Pentecost 3, Year C (2016)

Proper 4 -- I Kings 8: 22–23, 41–43; Psalm 96; Galatians 1: 1–12; Luke 7: 1–10  

The following is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker given at St. John's Church in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday, May 29, 2016.

“FAITH FROM AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE”

(Homily texts:  I Kings 8: 22–23, 41–43 & Luke 7: 1–10)

This morning, we return to reading from Luke’s gospel account after having spent the entire Easter season reading from John. (What a blessing it is to be spending time with John’s account!). Since we are currently in Year C of our three-year lectionary cycle, we’ll be spending a lot time working our way through Luke as this “green season” of Pentecost moves along.

The gospel text before us this morning[1] has to do with an unnamed Roman soldier, a centurion. (A centurion was in charge of one hundred soldiers, hence the name for his position.) There is much about this centurion, his behavior and his demonstration of faith in Jesus’ ability to heal his servant that deserves closer attention.

As we unpack what’s happened in the centurion’s request, let’s remember that – oftentimes – events that are recorded in the Bible tend to “flatten out” a little. By that I mean that it is easy to forget that the people involved in the events we are reading about were real human beings.

So let’s attempt to bring this event to life.

First of all, we should talk about the normal relationship between Roman soldiers and the local, Jewish population. For one thing, the Roman army was an occupying force, a force that was usually a very unwelcome presence. In part, the reason for that was that the Roman army’s presence was a constant reminder to the Jewish people that they were a conquered people, a people who were unable to chart their own futures and destinies. Beyond that, however, was the reality that the Roman army also served as the local police force. So it would fall to the army to enforce tax collection, for example. Normally, then, the relationship between the Jewish population and the Roman army would have been an unfriendly one at best, and perhaps even an adversarial one (even in the active sense) at worst.

But something has happened prior to today’s account to bridge the gap between a Roman centurion and the local Jewish elders: This man had built the synagogue in Capernaum. (Perhaps this is the same building whose remains can still be seen today in Capernaum, for this earlier building stood on the same site as a later synagogue building whose remains can still be seen in that village today.) Though Luke does not tell us why this centurion built the synagogue, the most likely reason is that the centurion – perhaps through interaction with the local Jewish population – had become a follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Perhaps he had become a follower of the Law of Moses, the Torah. We would generally call such a non-Jew, a Gentile, a “God-fearer”. A “God-fearer” was one who – though they had not formally converted to Judaism, was a follower of Torah.

The next aspect of today’s account that we might take notice of is the centurion’s humility: Notice that the centurion makes his request through the local Jewish elders. And when Jesus makes His way to the centurion’s house, the centurion says, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to come under your roof….”[2] We would expect that the centurion might use his authority (an authority the centurion cites in his comment) to order Jesus to come and heal his servant. Instead, what we find is an extreme humility.

Two words seem to capture the importance of the account we are considering today: 

Bridging a gap 

-and- 

Gentile

Today’s event is an indicator of what is to come as the Good News of God made known in Jesus Christ makes its way out into the wider, Gentile world. For in the times to come, many gaps in culture will be bridged as those who were not born into Judaism embrace the truth of what God has done in sending His Son, Jesus.

In time, another Gentile, another centurion named Cornelius, will also come to faith in Jesus. You can read about Cornelius’ conversion in Acts, chapter ten. Cornelius’ conversion was an important development in the early Jewish Christians’ understanding of what God intended in sending Jesus Christ, for in the early Church, a serious argument took place as to whether non-Jews could become followers of Jesus. And if these Gentiles could become followers, then it was going to be important to determine just what things would they have to do to become a disciple of Jesus. Eventually, the Church came to the decision that non-Jews did not have to become followers of Torah. The decision was reached at the Council of Jerusalem, which took place in the year 49 AD. The account of the council’s deliberations and the decision it reached can be read in Acts, chapter fifteen.

It had become easy for God’s people in Jesus’ day to forget the vision that we hear about in King Solomon’s prayer at the time of the dedication of the temple in Jerusalem, a portion of which forms our first reading this morning. Notice how Solomon prays for those non-Jews, those foreigners, who will come to the Temple to worship, that God’s mighty name might be known abroad. Perhaps because the Jews in Jesus’ day were a conquered people whose destiny lay in the hands of Rome and of the Roman army, they tended to “hunker down” and regard interaction with non-Jews as a thing to be avoided if at all possible.

