may mean that the sermon may not always be a message that we relate to but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate. It may mean that there are programs in the church that we don’t find we fit in to but, if it helps others find their way in to a closer relationship with God, that’s something to celebrate.
Part of our faith life is to realize that our church life really isn’t as much about our needs and desires. This isn’t our church, its God’s church. In fact, part of our commitment to our faith and our faith community means giving a part of that up for the sake of the whole church and taking responsibility for our own faith development while celebrating those who are in the beginning stages of finding their way to similar commitments and responsibilities. The church is something we hold in common and we are called to work for the health of the whole. It is not about any one individual’s or group’s self-interest. Although the offering of a way salvation is a far bigger opportunity than any of our difficulties, there are still challenges for us as we work to be faithful to this call.
At the beginning of this sermon, I spoke of this idea of the obvious message and the possible subtext. Obviously, I believe that the primary message is about inclusion. The subtext is within the story itself. It’s where the story leaves off and, quite frankly, my imagination takes off.
I’m sure that Peter just didn’t come up with this vision all on his own. I’m sure this conversation about inclusion had been going on for awhile. These folks who questioned Peter’s actions were some of those who’d been involved in this discussion, too. Sometimes, when I read about them in the context of the story, there is a particular niche they fill. They’re the foils for the story. In many of the stories of the New Testament there seems to be this group of questioning people who the protagonist of the story has to explain things to. They’re over simplified figures who, for the sake of the story, either state something out of some sort of ignorance or naiveté and then come around OR figures who never really get it and serve as the foil for an intended message.
In real life, it’s never that simple. In real life, if we take the time to put a face on these folks we know they would be some of those most invested in the life and community of the church. These are the folks who were challenging Peter because he was changing how things how used to be or, in their perspective, were supposed to be. They were working on preserving their community for intentions that were probably rooted in some good intentions. Their words, although maybe discouraging, were usually spoken out of care for their sisters and brothers.
When I came on staff as the Associate Pastor for the church I served in Dayton, Ohio one of the things a mentor of mine suggested I do when I first arrive is request three months to do very little except talk with and interview the members of the congregation I was called to serve. This mentor suggested that I go in to these interviews with two questions of my own and one related to a current struggle that congregation seemed to going through.
Even though this congregation had voted affirmatively to become Open and Affirming (for those of you who aren’t familiar with UCC language this means open and affirming of folks who are gay, lesbian bi-sexual or transgendered), there was still a great deal of tension in this community about this decision. When I started at this church, there were some people suggesting that maybe this decision had been too rushed and was simply not a good idea. Even one of the gay members of the congregation was wondering if this decision had really been a bad idea that church wasn’t quite ready for, yet. So, as one of my three questions, I simply asked the questions “What do you think of this congregation’s decision to become Open and Affirming?”
Starting with the very first few interviews, I noticed a pattern of answers start to emerge. When we got to that that question, the person would almost always say something like this, “Actually, I don’t really have a problem with the decision itself. But I know so and so does and I don’t want them to leave because we’ve made this decision.” Over and over again, I heard – basically – this same statement made and, by the time I reached he conclusion of this series of interviews, I could only find one person in all the interviews who actually said he a problem with it. And even he said that he wouldn’t want the decision reversed because he would want the one gay couple he knew at the church to leave. In private, most folks didn’t seem to really mind the decision of this congregation but, in public, they wanted to support their friends who they were afraid were going to leave because such a decision had been made. Because some spoke out of care for and in solidarity with one of their friends, the assumption that there was a large group of people who believed the same thing became falsely perceived.
A good group of faithful people were questioning this decision not because of their own feelings but because of their efforts to protect those they cared about. They didn’t want to change things because they didn’t want to accidentally ostracize those they cared about from the faith community. They had been saying they disagreed with the decision not because they actually did but out of an effort to protect the church and community of believers they loved deeply.
When I read about those who criticized Peter, I can’t help but to think about same this group of really good people. They weren’t criticizing Peter just out of spite. They probably saw themselves as protecting what must have seemed like a pretty fragile community in its early stages of development. This was a community that was already being criticized by those outside of it and, now, Peter was handing them something to criticize? I’m sure it must have seemed like a bad idea, at first.
In this case, this was something they were able to figure out amongst themselves but this general question continued a theme that’s in almost all The Epistles. These letters almost all include questions of who is in and who’s out. It’s all right there. In some cases these letters were written by someone who is clearly a participant in the debate but, most often, these letters were written by someone from outside that immediate community who was trying to help that group of faithful people figure out the issues were that distracted them so that they could focus, instead, on all of those things that attracted them to community life in the first place. There is this obvious and primary text of inclusion, in today’s text, but there is also this subtext of taking the time to look at our faithful actions to make sure they’re faithful.
