There is No Other Name

Based on Acts 4:5-12

            “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” This claim made by Peter has been a source of hope and hostility. There is hope because we are told by what name we can be saved. We know that salvation is possible and this alone gives us hope. But this claim has also been a source of hostility. There are a lot of different religions in the world. There are many paths to salvation for many people. To say that there is salvation in no one else but Jesus comes across as a rejection of all other religions. You can see how those who believe in their own religious tradition would have an issue with the claim that salvation only comes from Jesus. What’s worse is how Christians have turned to this claim to convince Jews that they need to convert to Christianity, overlooking the fact that Jesus was a Jew. If you are a Christian, this claim is hopeful. If you are not, this claim prompts a degree of hostility.

            As I thought about this passage, I knew right away that I was going to have to deal with this verse. It almost overshadows the whole passage. We are going to look at this verse today to try to understand it and, perhaps, redeem it from how it has been misused. There is no doubt, the claim that salvation only comes through Jesus is an exclusivist claim. It suggests that when it comes to salvation, Jesus is uniquely involved in the salvation process. What is needed is a clear understanding about what Peter means and why he made this claim. Why did he say it? Does answering that question help us understand what he meant by it?

            First, let’s get some context. When you want to interpret scripture it’s important to get the context out of which the scripture comes. For us to understand why Peter makes this claim that salvation only comes from the name of Jesus, we need to get at the context so we can better understand why Peter makes this claim. So let’s take a look at the situation.

            Peter and John were standing before the religious rulers, and I mean the top people. Annas and Caiaphas were there. These are the ones who were responsible for pressing charges against Jesus and arranging for his crucifixion. These are the heavy hitters. And you can imagine they had some bias over how this was going to go. This trial that Peter and John were about to undergo wasn’t exactly fair and balanced. In fact, you may even call it a show trial.

            The rulers wanted to know by what power or in whose name Peter and John healed the man who had been born crippled. This was the issue. Peter and John had healed someone, which was a big deal. This did not happen every day. And they did it publically. Everyone saw what happened. It was no secret as this formally crippled man jumped up and down and praised God. So who do these guys think they are, doing such a thing on their own? They had no right to do this. So the rulers wanted Peter and John to explain themselves.

            Now if they had heard Peter’s sermon, they would have already known the answer to their question. Peter had already said that it was Jesus of Nazareth, God’s servant, God’s child, whom they had killed but God had raised up and honored, it was this name that healed this man. Peter, who had been given the faith to use the name of Jesus to heal someone, used that faith, speaking healing into this man’s life.

            So when Peter says, “There is no other name,” he is answering the question put to him by the rulers. By whose name? By the name of Jesus of Nazareth. But even more, there is no other name that God has given us by which we can be saved. And this was a name that the rulers were not using. This claim Peter made must have made them angry. What Peter did was awesome. There couldn’t be any arguing of that. A man was healed after all. But Peter and John had no authority to do this. The rulers were in charge. But Peter and John didn’t ask for their permission. They just went ahead and did it, using the name of a man that the rulers had condemned.

            Here is the thing. Peter and John were threatening the authority of the rulers. This is a power struggle that is going on. The rulers were challenged, perhaps even threatened, by Peter and John. The rulers were doing what rulers always do, which is try to protect their power. If they lost power, they couldn’t be rulers anymore. That’s one of the main reasons why they saw to it that Jesus was crucified. He was a threat to their power. And so you have Peter looking at them and saying that the one they had crucified, it is his name and no other that can heal. The one they had crucified is the only one who brings salvation to the world.

            There are two points I want to make. First, note the boldness of Peter as he speaks to these rulers. The story goes that Peter was full of the Holy Spirit, so he spoke with boldness. And he was bold, being just an average guy talking to the most powerful religious leaders that existed. I mean this was like Joe the plumber talking to the pope. We have some guy talking to the people who represent the tradition given by God to Moses and handed down from generation to generation. This is David and Goliath territory. This point is further stressed in vs. 13 where we are told what opinion the rulers held of Peter and John. In one version we read that Peter and John were considered to be uneducated and ordinary. That’s too soft a translation. The Greek there is actually illiterate idiots. So you have this illiterate idiot named Peter speaking with boldness before the most powerful religious leaders of the day. No fear. No hesitation. Of course, this is Peter. What would we expect? After all, he occasionally told Jesus to knock it off so he’s not known to be restrained when he has something to say.

            But also, look how Peter does not boost his own power and authority. He is not posturing. He gives all the credit to Jesus. He didn’t say “I did this.” It was not in the name of Peter that this healing took place. Nor was it the name of Moses. It certainly wasn’t in the name of Annas or Caiaphas. It was in the name of Jesus. More specifically, it was God who healed the man through the name of Jesus, the name that God has given for salvation.