But the centurion’s gracious act in building a synagogue, and the centurion’s request made of Jesus, ought to have reminded these Jews of Solomon’s vision.

Why is the centurion’s faith and his humility important for us today? Such a question should arise in our minds and hearts whenever we read or hear the words of Holy Scripture.

As I think about it, the following observations arise in my own reflection:

An adversarial relationship with the surrounding community: In some respects, I think Christians find themselves in a situation which is similar to that of the Jews in Jesus’ day….we might think of the non-Christian population around us (which, I think, outnumbers the Christians in our community) as foreigners who are against God’s purposes. Essentially, this becomes an “us vs. them” kind of mentality, of much the same sort as that of many Jews in Jesus’ day. Though the depth of feeling between Jews and non-Jews 2,000 years ago was – most likely – deeper than what we might think of our neighbors today, I think it’s fair to characterize many Christian’s attitudes to the surrounding population in similar terms.

Bridging the gap: Something had happened – as we said a moment ago – to bridge the gap between the Jews living in and around Capernaum between this Roman centurion and the Jews. Luke doesn’t fill in the details for us, but I think we can be sure that something significant had happened to bring the centurion to the point of having faith in Jesus’ ability to heal his servant. Perhaps it was the attitudes and the behaviors of the Jews toward the centurion. Perhaps it was the way in which these Jews lived out their lives under the requirements of Torah. Perhaps it was all of these things and more. What we can be sure of is the fact that the centurion had become a respecter of Jewish ways to some degree or another. In our own day, in our own time, and in our own circumstances, we can bridge the gap with the non-believers around us by our conduct, and by the way in which we regard and treat others, especially those who are outside the Christian faith.

Two of the promises that are made in our Baptismal Covenant bear out the ways in which we are to hold a wider vision (similar to Solomon’s) for the world and those in it. At baptism, these promises are made:

“Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?”

“Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?”

To these questions, the response is: “I will, with God’s help”.

May we look for signs of faith in those around us, looking especially for signs of faith that come from the most unexpected of places and persons. For God is at work in the world around us, bringing people into relationship with Him through the work of Jesus Christ. May we, by the things we say and the things we do, and by the love we show toward others, especially those who are outside the faith, form the bridge by which God can be made known to those who stand outside the faith.

AMEN.

---

[1]   Matthew also records this incident. See Matthew 8: 5 - 13

[2]   The centurion’s words form the basis for many persons who, before receiving the Sacrament of Holy Communion, say similar words.

Trinity Sunday, Year C (2016)

Proverbs 8: 1–4, 22–31; Psalm 8; Romans 5: 1–5; John 16: 12–15

The following is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker, prepared to be preached at St. John’s Church in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday, May 22, 2016.

“GOD IN THREE PERSONS”

(Homily text:  John 16: 12–15)

When I was active as a professional singer, I would make use of a statement to describe the process of singing in general, and of the process of learning to sing in particular. That statement went like this:

“Learning to sing

is like trying to grab hold of a cloud…

just about the time you think

you’ve gotten hold of it,

it changes.”

The point of this statement is to state the truth that the process of singing is often very mysterious. The subject often eludes even our best efforts to understand just how the process of singing works. The same can be said of the nature of God, who is known to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Just about the time we think we’ve grasped the truth of this mystery, we recognize that there’s still more to know that has eluded our grasp.

We’ve just sung a wonderful hymn (Holy, Holy, Holy) which is especially suited for Trinity Sunday. One of its lines says this: “God in three persons, blessed Trinity”.

In this homily, we will attempt to deal with what is – most likely – the very most difficult topic that a preacher can have to wrestle with: The nature of God as the Holy and Blessed Trinity.

Notice that we’ve used the word “mystery” to begin to address the concept of the Trinity. The truth is that – this side of heaven – we will never know completely and fully all the details of how God can be One God, but in three Persons. We’ll have to wait until we are in God’s presence to pose our lingering questions.

