Covenant Relationships

September 4, 2011

(Ezekiel 33, 7-11; Matthew 18, 15-20)

I always read the accounts in the local paper of couples celebrating their Golden or Diamond (or sometimes these days, their Platinum) wedding anniversaries. I’m interested in their recipes for a long marriage. But if they say, as they sometimes do, “We’ve never had a cross word,” I have to admit to a moment of disbelief. I simply can’t conceive of a relationship between two fallible human beings in which there has never been any disagreement or conflict. Or, if it is true, then I wonder whether one of the partners has sacrificed his or her own personality and needs in order to conform to the other .

Marriage is a covenant, and our readings today are about covenants, and in particular, relationships within the covenant community of religious belief. The Old Testament reading, from Ezekiel, is about the covenant with Israel and the New Testament reading is about relationships within the Christian community, the New Covenant.

In this passage from Matthew 18, it is not the historical Jesus talking. It refers to an organised church or congregation, things which existed only long after Pentecost. It is the absence of Jesus which brings the need for procedures to settle disputes between members of the church. The advice arrived at after prayer and thought, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,  is then given the authority of Jesus by being placed in the context of his teaching about relationships in the kingdom, including two parables.

We know from Acts and the Epistles that the early church, even in the apostolic age, was riven with conflict, just as today’s church is. That’s a normal part of any human relationships. Conflict is not bad or a sign of failure. David Ewart http://tinyurl.com/42pkgd3 says:  “Real churches have – or should have – real conflicts. The only real harm that will come to a church community is to refuse to deal with conflicts. Conflicts do not kill churches. Refusing to deal with conflicts kills churches”.

What is important is that we deal with conflict with Kingdom values guiding our actions. That means loving others as you love yourself. It means never giving up on anyone. It means wanting the best for others, even if you don’t particularly like them. It means having a special care for the weak and the outsider. It means being honest with one another, even when that is difficult, acknowledging differences and not pretending everything is fine when it isn’t. Andrew Prior http://tinyurl.com/3swqpfz says: “Christians have been particularly good at replacing honest open love with being nice”.

I think that is true, particularly in the Church of England; but it is also true that Christians can behave in a very nasty way when a member of the congregation, or a group, disagrees with those in authority. This passage from Matthew has been used in such circumstances as a sort of legal process for disciplining dissident members, and eventually, for getting rid of them. That is why it is so important not to take this text in isolation, but to read it in context.

The first verses of Matthew 18 recount the disciples’ question to Jesus about ‘who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven’. Jesus replies by taking a child, and telling them they must become like a child – without power, without legal status, vulnerable- if they hope to enter the Kingdom. He is emphasising the need for humility.

Then he talks more about children, or perhaps those who are new to the faith, or vulnerable, and says if anyone leads them astray, they will be condemned (reflecting the responsibility of leaders which is also emphasised in our reading from Ezekiel). Then follows the passage about it being better to lose a hand or foot or eye, rather than offending others.

The third section of the chapter is the parable of the lost sheep. This highlights the importance of making every effort to keep all the members of the Christian community together, no matter how awkward or foolish they may be.

After the passage we heard today, Matthew includes the parable of the unforgiving servant, who is shown mercy by his master, but is eventually condemned for failing to show equal mercy to others. This comes in answer to Peter’s question about how many times he should forgive a brother who has offended him; to which the answer is ‘seventy times seven’, meaning endlessly.

So, the passage on conflict resolution is surrounded by others which outline the context in which disputes among Christians should be resolved, a context which highlights humility, mercy, forgiveness, community and making every effort not to offend others, and to keep everyone within the fold. Within the Christian community, resolution of differences is never to be conducted outside the grace of God. We have to recognise that we act as members of the Body of Christ – and that body includes an awful lot of people who are as difficult to live with as we are ourselves.

Read within its context, the instructions about how to deal with someone who sins against us personally is not telling us, “This is all you have to do before you get them thrown out of the church”. It is saying “This is just how hard you have to try”,  (and some!) to effect a reconciliation.