Sisters and brothers in just a few moments we’ll have the opportunity to participate in our offering together. This isn’t just an opportunity to give back to God a portion of what God has given to us but it is also an opportunity to remind ourselves that we share a mission together. Sisters and brothers, in just a few moments we’ll have the opportunity to share communion together. This isn’t just an opportunity to be welcomed to Christ’s table in a way that is both extravagant and beautiful but it’s also an opportunity for this community of faith to embrace the reality of the one body and blood that we share. At this table, none are unclean. At this table all our welcome. At this table, Christ’s table, we can celebrate the promise of healed brokenness and welcome that we continue to find so wonderful that we can’t help but to share that welcome with others. Amen and amen.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Rev. Michael Denton
Annual Report for the
Chicago Metropolitan Association Spring Meeting and
The Illinois Conference Annual Gathering of
The United Church of Christ
May 5th, 2007
My peers and I are at that time in our lives when not just the fact but also the idea that we’re getting older is really starting to sink in. At the same moment we’re being amazed by the fact that we’re not all that far from our 25th high school reunion we’re also thinking about being 25 years from possible retirement. We have to pay more attention to what we eat than we used to. There are some activities that we have to be a little more careful about. There are some things we thought we would definitely do in our lives that we’re realizing we will probably not do (and, actually, don’t really want to) and things we said we’d never do that we now do regularly. Some occasional aches and pains are becoming a more regular part of our lives. Some marriages we thought would never last are still going strong and others we thought would last forever have ended.
Still, overall there is a sense of getting on track and feeling more grounded. This is becoming a time for making adjustments, reprioritizing, making new plans and using the information from our life experience to make decisions appropriate for this moment in our lives. Some ideals have been put away as impractical but many are being given a second chance with a whole new set of hopes and intentions. Overall we feel on the cusp of something very new and very good. It is a moment that is a combination of celebration and reflection.
As the United Church of Christ celebrates its 50th year, we find ourselves in the midst of a time of celebration and reflection. Unlike personal aging, this is about something that was here (in some form) before us and will continue (in some form) after us. We have among us those who remember and still most strongly identify with our denominational predecessors and those who have known nothing but the United Church of Christ. We have struggled with the balance between courage, wisdom, caution and faithfulness.
Some of the aches and pains that we hoped were only temporary have become chronic and, when we step back, we can tell they are about a lot more than our denomination alone; they’re a condition of the US Church. Church membership is down almost everywhere. More and more people, especially youth and young adults, are refusing to be involved with an institution that clearly and consistently calls their experiences with a loving God in nature, community and technology as invalid simply because these experiences don’t occur within the humanly perceived boundaries of the institutional church. And, if we’re honest about it, many people within our churches are having a very similar experience. In too many ways, we’ve moved from being a church that is rooted in the meaning and life of its traditions to a church that is anachronistically and idolatrously preserving previously effective practices and structures.
We’ve all heard that our financial resources have not been able keep up with the increasing costs of church life. However, we also have to admit that many of our churches and denominational structures have become so addicted to maintaining some version of the status quo that at least some of our financial support has enabled a sick, ineffective system. Maybe, just maybe, our lack of quantifiable resources and growth is actually God’s working through our church and society to lovingly redirect a community that has strayed from its expressed and intended vocation.
If so, we can approach this moment with gratitude. We can be thankful for a God that loves us so much that She is encouraging us to continue to walk after we’ve fallen. We can be thankful for a God that cares for this prodigal church so much that He is looking forward to celebrating our remembering of whose we are. We can be thankful for a God that flows like a mighty stream and moves that which seems unmovable. We can be thankful for a Christ that invites us into the process of our own transformation by taking away the need to fear the risk of death with promised resurrection. We can be thankful for a Holy Spirit that offers us, through the ongoing experience of Pentecost, an opportunity to celebrate both the birth of the Church and an invitation to the Church to be born again.
And the amazing thing is that I don’t think there’s really anyone – anyone – reading these words that doesn’t agree that the Church as we currently know it needs to change. Think about it. Not a one. What does that say? Sure, we may disagree about what is most important to change but I really do think that all of us believe the Church needs to change.
So, let’s do that. With God’s help and our careful discernment, let’s change the Church. Yep, I’m serious.
Sure, we have lots of questions we need to consider. How can we best make changes in our local settings as well as the settings of the wider (even the widest) church that begin to reflect this call all of us recognize? How can we best take the wide variety of opinions and suggestions and form them into an integrated and healthy whole? How can we best support, challenge and interact with each other in a way that best reflects our collective understanding of our accountability to God and each other? How can we best draw from the insight of those who are currently not a part of the Church in a way that’s both invitational and non-exploitive? I don’t know the answers but I’m convinced we can. We just have to be brave and faithful enough to seek out the answers and then lve them out.
Sisters and brothers, we’re turning 50 and at this moment of celebration and reflection we have some amazing and wonderful opportunities for honest reflection, evaluation, reconciliation and celebration that God’s presented us with. Today, let’s decide to change the Church. Reformation, revolution and resurrection all go together. This is a Jubilee moment. This is a Pentecost moment. This is a moment of new creation. This moment, as difficult as it may seem, is a gift. Let’s accept it graciously.