Just how did the Church come to understand the nature of God, and to discover (at least to some extent) the relationship and interaction between the three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The short answer is that the Church didn’t come to a full(er) understanding of God’s nature overnight.  Instead, this process of discovery and reflection took a long time, centuries in fact.  In this homily, we will explore a bit of that history.

We should begin with some of the Church’s very early indications that God is to be understood in three distinct parts or aspects (I can’t think of a better word to use). Although there is no use of the word “Trinity” in the New Testament, yet there is evidence to show that – very early in Christian history – Jesus’ followers had identified distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Two passages from the New Testament bear witness to this understanding:

Mathew 28: 19 – 20: “Jesus came and said to them (the eleven disciples), ‘All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age’.”[1]
II Corinthians 13: 14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”[2]

These two passages are quite early: Matthew’s gospel account probably dates from the second half of the first century, with most scholars tending to think the time of writing was probably somewhere around the year 85 AD or so. St. Paul’s second letter to the early Christians in Corinth is a good bit earlier. Most scholars tend to date his second letter to the years following the establishment of the Church in Corinth, which may have happened sometime in the years 51 – 52 AD.

The motivation for the Church’s quest to come to a fuller understanding of the Trinity was God the Father’s sending of the Son. (The sending of the Son is often called the “Christ Event” by theologians and biblical scholars.) The things that Jesus said and did, His victory over death in His resurrection on Easter Sunday morning, His ascension into Heaven, all of these were the motivators for Jesus’ followers to discover more about the relationship between the One whom Jesus called “his Father” and the One whose sending was promised through the Father, by request of the Son..

A brief look at some of Jesus’ statements will serve to establish the basis for this process of reflection and discovery. Among Jesus’ statements, these will clarify the point:

John 8: 18: Jesus said, “I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”[3]
John 10: 30:  Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”
John 14: 8–10a: “Philip said to him (Jesus), ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and still you do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father, How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?”

Then speaking of the sending of the Holy Spirit, Jesus said this:

John 16: 13 & 15:  Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak,” and “All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
John 14: 16–17b & 26: Jesus tells His disciples that the Holy Spirit will come from the Father, in response to the Son’s request: “…I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth”. Then He says that the Holy Spirit will come in His name: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to remembrance all that I have said to you.”
Acts 1: 4–5:  Speaking of the coming of the Holy Spirit, Luke (the author of the Book of Acts), says that “While staying with them, he (Jesus) ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “You have heard from me, for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

So Jesus’ words and His actions pointed to the reality of the One who sent Him, His Father. His words and His actions seem to point toward a unity, and yet, with some distinction, all at the same time. Some of the scriptural citations provided above bear out the reality of this relationship. Furthermore, Jesus’ promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit seems to affirm the same reality:  Unity and yet, distinction, at the same time.

Now, let’s return to something we began with a moment ago: “God in three persons, blessed Trinity”, that line from the hymn.

Just where did the concept of God as one God in three Persons and the language attached to it come from? The second and third century theologian Tertullian[4] is credited with using this language to describe the Godhead. Tertullian is also credited with creating the word “Trinity” to describe God’s three-in-one nature.

The word “Trinity” attempts to maintain the connection between God’s one-ness and God’s distinctiveness in the different manifestations that we human beings have experienced God. So there is unity in God’s nature, for God is One. In that confession, we can affirm the truth that God’s chosen people have affirmed down through time in the very well-known Shema, which says, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.”[5] And yet there is a difference in the experience of the fullness of God, for God the Father is the sender of the Son, and the Son and the Father together send the Holy Spirit. (See John 16: 15, from our Gospel reading for this morning,)

In time, the Church would come to understand that the unity between the three Persons of the Trinity is so complete that it’s impossible for us to tell where one Person leaves off and another Person begins. (Again, I can’t think of a better way to say it.) It’s as if – the Church says – that the one Person of the Trinity penetrates into another Person’s.[6] The point here, I think, is to be sure that God’s unity, God’s one-ness, is maintained.

The inseparable nature of the three Persons brings us to an important truth:  When we encounter or think of one Person of the Trinity, the other two Persons are also present. So, for example, if we consider something that Jesus said or did, we should remember that the Father and the Spirit are also present in those words or actions. When we ask for the Holy Spirit to enlighten and empower us, we should also remember that the Father and the Son are also present.