            And that’s the second thing I want to say about this. What does Peter mean by saved? That word translated “saved” can mean two different things. It usually means being delivered from danger. But it also means to be healed or made well. Back in Acts 2, Peter explicitly says that we are being saved from “this corrupt generation.” Now, we don’t know what Peter means by that. He doesn’t list all the ways their generation was corrupt. But we can guess that he is saying they were living in a time where there was a lot of corruption, a lot of oppression and injustice, a time when there was a lack of honesty, morality, and beauty, a time where the world was not how God wanted it to be. Which is interesting, because the truth is the world has always been screwed up. This corrupt generation has been around for thousands of years. But anyway, this is what Peter said we were to save ourselves from.

            But in this context, in which a man was physically healed, Peter talks about him being saved from his ailment. Here, being saved means being made well. He is talking about healing, not about being delivered from danger. In one place he uses one definition of saved and in another he uses the second definition. So, when Peter makes the claim here that there is no other name given by which we can be saved, what does he mean? Is he referring to the first definition or the second? It seems to me that he is talking about being healed, not about being delivered from danger.

            But can we say that physical healing is the only thing that Peter had in mind? Could he be thinking about healing more broadly? Perhaps he was also thinking about deliverance from danger, that is, the danger of all that diminishes life. I’m not 100% sure of what Peter means by salvation, but it is clear that it is Jesus that makes salvation possible. More accurately, it is God who saves through the name of Jesus. This is what Peter is saying when he makes the exclusive claim that God has given no other name by which we can be saved, whether that salvation means deliverance from danger, being made well, or both. God saves only through Jesus and there is no other name through which God does this. That is what Peter is saying. It is an exclusivist claim and there is no way around it. So what are we supposed to do with this in our time where we are surrounded by people who have different faiths or increasingly have no faith at all? How can we claim this without coming across as arrogant and dismissive of the cherished beliefs of others?

            Here’s the first thing I want to say about this. Peter is not arguing one religious path as true and all the others as false. There is only one religious tradition being discussed here. Peter is a Jew talking among Jews. They all believe the same things about God. They practice the same tradition. Christianity as a world religion doesn’t exist yet when this conversation is taking place. Islam doesn’t yet exist. So no claim is being made that one religion is true and all the others are false. Only one religion, Judaism, is in this space.

            Here’s the other thing I want to say, and it has to do with how the crippled man was healed. To remind you how it happened, Peter and John walked past the man as he sat near the Temple door, his hand outstretched, hoping for some shekels. He didn’t ask to be healed. He didn’t confess belief in Jesus Christ. He didn’t indicate he even knew who Jesus was. He literally didn’t do anything. It was Peter, using the faith he had, that made this man’s healing possible. It was Peter’s actions that healed the man. We don’t even know if the man knew who Jesus was!

            So what does this tell us about how God through Jesus is at work saving, that is, healing the world? It seems that there is need for joint action. What I mean is, Peter could have easily walked by the man and done nothing for him. Peter and John could have gone into the Temple to pray and then left. The man would have remained sitting there crippled. It was not automatic that this man would be healed. God didn’t just act through the name of Jesus to heal this man out of the blue. No, it took somebody with faith to act. Peter had to do something on behalf of this crippled man so that he could be made well. It was the faithful action of Peter that made this man’s healing happen. It was not about the faith of the crippled man. For all we know he had no faith whatsoever. But Peter had faith. And for some reason he was moved to look upon this man and say to him, “We don’t have any money, but what I do have I give to you; in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” God did the healing, through the name of Jesus, by the action of Peter. It was a joint action that saved this man from his ailment.

            So, where does that leave us? Having said all this, and forgive me if it seems I have been belaboring the point, what are we to do with the claim that there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved? Well, I wonder. Perhaps we can hold on to this claim that salvation only comes through the name of Jesus as hopeful rather than as a cudgel to beat people with?

            The funeral for Barbara Bush was held last Saturday. It was a beautiful and uplifting service. The priest who gave the homily has been a friend of the Bush family for many years. He said that Christianity was Barbara’s path to salvation. He told us that Barbara would say something like, “I don’t know about what other’s believe. But I believe in Jesus, and I believe that when I die I will go to heaven.” When it came to what others believed, she didn’t seem to have a strong opinion. She didn’t smugly, or even sorrowfully, say that those who didn’t believe as she did were doomed to hell. She was only willing to affirm what she believed for herself. And so, is it possible for us to claim what we believe, that there is no other name by which anyone can be saved, while acknowledging that not everyone can make that claim and just let that lie? Can we make our truth claims and give room for people to hold their own truth claims without being hostile or demeaning to those who hold other views? I would hope so. I know that we can hold to our beliefs as Christians, acknowledge that there are different perspectives, and be ok with that.