Annual Report for the
Chicago Metropolitan Association Spring Meeting and
The Illinois Conference Annual Gathering of
The United Church of Christ
May 5th, 2007
My peers and I are at that time in our lives when not just the fact but also the idea that we’re getting older is really starting to sink in. At the same moment we’re being amazed by the fact that we’re not all that far from our 25th high school reunion we’re also thinking about being 25 years from possible retirement. We have to pay more attention to what we eat than we used to. There are some activities that we have to be a little more careful about. There are some things we thought we would definitely do in our lives that we’re realizing we will probably not do (and, actually, don’t really want to) and things we said we’d never do that we now do regularly. Some occasional aches and pains are becoming a more regular part of our lives. Some marriages we thought would never last are still going strong and others we thought would last forever have ended.
Still, overall there is a sense of getting on track and feeling more grounded. This is becoming a time for making adjustments, reprioritizing, making new plans and using the information from our life experience to make decisions appropriate for this moment in our lives. Some ideals have been put away as impractical but many are being given a second chance with a whole new set of hopes and intentions. Overall we feel on the cusp of something very new and very good. It is a moment that is a combination of celebration and reflection.
As the United Church of Christ celebrates its 50th year, we find ourselves in the midst of a time of celebration and reflection. Unlike personal aging, this is about something that was here (in some form) before us and will continue (in some form) after us. We have among us those who remember and still most strongly identify with our denominational predecessors and those who have known nothing but the United Church of Christ. We have struggled with the balance between courage, wisdom, caution and faithfulness.
Some of the aches and pains that we hoped were only temporary have become chronic and, when we step back, we can tell they are about a lot more than our denomination alone; they’re a condition of the US Church. Church membership is down almost everywhere. More and more people, especially youth and young adults, are refusing to be involved with an institution that clearly and consistently calls their experiences with a loving God in nature, community and technology as invalid simply because these experiences don’t occur within the humanly perceived boundaries of the institutional church. And, if we’re honest about it, many people within our churches are having a very similar experience. In too many ways, we’ve moved from being a church that is rooted in the meaning and life of its traditions to a church that is anachronistically and idolatrously preserving previously effective practices and structures.
We’ve all heard that our financial resources have not been able keep up with the increasing costs of church life. However, we also have to admit that many of our churches and denominational structures have become so addicted to maintaining some version of the status quo that at least some of our financial support has enabled a sick, ineffective system. Maybe, just maybe, our lack of quantifiable resources and growth is actually God’s working through our church and society to lovingly redirect a community that has strayed from its expressed and intended vocation.
If so, we can approach this moment with gratitude. We can be thankful for a God that loves us so much that She is encouraging us to continue to walk after we’ve fallen. We can be thankful for a God that cares for this prodigal church so much that He is looking forward to celebrating our remembering of whose we are. We can be thankful for a God that flows like a mighty stream and moves that which seems unmovable. We can be thankful for a Christ that invites us into the process of our own transformation by taking away the need to fear the risk of death with promised resurrection. We can be thankful for a Holy Spirit that offers us, through the ongoing experience of Pentecost, an opportunity to celebrate both the birth of the Church and an invitation to the Church to be born again.
And the amazing thing is that I don’t think there’s really anyone – anyone – reading these words that doesn’t agree that the Church as we currently know it needs to change. Think about it. Not a one. What does that say? Sure, we may disagree about what is most important to change but I really do think that all of us believe the Church needs to change.
So, let’s do that. With God’s help and our careful discernment, let’s change the Church. Yep, I’m serious.
Sure, we have lots of questions we need to consider. How can we best make changes in our local settings as well as the settings of the wider (even the widest) church that begin to reflect this call all of us recognize? How can we best take the wide variety of opinions and suggestions and form them into an integrated and healthy whole? How can we best support, challenge and interact with each other in a way that best reflects our collective understanding of our accountability to God and each other? How can we best draw from the insight of those who are currently not a part of the Church in a way that’s both invitational and non-exploitive? I don’t know the answers but I’m convinced we can. We just have to be brave and faithful enough to seek out the answers and then lve them out.
Sisters and brothers, we’re turning 50 and at this moment of celebration and reflection we have some amazing and wonderful opportunities for honest reflection, evaluation, reconciliation and celebration that God’s presented us with. Today, let’s decide to change the Church. Reformation, revolution and resurrection all go together. This is a Jubilee moment. This is a Pentecost moment. This is a moment of new creation. This moment, as difficult as it may seem, is a gift. Let’s accept it graciously.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Michael Denton
April 15th, 2007
First United, Oak Park
Acts 5: 27-32
27When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, 28saying, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,£ yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.” 29But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.£ 30The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” (NRSV)
- Greeting
It really is an honor to be with you this morning to preach in this service where God is honored, thanked and praised. It is a privilege to thank God with you for the vessel of some of God’s gifts that Rev. Ed Bergstrasser has been for this church as your congregation honors him with the title, “Pastor Emeritis.” It’s obvious to you that Rev. Bergstrasser is held in high esteem within your congregation but I hope you know that his ministry has also been a great service to the wider church. Among your brothers and sisters in other parts of the denomination, I have only heard words of respect and appreciation shared for the work of your former pastor as he continues to listen and respond to the call of God in his life. It is a pleasure, on this day of celebration, to bring you greetings on behalf of all the churches of the Illinois Conference of the United Church of Christ and specifically those churches of the Chicago Metropolitan Association. Sisters and brothers, it’s good to be with you today. Let us pray.