Given our human limitations, it’s quite common for people to focus on only one Person of the Trinity at a time. An example from daily life will illustrate this point: We might think of an individual as being a parent, as a grandparent, or as an employer or employee, each one separately, depending on the mode in which they are encountered. Sometimes this concept is also applied to God. But the challenge is that it’s easy to lose sight of the totality of God’s nature when our focus is on just one of the three Persons of the Trinity.[7]

Let’s return to the beginning point of our reflection, the person and work of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, He becomes the way for us to share in the inner life of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He becomes the way into the inner life of God. By His coming, Jesus Christ shines light on God’s inner life and nature, making it available to us.

God’s blessings overflow, as a result.

AMEN.

---

[1]   These verses have come to be known as The Great Commission.

[2]   This verse is known as the Grace, which closes the Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer.

[3]   The italics are mine. I’ve indicated those portions of the verses chosen which demonstrate – in my estimation at least – the relationship between the Father and the Son, and which show the sending of the Holy Spirit.

[4]   Tertullian lived from about 150 – 225 AD.

[5]   Deuteronomy 6: 4

[6]   The technical term that theologians use to describe this interpenetration is the Greek word perichoresis.

[7]   A term which is applied to this approach to God is modalism.

The Feast of Pentecost, Year C (2016)

Acts 2: 1–21; Psalm 104: 25–35, 37; Romans 8: 14–17; John 14: 8–17, 25–27

The following is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker given at St. John's Church in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania; Sunday, May 15, 2016.

“GIVE ME GAS FOR MY FORD”

(Homily texts:  Acts 2: 1–21 & John 14: 8–17, 25–27)

The wisdom of the progression of the Church Year reaches a significant point on this Sunday, which is the great feast of Pentecost.  Up until now, we’ve been thinking about and focusing on Jesus’ mighty acts in the aftermath of His resurrection on Easter Sunday morning.

Now, fifty days later (which is the basic meaning of the word “Pentecost”, a title signifying the number fifty, that is fifty days after Passover), we arrive at the events which took place as the Holy Spirit was poured out in great and observable power on those disciples who’d gathered in Jerusalem to await the promise that Jesus had made to them before He ascended into heaven ten days before.

Next Sunday, which is Trinity Sunday, we will turn out attention to the reality of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  (More about that next week.)

But for now, for this Sunday, let’s take some time to look at the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

Luke, who is the author of the Book of Acts (as well as of the gospel account which bears his name) tells us that the Holy Spirit’s arrival was like “tongues of fire” which lighted upon each one gathered that day.  Luke also tells us that the Holy Spirit’s arrival was like the “rushing of a mighty wind”.  Furthermore, the Spirit’s descent on each one enabled them to speak in foreign languages, for each onlooker was able to hear the Good News (the Gospel) of Jesus Christ in his/her own native language.

(We might take a moment to explain what Pentecost was, and why it was so important that devout Jews from all over the known world made their way to Jerusalem for this festival, which was one of three major festivals that took place throughout the year.  The feast of Pentecost was a harvest festival, often better known by the title the “Feast of Weeks”, which was authorized in Exodus 23:16, and 34:12, and in Leviticus  23:15–21 and in Deuteronomy 16:9–12. This feast involved the offering of first fruits and of lambs.)

Turning our attention, then, to the person and work of the Holy Spirit, I’d like to use an automotive analogy, and I’d like to begin with a song we used to sing with our Middle School students who would attend weekend retreats. The song went like this:

          Give gas for my Ford, keep me truckin’ for the Lord,

          Give me gas for my Ford, I pray,

          Give me gas for my Ford, keep me truckin’ for the Lord,

          Keep me truckin’ ‘til the break of day.

So, the following illustrations won’t be perfect, but perhaps they’ll allow us to look at the Holy Spirit a bit more carefully.

Power:  Power is the first thing we ought to look at.  After all, Luke tells us about the powerful arrival of the Holy Spirit.  So our song says, “Give me gas for my Ford, keep me truckin’ for the Lord.”  The Holy Spirit is like the fuel which enables us to do things for God.  It is as if God has given each of us an engine and a vehicle to power it with, but we need the Holy Spirit to make things move.  The Holy Spirit, in this aspect of the Spirit’s work, is the fuel that makes things happen. 