            But I wonder something else, and I close with this. I wonder if, using the gift of faith that God has given us, we, like Peter, can call on the name of Jesus to save others? And by others I have in mind those who do not believe in Jesus, who do not have faith, or just people who we don’t know what they believe. Just as Peter called on the name of Jesus to heal someone whose faith we have no knowledge of, can we do the same and trust that by our own prayers God can work through the name of Jesus to save others? Is it possible that we can take the faith given to us and offer it back to God so that God can work through Jesus to save others? I wonder if we can use our faith on behalf of those who have no faith. I submit to you that by faith in the power of the name of Jesus we can ask God to bring salvation to others and that God can do this, even for those whose faith in Jesus we know nothing about. If this is true, then this is one of the most hopeful possibilities I know.

We Have a Story to Tell

A message based on Acts 3:12-19

            A few weeks back, I was listening to Chaplain Jim Meacham. He is the head of the chaplain corps for the Westerville Police Department. Chaplain Meacham was talking about his experiences of grieving with the Westerville community after the killing of Officers Joering and Morelli. As you probably know, this was the first time in the history of Westerville that a police officer was killed in the line of duty and Westerville lost two in one incident. Chaplain Meacham has served as a chaplain for the Westerville police department for I believe at least 30 years. In other words, he knew Officers Joering and Morelli and their families intimately. So he was grieving along with the rest of the police family.

            Chaplain Meacham was talking to us about the funeral that was held for the officers at St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Church. He was scheduled to speak last. And he said that by that time everything that needs to be said had already been said. He didn’t have any notes. He wasn’t sure what he was going to say. But up he went to stand before thousands to speak from the heart. And what he ended up saying was powerful and moving. It was just the right words. They were words of healing and of life. Later in the day, someone asked him if they could have a copy of his remarks. He said honestly he doesn’t remember what he said. He told us it is his conviction that it was Jesus that did that, not him.

            I know that explanation by Chaplain Meacham may come across as a little pious, like Jesus was talking through him. I guess people will say stuff like that, when they do something great, they will say, “That was all Jesus.” Like some kind of false humility. But at other times, like when you get before a bunch of grieving people, and you also are grieving, and you don’t know what you’re going to say, and you just open your mouth and the right words come out…maybe that was Jesus using an open mouth, and a yielded servant. Sometimes, when things work out and you don’t know how it did, maybe it’s o.k. to give credit to Jesus. Maybe there is no better explanation.

            Everyone who saw what happened thought that Peter and John had healed that man who was unable to walk. This guy had been lame from birth. People knew him. He would be brought up to the Temple hoping to receive some money from good pious people as they came in and out of the Temple. It was just another day when the man saw Peter and John walking by. So he held out his hand hoping for a couple shekels. But Peter and John didn’t have any. Instead, Peter said, “What I have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk.” He then grabbed the man’s hand and helped him stand up. And sure enough, he was healed. He started walking. Then he started jumping up and down. And he praised God. And everyone was amazed at what had happened, what Peter and John had done for this man.

            But Peter set them straight. He made it clear to the crowd that he and John didn’t do this. Jesus did this, not them. He said to them, “Why are you staring at us, as if we had the power or piety to make this man walk? It wasn’t us. It was someone else, a man that our God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has honored and glorified, his servant, his child, Jesus. That’s who did it.” Peter goes on to say that it was the name of Jesus that healed this man. What a powerful name it is, the name of Jesus.

            Peter goes so far as to say that the faith in the name of Jesus that made the healing power of the name effective, that faith itself came through or by means of Jesus. That faith that Peter and John possessed to use the name of Jesus was itself a gift from Jesus. It was not Peter and John’s faith. It did not come from them. It had been given to them by Jesus for Jesus. In other words, they used the gift of faith given to them by Jesus so that Jesus could work a healing into that man’s life. Peter and John just used what had been given them. It was all Jesus.

            And that’s really what it’s all about in the end, isn’t it? It’s all about Jesus. I say that because of the conviction that Jesus is the Author or Source of life. God brought forth all that is, the very stuff of the universe, through Jesus. We find in Scripture the claim that the entire universe is held together by Jesus. We live on a planet that bursts forth with life. This earth has systems and processes designed to perpetuate life. Some would say the earth itself is a living organism. It’s all about life, the cycle of life, death, new life. And Jesus is the author.

            And it was the Author of life that the people had murdered. This is the tragic irony that the one who came to usher in new life was killed, put to death by those who were in need of new life. And Peter makes it clear that the people he is speaking to are the ones who did this. They have culpability. But, let’s not forget: where was Peter? Did he do anything to prevent the crowds from demanding that Jesus be crucified? He did not. All the disciples had run away and abandoned Jesus. But Peter took it one step further. He denied three times that he even knew Jesus. It was a betrayal. Peter, along with the rest of the disciples, were also to blame for Jesus’ murder. The one who gets off the most, as Peter tells it, was Pilate, who wanted to let Jesus go. And honestly, he could have if he really wanted to. But in the end, everyone was responsible. No one was innocent. The only innocent person in this whole situation was Jesus and he was the victim.