- Pray
Well, if you didn't know who Don Imus was at the beginning of the week, you probably do now. Just in case you've had the blessing of living in a cave over the last week, the basic fact are these: about a week and a half ago, Imus used a racist and sexist slur to describe the Rutger's women's basketball team. Although he apologized the next day for his remarks, the controversy had only just begun. By last Monday, a firestorm had erupted with calls for his show to be cancelled for Imus to be fired. The controversy was front page news for the papers and the opening story on radio and TV news. It continues to be one of the primary topics addressed in the populist mediums of blogs and talk radio. By Thursday, a thirty year career was in tatters and Don Imus was fired.
Now, without question, part of the reason the story about Imus was so hot was simply because of Imus himself. He's quite a character and full of contradictions. He's been saying offensive things for years and this wasn't the first time he'd been confronted about making such comments. He also, apparently, did some pretty good work in educating and creating camps for kids with cancer and kids with autism. In his own words, he said that he wasn't a bad person but that he's just done a bad thing.
This one man was able to touch on issues of gender and race in a way that few had. At this one moment, there was more discussion about race than there had been since the OJ trial or the uprising that followed the Rodney King verdict. Many recognized how little of the discussion was really about gender however, we seems to be able to talk about one or the other but dealing with both isms seemed to be, simply, too difficult.
I'll be curious to see how much farther this discussion continues into this next week. I'm not sure this story was as much about race as it was about celebrity, and the importance we bestow on celebrities. Although they didn’t become nearly as big, think about the somewhat similar stories that we’ve heard in just the last nine months. The Imus story is in line with the stories about Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Isaiah Washington and even Naomi Campbell. There's something about celebrities behaving badly that we're able to focus on. Mel Gibson has long been suspected of being anti-Semitic because of the religious group he is a part of but, during a drunken rant, people saw Gibson as someone who – with inhibitions down – revealed his “true self.” Richards video taped rant and Imus' racist and sexist slur allowed people to oppose the most egregious and obvious forms of prejudice. Washington's heterosexist slur allowed people to speak against verbally expressed homophobia during a time when various communities are intentionally limiting the rights of gay and lesbian people. Naomi Campball's assult of an assistant, although not spoken of in exactly this way, seemed to covered by the press in ways that spoke to issues of classism.
These behaviors were able to be portrayed as the bad actions of spoiled celebrities; actions by people who also seemed to be unaware of their impact in the world. The perception of their lack of self-perception was only enhanced by their denial of the nature of these statements. In three of these particularly named instances – they denied being an anti-Semite, a racist or a homophobe. There was even is the implication in these celebrity’s reactions to these accusations that their taking an anti-Semitic, racist or homophobic action - which speaking publicly is - was somehow not anti-Semitic, racist or homophobic. There was the implication that, in order to be anti-Semitic, racist or homophobic, one has to take some other sort of intentional action, or maybe actively participate in some ideological movement. Somehow, by the people who committed these acts, it was suggested that because these actions weren’t premeditated, they shouldn’t be “counted” (although in every case but Richards we know there’d been a similar problem before).
These folks who all have exceptional power and privilege, were portrayed as abusing that particular power and privilege. For some, these celebrities gave an easy way to be against anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, heterosexism and classism. It focused on a particular behavior that we could discuss and say was awful. We were able to focus on this behavior because these folks were considered fair game as “exceptional” people.
And in that last statement resides a significant problem. Particular behaviors by particular people are easier to cluck about than the actions we sometimes find ourselves taking or refusing to confront. Particular behaviors by particular people are easier to consider than the ways we may benefit from privilege in certain settings, around certain people. Particular behaviors by particular people are easier to focus on than the interwoven fabric of oppression that, in some way, covers us all. All too often, we look for someone else to blame or – just as damaging – focus on our own sense of shame instead of working to figure out some sort of way we can change the systems we’re a part of. We can easily admit that particular actions are wrong without necessarily having to acknowledge that there are larger human systems we are all a part of that need redemption.
Finally, I’m sure some of you are thinking, he used a somewhat religious term. I know that, up to this point, this may have seemed more like a bit of a rant on pop culture or politics but I really do see these ideas as closely related to the scripture from the Book of Acts. Let me read an interpretation of the text we read from a resource called The Message by Eugene Peterson. This particular reading is pretty close to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible but I just like Peterson’s a little bit more. This is how Peterson writes chapter 5 verses 27-32 from the Book of Acts:
27Bringing them back, they stood them before the High Council. The Chief Priest said, 28“Didn’t we give you strict orders not to teach in Jesus’ name? And here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are trying your best to blame us for the death of this man.”
29Peter and the apostles answered, “It’s necessary to obey God rather than men. 30The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, the One you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31God set him on high at his side, Prince and Savior, to give Israel the gift of a changed life and sins forgiven. 32And we are witnesses to these things. The Holy Spirit, whom God gives to those who obey him, corroborates every detail.”
Within this text, are ideas of blame and shame. The Chief Priest and the High Council were something like celebrities in their time and place and they were refusing to be blamed by these delivers of what was good news to many. “What?” they said, “You trying to blame this on us?” Peter and the apostles replied with resounding yes.