Copilot/Navigator:  The Holy Spirit is like an adult driver who sits across from a new driver. The Holy Spirit tells us when to slow down, when to stop, and what to watch for in terms of danger as we make our way down the roadway of life. 

Counselor:  This is a term that Jesus applies to the Holy Spirit in our Gospel text from John chapter fourteen. (Sometimes, the Greek word is translated as “Paraclete” or as “Helper”.)  These terms can be likened to an experienced driver who stands alongside a newer driver when it comes time to answer charges which arise from poor driving or from accidents when charges are to be answered in court.  The term “Paraclete” in particular carries with it legal implications as the Spirit intercedes on our behalf with God the Father. 

Grabbing the wheel:  Sometimes, the Holy Spirit simply reaches over and grabs the steering wheel in order to avoid catastrophe.  Oftentimes, we think of the Holy Spirit as a gentle, quiet force. But the Holy Spirit isn’t always gentle. The Pentecost event shows that, for the Spirit comes with power, overcoming and empowering those who had gathered that day. There was nothing gentle at all about the Spirit’s arrival or power.

In summary, we would do well to remember that, absent the Holy Spirit’s work before we act in God’s name and in God’s purposes, nothing we will ever try to do will bring results which are pleasing to God. In this sense, then, the Spirit is like the fuel in a car….nothing will happen without that fuel to make things happen. Once the Spirit energizes us, then the Spirit will guide, direct, counsel, and will guide us away from error and catastrophe into the paths that God has in mind.

Thanks be to God for the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, to energize, guide and direct us into the pathways that God has prepared for us.

AMEN.

                                          

Easter 7, Year C (2016)

Acts 16: 16–34; Psalm 97; Revelation 22: 12–14, 16–17, 20–21; 17: 20–26  

The following is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker, prepared for St. John’s Church, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday, May 8, 2016.

“ONE-NESS IN THE BODY OF CHRIST”

(Homily text:  John 17: 20–26)

(Introductory remark: This Sunday morning, no formal homily or sermon will be delivered. Instead, we will have an informal time of questions/comments and responses called “Stump the Priest”. Accordingly, this written version of a commentary on our Gospel text for this morning is provided. It will also be posted on the sermon blog.)

In this morning’s gospel reading, we hear Jesus’ words: “I ask not only on behalf of these (the original disciples), but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one.”

Biblical scholars usually entitle the entire seventeenth chapter of John’s gospel account as Jesus’ “High Priestly Prayer”.

In this marvelous prayer, Jesus prays that His disciples, both those who had gathered around the Last Supper meal (the setting of chapters thirteen through seventeen in John’s account), and those who would come to believe through their word, would be one, completely one.

As we look back over our shoulders at the history of the Church, we would do well to reflect on this deeply held desire that our Lord has for His disciples in all ages.

We might begin our historical retrospective in the early Church itself, and we might ask ourselves the question, “Was the early Church every truly united, truly one?”

Where the very early Church is concerned, the answers seem to fall into two categories: 1. Yes, the early Church was truly united in common witness to Jesus’ resurrection and to His work of redemption, and 2. No, the early Church wasn’t truly united, for wide varieties of organization and emphasis seemed to exist from one church to another.

Let’s explore this just a bit.

With regard to the unity of the Church’s common witness to the Lord’s victory over death and His sinless life, the early Church was truly united. Saints Peter and Paul seem to move from one community of believers to another, even to ones that they themselves had not founded (an example is Paul’s tenure among the early churches in Rome, which he did not found).

And yet, the New Testament itself bears witness to a wide variety of theological emphases, to differing methods of organization and governance, and other facets of their common life. The late Roman Catholic priest and New Testament scholar, Raymond Brown, wrote a book which explores this aspect of church history in depth. Entitled “The Churches the Apostles Left Behind”, it is Brown’s contention that no less than seven differing types of churches could be found during the New Testament period.[1] A brief summary of some of his finding include:

• Matthew’s community:  There seems to be no discernible leadership and no distinguishing clergy among the early congregation(s) to whom Matthew addressed his gospel account. Apparently, Brown maintains, decisions concerning issues that were to come before the congregation were decided by the entire body of Christ (see Matthew 18: 15 – 20).