            So look what Jesus did through Peter and John. These very men who abandoned and betrayed Jesus are now the ones through whom Jesus is healing people. They have been given the gift of faith in the name of Jesus. They are the ones who bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus. They embody the grace of God, the God of second chances. Not only did God forgive them, for they did not know what they were doing, but God gave them faith. God gave them a testimony to share. God gave them a role to play in God’s ongoing work of salvation. Amazing grace.

            The big point I want to stress is this: Peter and John were not miracle workers. That’s what everyone thought when they saw what happened to the man who had been crippled his whole life suddenly stand, walk, and leap. No, Peter told them that it is Jesus who is the miracle worker. It is the name of Jesus, faith in that name, that healed that man. It was all Jesus.

            So what was Peter’s and John’s role? The only thing Peter identifies himself as is a witness. He said to the people that he and John are witnesses to these things. They are witnesses of who Jesus is, witnesses of his death and resurrection, witnesses of the gift of faith given to them by God through Jesus, witnesses of the power of his name. They have a testimony to share. That’s what they do. They tell their story, share their experiences of Jesus.

            And so are we. We have a testimony to share. Of course, it is not the same as Peter’s and John’s. They had different experiences. The gift of faith given to them has a different character than what we have. It is certainly possible but highly unlikely that you or I could go to a person crippled from birth and say to that person, “In the name of Jesus rise up and walk.” I’ll admit it, I have faith in Jesus. But I don’t have faith that I can use the name of Jesus to physically heal anyone. The character of my faith is not the same as the character of the faith given to Peter and John. My hunch is that the character of your faith is also not as theirs. It doesn’t mean we don’t have faith, or that we don’t believe in miracles. But it is different. It is the faith that has been given to us. And it is proper for us to receive and be grateful for whatever faith God has seen fit to give us. Whatever experiences we have had of God, that is our testimony to speak. It won’t be the same as Peter’s and John’s. But it is ours and we have the opportunity from time to time to share it.

            So what is your testimony? Where do you see Jesus working miracles today?

            One day, Judge Paul Herbert was holding court, when a woman was brought before him. She had been beaten up. Her eyes were hollow and lifeless. She was broken. He assumed she was a victim of domestic violence. But when he looked at her papers, it indicated that she was a defendant charged with prostitution. It struck Judge Herbert that it can be difficult to tell the difference between the two. In either case, whether it was domestic violence or prostitution, the woman was the victim.

            This prompted Judge Herbert to do some research. He came to discover that of the approximately 1200 women arrested in Franklin County every year for prostitution, 92% are victims of human trafficking, and first trafficked for sex at a young age. Judge Herbert came to realize that these women are not criminals. They are victims.

            So Judge Herbert began what he calls CATCH Court. CATCH stands for Changing Actions to Change Habits. It is a specialized docket designed to provide a structured process of rehabilitation, resources, and support. Women who plead guilty to prostitution have the option to receive two years of probation and enter into an individually tailored treatment plan. These women find themselves in a family of survivors of sex trafficking that meets them where they are, loves them, holds them accountable, and speaks healing into their lives. When the process ends, and those who successfully complete the program graduate, they are given an opportunity to tell their story to the group of how their life has been transformed.

            One participant said, “CATCH Court saved my life. It took that lightbulb moment for me to realize that my life was worth saving. I was dying in my addiction. Dying being out there on the streets. Tomorrow, I will have 20 months clean and I never imagined that my life could ever be this good. The hard work pays off. I can’t even imagine going back to the old me. I am a completely different person. I deserve this. - I am worthy of this.”

            CATCH Court is not specifically a Christian ministry. The name of Jesus may or may not be spoken. The character of the gift of faith that Judge Herbert and the women who work through this process possess is different from what Peter and John had. But it is there. Jesus is at work. For the women whose lives are transformed through this program, miracles take place, there is the passing through death into new life. These women experience their own healing. And they have a testimony to share.

            This is just one example of how Jesus, the source of life, is still active in the world, working healing and manifesting new life. I encourage you to look around. Open yourself to see what God is doing in the world. It may or may not be happening in the church. It may or may not have religious labels or spoken in Christianeze. But God is still working through Jesus to bring healing and new life in this world. The gift of faith is still being distributed and used for the glory of God. These are the experiences that we are privileged to witness and perhaps to even experience for ourselves. These are the stories that need to be told.