Read within this context, the harsh saying about “Treat them as though they were a Gentile or a tax collector” is not giving you permission to regard them as outsiders. Jesus said the tax collectors would be among the first into the Kingdom of Heaven, so this is saying it is your duty to try even harder to bring them back into full fellowship with you and everyone else. Read within this context the crucial verse is not  this one, about cutting people out, but the verse  about the joy of regaining a member for the community.

Reading this passage within its context also changes the way we hear the final two verses of the passage, about how our requests and our decisions will be received by God. ‘Gathered in my name’ means gathering and acting in a way that imitates Jesus, and follows his example. This makes it clear that these verses are not about requesting things for ourselves; rather they are about how God will receive our prayers and decisions about seeking and reconciling those who might otherwise be lost. Those prayers and decisions should be characterised by God’s extravagant forgiveness, God’s endless search for those who may be lost, God’s loving-kindness for everyone, but particularly for the weak and the vulnerable, acting according to the  characteristics of the God who Jesus revealed to us.

Reading this passage within its context makes us realise how often it has been misused during the Church’s history to persecute those groups whose ideas differ from those of the people who exercise power, and to justify the abuse of individuals, through institutions such as the Inquisition and during various inter-denominational conflicts.

Nowadays, we might think it’s not very relevant at the institutional level of church. When was the last time a church you were part of formally disciplined anyone?

But it has recently become more relevant to the Church of England, because of the current debate about the Anglican Communion Covenant. The Dioceses of the C of E are at the moment considering whether to approve this, and in this deanery the subject will be considered at the next Deanery Synod, which will be open to everyone.

The Anglican Covenant was drawn up after some provinces came to the conclusion that some actions of other provinces were not acceptable within the Church, in particular the acceptance remarriage in church after divorce, the opening of  priestly and episcopal orders to women, and most recently, the acceptance of faithful gay relationships as valid covenants like marriage, and so not a bar to ordination. Sections 1 and 2 of the Covenant attempt to define what it is to be ‘Anglican’ (something that has always been left rather vague in the past). Section 3 proposes that certain bodies (like the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council) which had previously been forums for discussion, should  have the task of maintaining order in the Communion. It also commits those who sign up not to do anything which another province objects to. Section 4 describes ‘relational consequences’ for those provinces who don’t sign up, or whose actions offend another province.

Although the Covenant is being promoted as a means of maintaining the unity of the Communion, much of the history of the process indicates that it is seen by those who argued most forcibly for it as a means of excluding those provinces (especially the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church in Canada) from the Anglican Communion. Some of the provinces that were most vociferous about the need for the Covenant have since decided it doesn’t go far enough to exclude the offending provinces and have already refused to attend any meetings where their representatives are present. There is now something like an ‘alternative’ Anglican Communion, known by the acronym GAFCON, where these dissenting provinces meet. This raises a large question mark over the Anglican Covenant and whether it is now going to achieve anything, other than preserving an illusion of unity while destroying the tolerance of diversity which has up to now been the hallmark of the Anglican Communion.

Whatever is eventually decided about the Anglican Covenant, our passage from Matthew (written we must believe under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) makes it clear that reconciliation, not exclusion should be the aim of any procedure fro resolving differences within a Christian community. Whether it is individuals or groups or even whole provinces that disagree, the ability to forgive and to tolerate difference is the mark of a true disciple in the Kingdom. Making sure that not one member, not one sheep from the Master’s flock, is lost and not one little one is damaged, is much more important than being right.

Advertisements

None so blind……..

April 3, 2011

Jesus heals the man born blind

(John 9, 1-41)

 

We heard last week, in John’s story of the Samaritan Woman at the well, how our prejudices and preconceptions can get in the way of our being open to, and bringing others to receive God’s grace.

 

John’s Gospel gives us another story this week on a similar theme.