• The communities in which the Beloved Disciple (traditionally, this is John) seem to stress a personal, one-on-one relationship between the believer and the Lord. Each believer is responsible for his/her own relationship.

• St. Paul’s letters to Timothy and to Titus stress the importance of bishops as guarantors of the Church’s unity and the guardians of proper teaching.[2]

These are but three of the examples that Brown draws from his analysis of the New Testament’s witness.

         

The yearning for Church unity is strong. In the wake of the disruptions to the Body of Christ in the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches in the year 1054 AD, and in the further divisions within the Western Church during the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, in recent times various proposals for Church unity have been advanced. Let’s explore these briefly:

• The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: The idea of uniting with other Christian bodies has long been on the minds of the Episcopal Church, and of the Anglican Communion as a whole. In 1886, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church adopted the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. This document was adopted at the worldwide meeting of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion, meeting at Lambeth, two years later, in 1888. The text of this document can be found at the back of the Book of Common Prayer, 1979, in the Historical Documents section at page 876. These four conditions for church unity were advanced: 1. That the Church ought to be one, in recognition of our Lord’s deep desire; 2. That all baptized persons are members of the Church; 3. That our own modes of worship and organization are of human ordering, and so are of secondary importance in the quest for Church unity; and 4. That Episcopalians and Anglicans do not desire to absorb other Christian bodies, but rather to work with other Christians toward unity. This document set forth the importance of Holy Scripture as the basis for belief, of the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of faith, of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion as essentials, and of the necessity of the historic Episcopate, locally adapted to usage as desired.
  
  
• The Consultation on Church Union (COCU): About fifty or so years ago, proposals to organically unify various Christian denominations were advanced. Our own Episcopal church was part of these discussions, which were originally called the “Consultation on Church Union”.[3]. The impetus for these ideas began in 1948, and were codified in a draft document that was adopted in 1970. Eventually, the plans for a Protestant “Super Church” failed to come to fruition. Subsequently, greater emphasis was put on the idea of “intercommunion” between various churches. (It is interesting to note that many of the points of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral were tenets of the proposed unification of the various denominations.) On the other side of the ecclesiastical divide, the Roman Catholic Church, during the Second Vatican Council (which met from 1962 to 1965), also adopted a more favorable stance toward other Christian bodies.
• Ecumenical movements of The Episcopal Church: In recent years, the Episcopal Church has entered into agreements with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and subsequently, with the Moravian Church. Work has also continued on agreements with the United Methodist Church and with the Presbyterian Church in the USA. 

Prior to the arrival of the ecumenical movement, churches were very much divided in their common witness to the Lord. Various denominations would issue statements condemning other members of the Body of Christ. As an example, in 1896, Pope Leo issued a Papal Bull declaring Anglican ordinations to be invalid. Christians of differing communities tended to stay in their own orbits, and had little-to-nothing to do with one another. Some notable exceptions existed here and there: For example, during the Yellow Fever which took place in Memphis, Tennessee in 1878, Roman Catholic priests tended to those who’d contracted the disease alongside Episcopal priests and nuns.

Yet today, there are still divisions within the Christian family. One thinks of prohibitions against receiving Communion that some Christians still maintain against other Christians as one example. And on occasions that are rarer than they used to be (although not as rare as they ought to be), one Christian group or another will make disparaging remarks about other Christians.

What are we to make of the divides which still exist within Christianity?

Some aspects of our current situation are disturbing. For example, closed Communion practices do little to enhance a common bond among Christians, although – with increasing frequency, members of a Church that practices closed Communion and which encourages its members not to receive the Sacrament in other Churches routinely receive the Sacrament in spite of their denomination’s pronouncements.

And to the world around us which looks upon the Church and upon organized religion in general with disinterest or even disdain, condemnations of one group by another do little to bring credit to the Lord we all claim to be following. Wouldn’t be far better to say something like, “Our perspective in these matters is different.”?

One can continue to pray that closed Communion practices will – one day – be a thing of the past. We can also continue to pray that condemnatory statements by one Christian group against another will also cease to be heard.