A Community of Friends

Sermon

April 8, 2018

Based on Acts 4:32-35

A Community of Friends

            Over the next several weeks, from now until Pentecost, we will be bouncing back and forth around the book of Acts. We will be looking at different aspects of what the early church was like. After we look at these different vignettes, we will arrive at Acts 2 and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Also, in a couple weeks, I will be providing for you some materials that you can use to explore your spiritual gifts and to sense what might be a ministry that God is calling you to do. It doesn’t have to be some big, elaborate ministry. It will more likely be something small and simple. You can work through this discovery process alone or you can hook up with a few friends and explore together. On Pentecost Sunday, I will invite those who are committing to do some kind of ministry to come forward for a prayer of consecration. So be looking for more info as we move closer to the end of April.

            Today we are looking at a general description of what the church was like in those beginning days. We don’t have an exact timeline, but it is safe to assume that Luke is describing a church that has only been in existence for a few months. Everything is new. There is a lot of excitement and energy. A lot is happening very quickly.

            Now when we hear this description of the church, often we are drawn into how property was held in common, how people would sell their properties and place the proceeds at the apostles’ feet who would then distribute the resources to those who had need. As a result there were no needy people in the community. All was held in common and there was enough to meet the needs of all. It comes across to us as some kind of Christian communism. It also sounds very idealistic. We read this and ask ourselves, “How can we pattern our economy after this example?” It clashes with the core principles of capitalism, of private property, of building wealth. Still, here was an economic system where it seems poverty has been eliminated, and that is a good thing. Our economic model has not done a good job of eradicating poverty. It remains scandalous that in this land of plenty there are still children that go to bed hungry at night. Don’t we who have more than enough have a responsibility to provide for those who are in need? Is it not our job to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless? We know that homeless and starving children are victims of the choices of others. No one need go without. But we can’t seem to figure out how to distribute resources so that there is enough for everyone. It’s very complicated.

            There has always been a tension between private ownership and public benefit. How should privately held resources be made available for public benefit, to alleviate poverty or to enhance civic life? One of the main projects that Martin Luther King was working on which got cut short when he was assassinated was what he called  a Poor People’s Campaign for Jobs and Justice. One of the points he was arguing for was that the federal government should be the employee of last resort and either offer jobs in communities where there were a lack of jobs or to provide direct cash payments to guarantee a minimum income. King believed that if our nation diverted money away from the immoral atrocity of the Vietnam War and instead used that money to invest in the poor of our nation that poverty could be eliminated and America would be much better for it. As you can imagine, this kind of socialist thinking was not a popular view among a lot of people. But at least it was a serious attempt to address the reality of poverty in this land of great abundance.

            So as we look at this description of the early church, it is tempting to admire their economic model in which all resources were held in common and available for the use of the community so that everyone had what they needed for a comfortable life. We assume they were not all equally impoverished because we are told that there was no one in need. There was enough for all. And as long as you have more resources coming in and not as much going out then you have a system that eliminated poverty. It is a tempting model.

            But I want to step away from economics for a bit. I believe there is something else in this description of the early church that is more central. Sure, the holding all things in common economic model grabs our attention. But there’s something else we need to look at that I believe provides the foundation of their life together.

            We read that they were of one mind and one heart. That is a powerful statement. I say that this is the nucleus of the early church, the force that held the community together and fueled its expansion. I want to break this down for us so we have a sense of what this is about.

            First, they were of one mind. Now that does not mean they shared in groupthink. That is, I am sure they had disagreements, different points of view, different ideas. To have the same mind does not mean thinking the same thing or finishing each other’s sentences. No, to have one mind is to be on the same page. It is to have a sense of clear purpose and vision. All who were a part of the church knew what they were about. They knew that Jesus had risen from the dead, had forgiven them of their sins, and made a way for them to experience eternal life. They believed in Jesus Christ. Having their minds stayed on Jesus, that’s what held their community together.

            They had one mind and one heart. To have one heart is to say that they were intimately connected to each other. You might say to the one you love, “I give you my heart.” When the one you love passes away you may feel that a part of your heart has died. That’s what having one heart is about. It’s trying to describe a deep and abiding love for each other. They all shared a heart for Jesus and for each other. They were bound together in love. One mind. One heart.

            So, you could say that the first community of Christians was a community of friends. Friends share similar values, have the same mind about the most important things while still have room for disagreement. Friends share their hearts with each other. These Christians were friends. We see how this community of friends expressed their life together.

            The apostles spoke their testimony of the resurrection with power. Yes, they had the Holy Spirit. But they also had the security of proclaiming their message among friends. And even if they were giving their testimony before hecklers and doubters, they could still speak with boldness because they knew they had a community of friends that were there for them, who had their back. Proclaiming their testimony with boldness was possible because of the security they had in being a part of a community of friends.