Andrea Medea, in her book Conflict Unraveled, talks about a cycle of human behavior in which there are the roles of villain, victim and hero. Usually it works something like this: one person claims that they have been victimized and accuses someone else of being the one who victimized them. By standing up to the villain in some way, the victim moves in to the role of hero. Now, heroes are powerful and are given a lot of power and privilege by those who recognize them as leaders. One of the things the hero is frequently given the latitude to do is to punish the villain. But something seems to happen after a certain amount of time. As the villain is punished, the villain is transformed in to the victim and, the hero eventually becomes portrayed as the villain.
This cycle can continue endlessly and, frequently, becomes a cycle of violence – a system of oppression – that involves more and more and more people and groups and institutions. Think about the way this plays out in families . . . or in workplaces. . .or in churches. . .or in politics. . . Think about Iraq within this context and you can see how deadly it can become.
On a much smaller level think about how this cycle was repeated and continues to be repeated as we look at all of those celebrity stories I mentioned in the first part of this sermon. These celebrities’ actions may seem to stand on their own but have to be seen in the light of larger system stories. Their stories are about more than their fall in esteem. They are about a much larger problem that can’t be laid on the back on one individual or another.
Before last week’s events, Imus was this rebellious, conservative hero who, by his promoters, was portrayed as standing up against the powerful and their ideas of what was correct and incorrect. But, he went too far and by victimizing these African-American women with his insults he became the villian. The cries for his firing came from all over the place, until he actually was fired. Then what happened? All of the shows that, the day before, had featured an overwhelming number of people calling for the firing of Imus, had brand new talking heads who spoke of how unfair the firing of Don Imus actually was. Within a week, Imus moved from being portrayed as a populist hero to a populist villain and now, he’s being portrayed as the populist victim. The system of villain, victim and hero is repeated again and again and again.
This text from Acts also illustrates this cycle. The very human high priests and the very human apostles were in this cycle with each other. The apostles were in the role of the victim and the high priests were in the role of villain. In the apostles resistance and claim that Jesus - this ultimate victim and ultimate hero – was on their side, the apostles themselves were moved in to the realm of the hero by the teller of this story.
This kind of thinking has rationalized some of the more negative actions of the Church for centuries. The Church, heroically (as it’s portrayed) took over the role of another villain. After awhile, it moved in to a role that, in way too many settings, was the victimizer. The Church did some awful, terrible things claiming themselves as heroes that were protecting the faith. The Church, in many of its forms, continues to be in this cycle of blaming and shaming; this cycle of the hero, villain and victim; this cycle of violence and oppression. I find it interesting that now that as the Church finds its influence reduced how often parts of this body claim that they are the oppressed and marginalized victim. The Church, along with the rest of the world, seems endlessly and hopelessly wrapped up in this cycle of oppression and conflict.
And that’s exactly what Jesus was working to change. Jesus is such an amazing figure not just because he was working at changing the hearts of humans, but because he was here to give a way out of this mess we’ve gotten ourselves in to. I’ve really been inspired by the work of Walter Wink and Rene Girard as I’ve struggled to learn more about this. The New Revised Standard version translates Verse 31 of the text read for today as:
God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
The Message reads this way:
God set him on high at his side, Prince and Savior, to give Israel the gift of a changed life and sins forgiven.
Jesus was trying to end this cycle and give the whole world redemption. We talk about individual redemption a lot but Jesus – in fact the whole Christ experience - is really about more than that. It is about redemption of everything we know; the redemption and transformation of everything. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus continues to be an opportunity for the conversion and transformation of the systems of oppression and domination themselves. This is the kind of liberation that Jesus was offering and continues to offer.
Jesus reached out to all of those who were hurting - regardless of how they were perceived – and suggested another way. He reached out to those who were oppressed as well as those who were perceived as oppressing calling for, not simply rebellion against people, but rebellion against systems and conversion of systems. The whole idea of “turning the other cheek” moved outside the cycles of revenge and, if done consistently, presented the opportunity to convert the one whose cheek would have been slapped as well as the one who hit the cheek. It was a rebellion against system of domination. The whole idea of loving your enemies – think about how radical it is to love an enemy – transforms the one who persists in loving and the one who is loved. It was a rebellion against system of domination. The act of healing those who are sick moves the one who needs healing out of the roll of a victim of their disease. It was a rebellion against system of domination. Again and again, throughout his ministry, Jesus presented opportunities to move out of these systems and cycles of domination and oppression.
And Jesus didn’t just stop resisting these systems with his life but also with his death and resurrection. The ultimate way that humans oppress or punish each other is by killing one another. Jesus resisted capital punishment by forgiving those who had a part in his death while dying on the cross. “Forgive them because they don’t know what they’re doing” are the words quoted to us. These people, suggests Jesus, are participating in systems that are bigger than them and more powerful than them. They really don’t know what they’re doing. Forgive them, Jesus says. Jesus was naming the ignorance of those who, almost unthinkingly, took the only option that the system gave them against someone against whom no other tactics seemed to work. They killed Jesus. He was executed. The cycle seemed to continue.