What might we hope for, in terms of unity within the Body of Christ? My own personal short list would include the following:

• A celebration of the good aspects of other Christians: We can learn so much from observing other Churches and their practices. Each one has strengths that we might lack. Each one does things that they might do better than we do. What is true of one part of the Body of Christ is also true of all the others. We can learn from one another.

• Unity of purpose: If the various parts of the Christian family cannot be physically united (and I do not believe that they can be, at least in the near term), then we can return to the pattern that existed in the New Testament Churches: We – like they – can be united in common witness to the risen Christ, and to the advancement of the mission of introducing the world to Christ and Christ to the world. This way of being the Church in those early years worked quite well, and it can work quite well for us, as well, for we, today, find ourselves in much the same circumstances that the New Testament Church found itself in in terms of the society that existed then, and which exists in very similar ways, now.

• Offer the gifts that a unique identity carries: Here we come back to the principles that were articulated in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of which we spoke a short time ago. At the time this document was adopted, Anglicans offered to share with the wider Christian world the strengths and unique gifts that they possessed: 1. An adherence to Holy Scripture as the basis for correct belief; 2. The historic Episcopate of Bishops who are in the Historic Succession as the ideal way of organizing and governing the Church; 3. The necessity of just two Sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist, as the basis for Christian life, and 4. Our willingness to set aside our own preferences in terms of worship styles and practices for the purpose of advancing better unity within the Body of Christ.

Perhaps unity in common witness to the Lord is the best solution, for we have seen in Church history the sad results of having but one unified body with one regulatory mechanism. Here I am thinking of the situation that existed in the years immediately preceding the Reformation. Checks and balances against unacceptable beliefs and practices can be better dealt with if there is room for discussion and even dissent. (Of course, the opposite is also true: The divisions within Christianity often make it difficult to come to a common consensus when difficulties or challenges are encountered.)

In all these things, our Lord’s prayer that we might be “one, completely one” must never be lost to our sight. The world around us is watching, sometimes with disdain, sometimes with active disagreement or even dislike. As the world watches, if we Christians are united in common witness to the Lord who calls us into fellowship with Him, then our witness to the Lord will be strengthened.

May this ever be so.

AMEN.

---

[1]   In a very real sense, Brown’s work is radical, for it seems to advance the idea that the form of Church organization and governance which is common to the Roman Catholic Church, that is, its organization according to the principles St. Paul laid out in the so-called Pastoral Epistles (I and II Timothy and Titus) by having Bishops as the head of the Church, isn’t the only way to organize a Church. Brown goes further in his work by suggesting that, by adopting and promulgating only one method of Church organization, the overall welfare of the Church is undermined. Brown seems to be advocating more flexibility in governing the Church.

[2]  This is the model of Church organization and governance which has been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, for example.

[3]  A later name for this movement was Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC).

Easter 6, Year C (2016)

Acts 16: 9–15; Psalm 67; Revelation 21: 10, 22 – 22:5; John 14: 23-29

The following is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker, given at St. John's Church in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday, May 1, 2016.

“GOD’S PART AND OUR PART”

(Homily texts:  Acts 16: 23-29 & John 14: 23-29)

God interacts with human beings. It seems clear from reading Holy Scripture that God and human beings each have roles to play in relating to one another. But how much of this interaction is God’s work and how much is our work? Down through time, Christians have come to different conclusions about the equation, about God’s work and our work. Sometimes, one or the other gets most of the credit for the relationship.

I think our first readings, from the Book of Acts, and our gospel text, from John, chapter sixteen, offer some basis for understanding this relationship. So let’s look, first of all, at our readings from Acts and from John. Then, let’s take a brief look at some of the positions that Christians have taken down through the ages.

From our reading from Acts this morning, we read about the conversion of Lydia. Luke (the writer of Acts) says this about her conversion: “The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul.” Then, Luke tells us, she and her household were baptized….Lydia’s part in the relationship is her willingness to be baptized. God’s part is the opening of Lydia’s heart to receive the word that God had for her.

And then in our gospel text, Jesus says to His disciples, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” Notice God’s actions: “My Father will love them,” and “we will come to them and make our home with them.” The human part is found in the first phrase, “Those who love me.”

(I’ve italicized the portions of each reading to highlight God’s actions and the human responses to God’s actions.)