            There was great grace upon all the people. In a community of friends you find grace. It is among friends that we can be honest and vulnerable, let our hair down and be real, without worrying about our friends critiquing us. Friends are able to acknowledge when they have hurt each other. They can ask and receive forgiveness. Friends take you just as you are. You don’t have to pretend to be someone you are not when you are around friends. A community of friends is a community of grace.

            All their resources were shared. To a friend you will say, “My house is your house.” Friends look out for each other. This got me thinking about what friendship economics looks like. Let’s say you join the Christian community and you understand that part of the deal is the sharing of resources so that no one lacks anything they need. So what if you drive your truck over to the truck lot where other people have given up their trucks. You park it, leave the keys with the truck and walk back home. Then, say Joe has a load of brush that he needs to haul away. So he walks over to the trucks and hops into yours, hauls his brush, and then brings the truck back, hopefully cleaned out and gassed up for the next person to use. Joe was able to satisfy his need but he didn’t have to engage with you. You probably didn’t even know he took the truck.

            But what if instead of you giving your truck to the community, you kept your truck. So if Joe is going to get access to your truck to haul away his brush he will have to come to you and ask for it. Of course, since you two are friends, there’s no problem with Joe borrowing your truck. And you can be sure that after he’s done he will have the truck cleaned up and gassed up because that’s what friends do for each other. That’s how a friendship economy works. No one is in need because they can always go to their friends who have what is needed. That sounds like a workable economic system to me. Of course, I guess people who buy trucks better be prepared to loan them out every now and then!

            Last week on Easter I talked about how we are part of a new family. When Jesus spoke to Mary Magdalene he said that he would ascend to his father and her father, which makes Jesus her brother. Part of the mystery of Christ’s saving work is the establishment of a new family of brothers and sisters, co-heirs with Christ of the coming reign of God. We have another homeland that one day we will walk on together with those who have gone before us. We are all brothers and sisters to each other through Christ Jesus.

            Today, I am saying that we are friends. Our church is a community of friendship. I will admit, our level of friendship with each other is not the same. Some have been dear friends for many years. Others have just recently come to be a part of this community. But although the intensity and depth of our friendships vary we can all embody the spirit of friendship. We can relate to each other, not just as brothers and sisters, but also as friends. We can all have our minds stayed on Jesus. We can share our hearts with each other. We can back each other up. We can practice grace with each other. We can share our resources when any of us are in need. We can embody a community of friendship.

            The question becomes, “Who are you willing to be friends with?” That may not be always easy to answer. Let’s be honest. There are people in this world who we don’t necessarily want to be friends with. I will grant you that. People that are mean, who are manipulators, who only take but never give, those who wish to do you harm, friendship is not likely going to happen. So yes, there are some people that we don’t want to be friends with. But I want us to think of this question in a different way.

            In those days, the days of the first believers, they lived in a society where there was a strict code over who you could be friends with. The only people you could befriend in those days were your equals. Any other relationship, which would necessarily be between people with different levels of status, would be a patron-client relationship. This was a mutually beneficial system. A patron would seek clients to support. The clients in turn would speak well of their patron. The patron with this good reputation would look for someone to be his patron so that he would have access to resources to continue to provide for his clients. Of course a patron whose clients are patrons to others is a big cheese, the top of the heap. The ultimate patron, of course, was Caesar. Everyone was his clients. You can imagine being Caesar was lonely. There was no peer you could be friends with. But that’s how it worked. You could only be friends with your equals. Every other relationship would be some form of patron-client relationship.

            But it was different in the early church. In this community the patron-client system was broken down. In this community, those with higher status were not to see those below them in status as clients needing their patronage, but rather as equals, brothers, sisters, friends. Status was flattened so that everyone in the community related to each other as equals, thus as friends. Maybe you get a sense of how revolutionary this community was, and maybe part of its draw. You can see why outsiders would marvel at how the Christians loved one another because they didn’t play the patron-client game. Rich people and poor people treated each other as equals, as friends. That went directly against the grain of society in those days.

            But are the times we live in much different? I wonder. We live in such a stratified society. Poor people live and hang out in certain areas of town, middle income people in another and then rich people in yet another. Everyone has to go to the BMV. But there are a lot of ways our society is structured in which poor people and rich people don’t interact, much less socialize or befriend each other. There are glorious exceptions. The church at its best is a gathering of all people, poor, middle class and rich, doing life together, loving and serving each other. But I don’t see that as the norm. I’ll just speak for myself. I am more comfortable building a relationship with a poor person than with a rich person. Maybe you have different hang ups. That’s the question I am left with. Are we willing to befriend those who are of a different status? I’m pretty sure we all would say we are, but it’s hard to be friends with people you don’t see or socialize with. And we live in a society that does a good job of keeping people separated. How far are we willing to go to remove those barriers that keep us apart? And we know there are all kinds of barriers that separate people, politics, religion, ethnicity, language. We may be willing but we have some work to do to realize this description of the early church.