But, Jesus established that even death was not the end of the holy persistence, the holy desire to show another way; a better way. Through resurrection, Jesus denied the power of the most extreme act of oppression the system of domination could wield. Death was not victorious. Death’s sting was denied.
And it didn’t stop there. By the establishment of small Christian communities of large faith; by establishing within these early communities standards that did not revolve around property; by establishing – as best as they could figure – structures built more on the power of love than the love of power; by establishing new patterns for sharing the Good News and the free gift of redemption; the early Christian communities were trying to, quite simply, change the world. They were trying to convert the world. They were trying to redeem the world. The early Christian communities were trying to break down the walls between what was understood to be heaven and earth and be re-created within something that was new.
Your church, through the time it was founded and with really good pastoral leadership, such as Rev. Bergstrasser, has done some excellent redemption work. Your dedication towards inclusion, mission and social justice is outstanding. Your commitment to being a bi-denomination church continues to be an opportunity to struggle with those ways the Church can be stronger, together than it is in its denominational separateness. Through the last few years, I’ve had the pleasure to get to know some of you pretty well. I’ve come to love this church and because I love you I encourage you to keep working hard. You still have a lot of work to do. This work of redemption that we’re all invited to participate in is not done, yet. Those of you who are sitting in these pews are here because this church was the best church you found in your search for a spiritual home and that’s a good and beautiful thing. The continuing challenge for those of us who recognize the redemptive intent of Christ is to persist in making this whole, entire world the best possible home for everyone; free of those systems of domination that oppress us all.
Sisters and bothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed [encourage congregation to respond with this]) and this is an uprising we are invited to participate in. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed) and the redemption of the resurrection gives us an opportunity to make our own lives better. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed) and with that resurrection the world began to change and we are invited to participate in its transformation as well. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed) and we are called to be both the converted and the vehicles of holy conversion for systems that are focused on the power of the threat of death into systems that focus on the promise of life. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed) and we have the opportunity to embrace new creation as it springs among us. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed). Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed). Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed). Amen and amen.
April 15th, 2007
First United, Oak Park
Acts 5: 27-32
27When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, 28saying, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,£ yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.” 29But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.£ 30The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” (NRSV)
- Greeting
It really is an honor to be with you this morning to preach in this service where God is honored, thanked and praised. It is a privilege to thank God with you for the vessel of some of God’s gifts that Rev. Ed Bergstrasser has been for this church as your congregation honors him with the title, “Pastor Emeritis.” It’s obvious to you that Rev. Bergstrasser is held in high esteem within your congregation but I hope you know that his ministry has also been a great service to the wider church. Among your brothers and sisters in other parts of the denomination, I have only heard words of respect and appreciation shared for the work of your former pastor as he continues to listen and respond to the call of God in his life. It is a pleasure, on this day of celebration, to bring you greetings on behalf of all the churches of the Illinois Conference of the United Church of Christ and specifically those churches of the Chicago Metropolitan Association. Sisters and brothers, it’s good to be with you today. Let us pray.
- Pray
Well, if you didn't know who Don Imus was at the beginning of the week, you probably do now. Just in case you've had the blessing of living in a cave over the last week, the basic fact are these: about a week and a half ago, Imus used a racist and sexist slur to describe the Rutger's women's basketball team. Although he apologized the next day for his remarks, the controversy had only just begun. By last Monday, a firestorm had erupted with calls for his show to be cancelled for Imus to be fired. The controversy was front page news for the papers and the opening story on radio and TV news. It continues to be one of the primary topics addressed in the populist mediums of blogs and talk radio. By Thursday, a thirty year career was in tatters and Don Imus was fired.
Now, without question, part of the reason the story about Imus was so hot was simply because of Imus himself. He's quite a character and full of contradictions. He's been saying offensive things for years and this wasn't the first time he'd been confronted about making such comments. He also, apparently, did some pretty good work in educating and creating camps for kids with cancer and kids with autism. In his own words, he said that he wasn't a bad person but that he's just done a bad thing.
This one man was able to touch on issues of gender and race in a way that few had. At this one moment, there was more discussion about race than there had been since the OJ trial or the uprising that followed the Rodney King verdict. Many recognized how little of the discussion was really about gender however, we seems to be able to talk about one or the other but dealing with both isms seemed to be, simply, too difficult.
I'll be curious to see how much farther this discussion continues into this next week. I'm not sure this story was as much about race as it was about celebrity, and the importance we bestow on celebrities. Although they didn’t become nearly as big, think about the somewhat similar stories that we’ve heard in just the last nine months. The Imus story is in line with the stories about Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Isaiah Washington and even Naomi Campbell. There's something about celebrities behaving badly that we're able to focus on. Mel Gibson has long been suspected of being anti-Semitic because of the religious group he is a part of but, during a drunken rant, people saw Gibson as someone who – with inhibitions down – revealed his “true self.” Richards video taped rant and Imus' racist and sexist slur allowed people to oppose the most egregious and obvious forms of prejudice. Washington's heterosexist slur allowed people to speak against verbally expressed homophobia during a time when various communities are intentionally limiting the rights of gay and lesbian people. Naomi Campball's assult of an assistant, although not spoken of in exactly this way, seemed to covered by the press in ways that spoke to issues of classism.