Now, let’s look at some thinking that Christians have done down through time on the subject of God’s work and our human part or response. For the purposes of our discussion, we can look at differing positions which occurred at about the same time.

We will begin with two figures from the fifth century, St. Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius:

St. Augustine of Hippo: We may begin with St. Augustine of Hippo, the very gifted Bishop of the city of Hippo (which was located in North Africa) in the fifth century. Augustine is one of the foremost theologians that the western Church has ever produced.  Augustine credits God with doing the work necessary to save us. He has a very suspect view of human nature, a view that sees that human beings’ ability to know God and to do God’s will is clouded by the reality of sin. So, Augustine says, absent God’s action through the power of the Holy Spirit beforehand, everything we are capable of thinking or doing is limited by the reality of sin. So Augustine gives God the credit for doing the work that is necessary to relate to us. In Augustine’s view, the human role is very small compared to God’s role.

Pelagius: At about the same time that Augustine was living, a British monk by the name of Pelagius maintained that we human beings did not need God’s grace in order to be saved. What Pelagius was saying was that we human beings could “pull ourselves up by our own spiritual bootstraps”. In time, the Church said that Pelagius’ views were outside the norm of Christian thinking, and his ideas were declared to be heresy.

Now, let’s move forward about a little more than a thousand years, in order to take a look at the practice of selling indulgences and at the French Reformer John Calvin:

The sale of indulgences: One of the causes of the Reformation in the sixteenth century was the practice of selling indulgences. Indulgences were a money-raising tool for the Church. They were designed to guarantee family members of deceased relatives that, in exchange for a fixed amount of money, the souls of the deceased could shorten their time spent in Purgatory. The Reformers (Luther, Calvin and others) rightly saw the theological problems that this practice created. What they saw was Pelagius’ ideas, put to use to fill the Church’s coffers. In essence, the sale of indulgences maintained that human beings could better their spiritual condition by their own efforts. The sale of indulgences (and other practices such as Masses for the dead) put the bulk of the work on the human side of our relationship with God. In essence, these practices maintained that we humans could do the work of saving ourselves. There was no need for God to have a role.

John Calvin:  John Calvin was a Frenchman who lived from 1509 – 1564. His teachings and writings form the basis for the Reformed tradition within Christianity. In this country, the most prominent part of the Reformed tradition is the Presbyterian Church. Calvin – perhaps in reaction to the sale of indulgences and other practices within the Roman Catholic Church – maintained that God was omnipotent. God’s will and God’s actions, Calvin maintained, were sovereign. We human beings are merely the object of God’s will and God’s actions. So, for example, if God chooses to save someone or to do something in that person’s life, He will do it. Human beings have little or no choice or role in the action.

Hopefully, this very brief look at some of the thinking that has taken place with regard to God’s work and role, and our human work or role, will illustrate the different positions that have been taken down through the years.

Holy Scripture seems to make clear that both God and human beings both have roles to play as they interact with one another.

One example of this interplay can be seen in St. Paul’s writing in the Letter to the Romans. Writing in Romans 5:8, he writes, “God proves his love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Paul seems to be saying that God’s action comes first, and our human reaction follows God’s action.

God’s action is seen most clearly in the person and work of Jesus Christ. In Christ, we see the very image of the invisible God, as Paul writes in Colossians 1:15. In Christ, we see God’s love in action: “God proves his love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

In sending Jesus Christ among us, to take on our humanity completely and fully, God has taken the initiative. Indeed, throughout the pages of the Bible, it is God, again and again, who takes the initiative to save His people. It is God who tells Noah to build the ark, in order that Noah and his family might survive the Great Flood. It is God who tells Moses that he is to lead God’s people out of slavery in Egypt. It is God who moves King Cyrus’ heart to free the Jews so that they can return the land promised to them. It is God who sends Jesus Christ to show us the depth of God’s love.

We might return to the thinking of St. Augustine as we come to a conclusion about our relationship with God: God’s leading is trustworthy and true, as the record of Holy Scripture proves. Whenever human beings try to assume that leading role, problems are sure to arise. So Augustine’s suspicions about the reality of our human nature are right on the mark, aren’t they? Left to our own leading, we will surely wander far from God’s purposes and intent.

May God go before us, leading us. May we follow faithfully in those footsteps.

AMEN.