            So as I look at the passage before us, the real challenge is not so much their economic model of pooling all their resources together and distributing to all who have need. The deeper question is who are we willing to be friends with. What are the barriers that separate us and prevent friendships from being forged? How willing are we to take the initiative to break down those barriers?

We Have a New Family

Sermon

Easter 2018

April 1, 2018

Based on John 20:1-18

We Have a New Family

            It was early in the morning, still dark outside. The only people up that morning either have to be or they are up to no good. Or, if it’s early in the morning, still dark outside, maybe you can’t sleep. And that was Mary’s situation. She was grieving the loss of Jesus in such a cruel and brutal way. It was like a part of her had died. And she didn’t want to let go. She wasn’t ready to move on with her life. All the disciples had fled, blended in with the crowd, returned to their homes. But not Mary Magdalene. Early in the morning, while it was still dark out, Mary was in the garden heading for the tomb where Jesus’ body was laid to rest.

            There are a number of traditions around Mary Magdalene, who we don’t hear from again once we move outside of the gospels. One tradition is that Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary. Another tradition was that Mary was Jesus’ wife. Dan Brown the author made a big deal about that tradition in one of his novels, I think it was The Da Vinci Code. In the middle ages Mary Magdalene appeared in a lot of religious art, portrayed as a prostitute with long, flowing red hair.

            Whoever Mary Magdalene was and whatever her relationship with Jesus, she was with him when he died on the cross. And she was there early that morning to be at the tomb where his body was supposed to be. Everyone grieves in their own way. For Mary, she needed to grieve by going to the tomb, to be physically near the body of Jesus. She just couldn’t walk away.

            How horrifying it must have been as she drew near to the tomb to discover that the stone had been rolled away. Who would have done such a terrible thing? To add insult to injury, the beaten and crucified body of Jesus had been taken by grave robbers. She needed to grieve by placing herself near the body of Jesus and now the body is gone and she does not know where it is. How will she grieve now? What a crushing blow this must have been.

            So Mary runs in panic away from the tomb and toward Peter and the beloved disciple to tell them what happened. What were they doing out that early in the morning? Maybe they had agreed to meet Mary at the tomb that morning, to support her in her grief, but Mary had made it to the tomb first. At any rate, Mary doesn’t know what else to do but run and tell Peter and the beloved disciple what had happened, that the stone had been rolled away, the tomb had been robbed.

            Who is the beloved disciple? He appears a few times in the gospel of John, mostly at the end. He was there at the last supper sitting next to Jesus. He was there when Jesus was dying. Jesus looked down and saw the disciple he loved and his mother, and Jesus said to his mother, “Woman, behold, here is your son.” And looking at the disciple Jesus said, “Here is your mother.” And from that day the beloved disciple took Mary into his home. At the end of the gospel, the beloved disciple confesses to be the one who is the source of this gospel. So, we assume the beloved disciple goes by the name of John. It’s just that the beloved disciple is never specifically named. He was clearly dear to Jesus. One might even say he was the ideal disciple.

            Whoever the beloved disciple is, he and Peter ran to the tomb to see for themselves. Did they not believe Mary? I think they did. But they still needed to see for themselves. It is sort of like when you get bad news, you need to see it for yourself. Say, you are out of town and your neighbor calls to tell you your house burned to the ground. Well, you aren’t going to hang up the phone and then call your insurance company and then a realtor to start the process of looking for a new house. No, you race back because you want to see for yourself. I think that’s how it was here. Mary had given them some tough news that must have hit them like a ton of bricks. They weren’t going to shrug their shoulders and go back home. No, they had to run, as best they could in the dark, to see the tomb for themselves.

            The beloved disciple gets to the tomb first and he peaks in but does not enter the tomb. Why is that? Maybe because he recognized the tomb as a sacred place. It was a place of reverence. All he dared to do was to peek inside, where he saw the grave cloths lying there, but no body. Why did the grave robbers take the time to unwrap the body? He wondered.

            Peter, of course, barged right on in. That’s how Peter always was. He opened his mouth before thinking, he had no problem pushing back against Jesus when he was uncomfortable, he didn’t do “reserved”. In he went, where he saw the grave cloths. But then he noticed that the shroud that covered Jesus’ face was rolled up and set aside from the rest of the cloths. The time was taken, not only to unwrap the body, but to put the shroud in a separate place. Why would grave robbers do that? They didn’t have time to go through all that hassle. In the cover of darkness they would have just pushed the stone back, grabbed the body and left.

            The beloved disciple follows Peter in, now that Peter has gone ahead and broken the aura of this sacred site. He also notices how the grave cloths and the shroud have been placed just so. And, as the account goes, the beloved disciple sees and believes. Believes what? That Mary had told the truth? He believed Mary from the beginning. So what did he believe? He must have believed that Jesus had broken the power of death. He knew that this was not the work of grave robbers. Jesus had done this. He had conquered death. That’s what the beloved disciple believed.