These behaviors were able to be portrayed as the bad actions of spoiled celebrities; actions by people who also seemed to be unaware of their impact in the world. The perception of their lack of self-perception was only enhanced by their denial of the nature of these statements. In three of these particularly named instances – they denied being an anti-Semite, a racist or a homophobe. There was even is the implication in these celebrity’s reactions to these accusations that their taking an anti-Semitic, racist or homophobic action - which speaking publicly is - was somehow not anti-Semitic, racist or homophobic. There was the implication that, in order to be anti-Semitic, racist or homophobic, one has to take some other sort of intentional action, or maybe actively participate in some ideological movement. Somehow, by the people who committed these acts, it was suggested that because these actions weren’t premeditated, they shouldn’t be “counted” (although in every case but Richards we know there’d been a similar problem before).
These folks who all have exceptional power and privilege, were portrayed as abusing that particular power and privilege. For some, these celebrities gave an easy way to be against anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, heterosexism and classism. It focused on a particular behavior that we could discuss and say was awful. We were able to focus on this behavior because these folks were considered fair game as “exceptional” people.
And in that last statement resides a significant problem. Particular behaviors by particular people are easier to cluck about than the actions we sometimes find ourselves taking or refusing to confront. Particular behaviors by particular people are easier to consider than the ways we may benefit from privilege in certain settings, around certain people. Particular behaviors by particular people are easier to focus on than the interwoven fabric of oppression that, in some way, covers us all. All too often, we look for someone else to blame or – just as damaging – focus on our own sense of shame instead of working to figure out some sort of way we can change the systems we’re a part of. We can easily admit that particular actions are wrong without necessarily having to acknowledge that there are larger human systems we are all a part of that need redemption.
Finally, I’m sure some of you are thinking, he used a somewhat religious term. I know that, up to this point, this may have seemed more like a bit of a rant on pop culture or politics but I really do see these ideas as closely related to the scripture from the Book of Acts. Let me read an interpretation of the text we read from a resource called The Message by Eugene Peterson. This particular reading is pretty close to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible but I just like Peterson’s a little bit more. This is how Peterson writes chapter 5 verses 27-32 from the Book of Acts:
27Bringing them back, they stood them before the High Council. The Chief Priest said, 28“Didn’t we give you strict orders not to teach in Jesus’ name? And here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are trying your best to blame us for the death of this man.”
29Peter and the apostles answered, “It’s necessary to obey God rather than men. 30The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, the One you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31God set him on high at his side, Prince and Savior, to give Israel the gift of a changed life and sins forgiven. 32And we are witnesses to these things. The Holy Spirit, whom God gives to those who obey him, corroborates every detail.”
Within this text, are ideas of blame and shame. The Chief Priest and the High Council were something like celebrities in their time and place and they were refusing to be blamed by these delivers of what was good news to many. “What?” they said, “You trying to blame this on us?” Peter and the apostles replied with resounding yes.
Andrea Medea, in her book Conflict Unraveled, talks about a cycle of human behavior in which there are the roles of villain, victim and hero. Usually it works something like this: one person claims that they have been victimized and accuses someone else of being the one who victimized them. By standing up to the villain in some way, the victim moves in to the role of hero. Now, heroes are powerful and are given a lot of power and privilege by those who recognize them as leaders. One of the things the hero is frequently given the latitude to do is to punish the villain. But something seems to happen after a certain amount of time. As the villain is punished, the villain is transformed in to the victim and, the hero eventually becomes portrayed as the villain.
This cycle can continue endlessly and, frequently, becomes a cycle of violence – a system of oppression – that involves more and more and more people and groups and institutions. Think about the way this plays out in families . . . or in workplaces. . .or in churches. . .or in politics. . . Think about Iraq within this context and you can see how deadly it can become.
On a much smaller level think about how this cycle was repeated and continues to be repeated as we look at all of those celebrity stories I mentioned in the first part of this sermon. These celebrities’ actions may seem to stand on their own but have to be seen in the light of larger system stories. Their stories are about more than their fall in esteem. They are about a much larger problem that can’t be laid on the back on one individual or another.
Before last week’s events, Imus was this rebellious, conservative hero who, by his promoters, was portrayed as standing up against the powerful and their ideas of what was correct and incorrect. But, he went too far and by victimizing these African-American women with his insults he became the villian. The cries for his firing came from all over the place, until he actually was fired. Then what happened? All of the shows that, the day before, had featured an overwhelming number of people calling for the firing of Imus, had brand new talking heads who spoke of how unfair the firing of Don Imus actually was. Within a week, Imus moved from being portrayed as a populist hero to a populist villain and now, he’s being portrayed as the populist victim. The system of villain, victim and hero is repeated again and again and again.
This text from Acts also illustrates this cycle. The very human high priests and the very human apostles were in this cycle with each other. The apostles were in the role of the victim and the high priests were in the role of villain. In the apostles resistance and claim that Jesus - this ultimate victim and ultimate hero – was on their side, the apostles themselves were moved in to the realm of the hero by the teller of this story.