 

On the surface, the story is about the healing of a man who was blind from birth; but the accompanying dialogues make it very clear that what is really being discussed here (as so often in the New Testament) is spiritual blindness, and what can be done to cure it.

 

Spiritually, all of us are like the man in the story – born blind, because of the world we are born into. I don’t believe in the concept of original sin in the way it’s usually presented. I don’t think it has anything to do with the Fall, or the Garden of Eden, or sex. But I do believe in original sin as a description of the situation we all find ourselves in, born into an imperfect world, to imperfect people. A world where some societies and some people have more than their fair share of the world’s resources, and with a history of enmity between peoples which infects children from birth;  with institutions which use power and violence to settle disputes and achieve dominance. It is extremely difficult to escape these influences and the blind spots they create in us; and it is almost impossible in our own strength to begin to live in a different way.

 

We may also be blinded to the humanity and the needs of others by our upbringing. However good our parents, however much they try, they are imperfect human beings like us, and all of us make mistakes which prevent our children  growing into the complete human beings God meant them to be. All of us have blind spots which are a result of our upbringing.

 

Our blind spots are major road-blocks on our spiritual journey; but we have a choice about what we do about them.

 

First of all, we need to acknowledge that we are blind. Then we need to go and find a way to heal them, or at the very least, respond to offers of healing when they come our way. Healing may not come immediately – the man in the story went through several stages of belief in Jesus as a prophet, and as one sent from God, before he worshipped him as the Son of Man; but unless we know that we have blind spots the healing process won’t even start.

 

We also need to remove those things that get in the way of healing – our fear of coming into the light, being more  comfortable in the dark, sticking to our prejudices and preconceptions. We also need to be ready to part company with those who don’t realise they have blind spots, or who are happy to remain with incomplete sight. The old proverb “There’s none so blind as those who do not wish to see” remains true.

 

The Pharisees in the story stand for such people. They were so committed to their spiritual blindness that they were prepared to call good evil – to pronounce that someone who was manifestly doing the work of God must be a sinner. That sort of blindness to the Holy Spirit at work continues today –  in those sections of the church who maintain that no matter what good they do, some people will be condemned to eternal punishment because they don’t sign up to the right doctrinal formula. The leaders of the synagogue were happy to dismiss the views of those who were just ordinary members of their congregation, who were ignorant or who weren’t as holy as they thought themselves. Doesn’t that sort of thing still go in between some of the ordained leaders of the hierarchy of the church and the laity? Jesus warned us against ‘the blind leading the blind’; we still don’t always take notice of his warning.

 

Pool of Siloam

Ultimately, the Pharisees in the story were so committed to their particular form of spiritual blindness that they threw anyone who challenged their view out of their fellowship. How often has that scenario been repeated in the history of the Christian church? How much is it still happening with the splits in the Church of England over the ordination of women as priests and  bishops, and the attempts to enforce conformity in the Anglican Communion by the Anglican Covenant?

For those of us who have committed ourselves to the Christian faith, it is to Jesus that we must go to heal our blindness. We need to learn from him how to open our eyes to the Holy Spirit at work through other people, no matter who they are and what faith they profess. We need to learn from him about the real nature of the God we profess to believe in. Even the disciples, who had spent years in Jesus’ company, still thought of God as one who would strike a person blind because of their own sin, or their parents’ sin. People continue to ask “Why me?” when something bad happens to them, as though God sends illness or disability or natural disaster as a punishment for wrongdoing. Jesus points us to a world where sickness and disability and disaster, which happen because of the way the world is and has to be, become opportunities to show the love of God and give God glory by doing so. That is what it means to walk in the light, and to bring the light of God to others.

 

Helen Keller, who lost her sight at the age of 19 months, was once asked if blindness was the worst thing that could happen to a person. She say no; the worst thing was not to lose your sight but to lose your vision.

Helen Keller

 

May the story of the healing of the man born blind inspire us today to go to Christ, and to allow his teaching to heal our blindness, so we may walk in the light and bring that vision to others.