            Then, as the story goes, Peter and the beloved disciple walk out of the tomb and go back to their homes. That’s it? No huddling up with Mary and deciding what to do next? No, they just went back home, the beloved disciple believing Jesus conquered death and Peter apparently not knowing what to believe. At any rate, from their perspective there was nothing else to be done. The body was gone. That was that. No use hanging out in the garden any more. Might as well go back home, put on a pot of coffee and get ready for the day.

            Imagine how distraught Mary Magdalene felt as she lingered at the tomb. Her mouth must have hung open as she watched Peter and the other disciple just walk away. No plans to start a search for the body. Nothing. She was there in the darkness of early morning truly feeling alone, lost in her grief and not knowing what to do. It’s heartbreaking as the tears streamed down her face, her body wracked with sobs.

            In her sorrow, Mary looks into the tomb again. Maybe she had hope that somehow the body might have reappeared. It couldn’t just be gone, lost forever. She just didn’t want to believe he was gone. So she looks in with her tear filled eyes.

            Sure enough, something is in there. But it isn’t the body of Jesus. Instead, she sees the soft light of two angels sitting on the bier, one at the foot and the other at the head. She must have caught her breath. What might the angels know? What message do they have for her? As it turns out, they have no message for her. Instead, they ask her what seems to be a ridiculous question. “Why are you weeping?” Mary must have been confused. Why would they ask me that? Do they know something?

            Mary turns away from the tomb and is startled by a man standing right next to her. One minute Mary was all alone. Now she has two angels in the tomb and some man standing next to her. What’s going on? This garden is all of a sudden getting pretty crowded. The man asks Mary some questions. “Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?” Now, we know it’s Jesus asking the questions, but Mary doesn’t recognize him. Why is that? Why would she think it is Jesus? After all, he’s dead. Maybe it’s the gardener who has come out to see what is going on in the garden this early in the morning.

            But why did Jesus call her woman and ask why she is weeping? Was Jesus being coy? I guess Jesus could have just been playing with her. But that seems kind of rude. Mary was in no mood to play around. Maybe Jesus honestly didn’t know who it was. After all, it was still dark out. All he could do was make out the form of a woman and could hear her deep sobbing.

            Whatever the reasons, Jesus hears her voice as she responds to his question. And he responds by calling her by her name. And from panic, to heartbreak, to unspeakable joy in a matter of minutes, Mary cries out, Rabbouni! It all made sense. His body had not been stolen. He was alive again and standing right in front of her! Her heart must have been in her throat. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was starting to feel a little lightheaded. And I’m sure she instinctively reached to embrace him. He was not going out of her sight.

            But then Jesus gives Mary a command. “Don’t hold on to me.” It’s not that Jesus doesn’t want to be touched. After all, next week Jesus will invite Thomas to touch his body, the nail holes in his hands, the hole in his side where the soldier had rammed a spear into him. No, Jesus was telling Mary that he can’t stay here. He has to go to another place. A place where Mary can’t go. At least, not yet.

            Because Jesus then gives Mary the good news to pass along to the disciples. He doesn’t say, “Tell them I have risen.” No, his message is, “Tell them I am ascending to my Father and your Father; to my God and your God.” What is the significance of this statement? Jesus will be ascending to his Father. That means he is going back home to where his father lives. But Jesus’ father is now also her father. That means Jesus is her brother. Her homeland is where Jesus is about to go. That means one day Mary will go home too, to be with her brother Jesus in the presence of their father and God for eternity. Wow. And with that, as the sun begins to crack above the horizon, and the new day begins, Mary runs to the disciples to tell them the news. The homes they have returned to is not their ultimate home. They now have a new home.

            So what do we celebrate today? The resurrection, to be sure. But there is something more. Today we hear again the message that Jesus gave to Mary Magdalene. Jesus is risen but Jesus is also ascended. And that means something to us. This has established for us a relationship with God, Jesus, and with each other. Because of Jesus we all now belong to the family of God. Jesus’ Father and Mary’s Father is our Father too. Mary Magdalene is our sister and Jesus is our brother. And we are brothers and sisters to each other no matter what our relationships are in this mortal life. In the life to come that awaits us all we are brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of God. And since we are brothers and sisters with Jesus, that makes us co-heirs with Jesus. That means there is an inheritance that is being kept for us, another homeland that we will all one day walk on and live on together, when we transition from this mortal life into the next, a life that will never end. We will dwell together on our true homeland forever. This is what is promised to us. And so today we rejoice, even as we long for that day when we join those who have gone before us, who are waiting for us, the great homecoming that awaits us all.