This kind of thinking has rationalized some of the more negative actions of the Church for centuries. The Church, heroically (as it’s portrayed) took over the role of another villain. After awhile, it moved in to a role that, in way too many settings, was the victimizer. The Church did some awful, terrible things claiming themselves as heroes that were protecting the faith. The Church, in many of its forms, continues to be in this cycle of blaming and shaming; this cycle of the hero, villain and victim; this cycle of violence and oppression. I find it interesting that now that as the Church finds its influence reduced how often parts of this body claim that they are the oppressed and marginalized victim. The Church, along with the rest of the world, seems endlessly and hopelessly wrapped up in this cycle of oppression and conflict.
And that’s exactly what Jesus was working to change. Jesus is such an amazing figure not just because he was working at changing the hearts of humans, but because he was here to give a way out of this mess we’ve gotten ourselves in to. I’ve really been inspired by the work of Walter Wink and Rene Girard as I’ve struggled to learn more about this. The New Revised Standard version translates Verse 31 of the text read for today as:
God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
The Message reads this way:
God set him on high at his side, Prince and Savior, to give Israel the gift of a changed life and sins forgiven.
Jesus was trying to end this cycle and give the whole world redemption. We talk about individual redemption a lot but Jesus – in fact the whole Christ experience - is really about more than that. It is about redemption of everything we know; the redemption and transformation of everything. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus continues to be an opportunity for the conversion and transformation of the systems of oppression and domination themselves. This is the kind of liberation that Jesus was offering and continues to offer.
Jesus reached out to all of those who were hurting - regardless of how they were perceived – and suggested another way. He reached out to those who were oppressed as well as those who were perceived as oppressing calling for, not simply rebellion against people, but rebellion against systems and conversion of systems. The whole idea of “turning the other cheek” moved outside the cycles of revenge and, if done consistently, presented the opportunity to convert the one whose cheek would have been slapped as well as the one who hit the cheek. It was a rebellion against system of domination. The whole idea of loving your enemies – think about how radical it is to love an enemy – transforms the one who persists in loving and the one who is loved. It was a rebellion against system of domination. The act of healing those who are sick moves the one who needs healing out of the roll of a victim of their disease. It was a rebellion against system of domination. Again and again, throughout his ministry, Jesus presented opportunities to move out of these systems and cycles of domination and oppression.
And Jesus didn’t just stop resisting these systems with his life but also with his death and resurrection. The ultimate way that humans oppress or punish each other is by killing one another. Jesus resisted capital punishment by forgiving those who had a part in his death while dying on the cross. “Forgive them because they don’t know what they’re doing” are the words quoted to us. These people, suggests Jesus, are participating in systems that are bigger than them and more powerful than them. They really don’t know what they’re doing. Forgive them, Jesus says. Jesus was naming the ignorance of those who, almost unthinkingly, took the only option that the system gave them against someone against whom no other tactics seemed to work. They killed Jesus. He was executed. The cycle seemed to continue.
But, Jesus established that even death was not the end of the holy persistence, the holy desire to show another way; a better way. Through resurrection, Jesus denied the power of the most extreme act of oppression the system of domination could wield. Death was not victorious. Death’s sting was denied.
And it didn’t stop there. By the establishment of small Christian communities of large faith; by establishing within these early communities standards that did not revolve around property; by establishing – as best as they could figure – structures built more on the power of love than the love of power; by establishing new patterns for sharing the Good News and the free gift of redemption; the early Christian communities were trying to, quite simply, change the world. They were trying to convert the world. They were trying to redeem the world. The early Christian communities were trying to break down the walls between what was understood to be heaven and earth and be re-created within something that was new.
Your church, through the time it was founded and with really good pastoral leadership, such as Rev. Bergstrasser, has done some excellent redemption work. Your dedication towards inclusion, mission and social justice is outstanding. Your commitment to being a bi-denomination church continues to be an opportunity to struggle with those ways the Church can be stronger, together than it is in its denominational separateness. Through the last few years, I’ve had the pleasure to get to know some of you pretty well. I’ve come to love this church and because I love you I encourage you to keep working hard. You still have a lot of work to do. This work of redemption that we’re all invited to participate in is not done, yet. Those of you who are sitting in these pews are here because this church was the best church you found in your search for a spiritual home and that’s a good and beautiful thing. The continuing challenge for those of us who recognize the redemptive intent of Christ is to persist in making this whole, entire world the best possible home for everyone; free of those systems of domination that oppress us all.
Sisters and bothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed [encourage congregation to respond with this]) and this is an uprising we are invited to participate in. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed) and the redemption of the resurrection gives us an opportunity to make our own lives better. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed) and with that resurrection the world began to change and we are invited to participate in its transformation as well. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed) and we are called to be both the converted and the vehicles of holy conversion for systems that are focused on the power of the threat of death into systems that focus on the promise of life. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed) and we have the opportunity to embrace new creation as it springs among us. Sisters and brothers, Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed). Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed). Christ is risen (Christ is risen indeed). Amen and amen.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
