You Got It

 

Based on Matthew 21:23-32

            “Why don’t they get it?” This is a question that surely was on the minds of many in Matthew’s church. For those who had come to belief in Jesus as the messiah, it seemed so obvious to them. His authoritative teaching, the healings he performed, the miracles, his resurrection: how could anyone not believe that Jesus is the messiah? Sure, it didn’t happen like we thought it would. The messiah didn’t come riding in to lead a revolution, shaking off Rome and establishing Israel again to its rightful place as in the days of King David. But what we thought about the messiah was off base, they realized. If Jesus was not the messiah, who else could he have been? These first followers of Jesus realized that they had to re-think their messianic expectations, so to speak. It was clear in their minds that Jesus was the messiah. The evidence was overwhelming. And yet…not everyone saw it. Especially the chief priests and elders of the people. The Christians in Matthew’s church wanted to know, why is that?

            This confrontation Jesus has with the chief priests and elders of the people helps explain why they, of all people, were unable to acknowledge who Jesus is and to follow him. It centered on a battle over authority. Now, to their credit, the chief priests and the elders were exercising their authority as overseers of what goes on in the Temple. Jesus was teaching on their turf. They were responsible for what went on at the Temple. Jesus had not asked for their permission to teach there. They had not granted him the authority to teach at the Temple. So, when they asked that question, “On whose authority are you teaching these things?”, this is a legitimate question.

            However, this question they asked of Jesus was really a power play. After all, by this point everyone knew who Jesus was, especially the chief priests and the elders. They were putting their positional authority on the line. It was God that had granted authority to the priesthood to oversee and care for the Temple. These chief priests and elders had positional authority that was respected. Even the Roman empire recognized the authority of the chief priests and elders. When they ask Jesus the question of who gave him the authority to teach in the Temple, it was an attempt to publicly humiliate Jesus. By asking that question, the chief priests and elders were making it clear to everyone that they had not granted Jesus permission to teach. Jesus was acting on his own authority. Jesus had ignored their authority as guardians of the Temple. Jesus had disrespected them. They were basically saying publicly, “Who do you think you are?”

            Jesus, of course, would not be bowed or intimidated. The common portrayal of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, does not conform to the portrayal of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew. He wasn’t going to meekly bow before the chief priests and elders and humbly ask for their apology for not seeking their permission first. Then again, why would they expect him to? This is the same man who the day before went into the Temple and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and ran them all out, an event that was surely on the minds of these chief priest and elders as they call Jesus out for his teaching without their permission. What we have here is really a confrontation over authority. Jesus was acting like he owned the place and he wasn’t going to wilt before their question of the source of his authority.

            Jesus throws the question back at them. He says, “I’ll answer that question only if you will answer me this question. Was John’s authority from divine origin or human origin?” Just like Jesus turned over those money changer’s tables the day before he just turned the tables on those chief priests and elders. Now, with everyone watching them, they find themselves on the defensive. What unfolds next reveals how fragile was the authority of these chief priests and elders.

            You heard the back and forth as they argue with each other how to answer this question. If they were honest and trusted in their authority as religious leaders, they would have said what they thought, that what John was doing out there in the wilderness baptizing people was on his own authority. They had to think that because if they acknowledged that John was acting on divine authority then Jesus would question them as to why they didn’t believe him. And they did not believe in what John was doing.

            Alas, they were unwilling to stand on their authority because they were afraid of what the crowd would think. Their problem was that the crowd had made up their own minds about John. They were convinced that John was a prophet. They believed that John’s authority was of divine origin. The chief priests and elders were afraid that if they said what they really thought about John that they would face a backlash from the crowd. They ceded their authority to that of the crowd. So, they sidestepped and said, “We don’t know.” The chief priests and elders were unwilling to state clearly what they thought about John. They ceded their authority, so Jesus refused to answer their question. They humiliated themselves.

            But let’s get back to that first question. Why didn’t they get it? Why was it that the chief priests and elders were unable to acknowledge what was so obvious, that Jesus was acting on divine authority? I wonder if positional authority, and the power wrapped up in that, creates a blind spot. By positional authority, I mean that the chief priests and elders, because of their roles as chief priests and elders, had authority. Because of their position, they had responsibility for what went on at the temple. Their position gave them authority to oversee and manage the temple. That was a powerful, even sacred authority. Anyone who, in their view, undermined their authority would be perceived as a threat. When they looked at Jesus, someone who did not ask for their permission, someone who was doing their job for them when he chased out those money changers, someone who acted like he ran the temple, they saw Jesus as a clear and present danger to their own authority, their own power. They were blinded by that threat. They couldn’t see the miracles and the healings. They couldn’t hear the teachings. They just saw a threat to their power. So, Jesus had to be exposed and, if need be, eliminated.

            The crowd, on the other hand, were unhindered by positional authority. They had no power to protect. So, they were in an easier position to judge by their own eyes and ears. They saw Jesus heal people and work miracles. They heard his teaching. He clearly was acting from divine authority. There was no other explanation. When you have no power to protect, it’s a lot easier to make a judgment about authority. It’s much easier to call it like you see it when you are not in a position of authority like those chief priests and elders were. So, why was it that that the chief priests and elders failed to acknowledge and follow Jesus as the messiah? Because they were blinded by their positional authority and could not tolerate any threat to the power they clung to. It was too bad. Of course, let’s not forget that the crowd that was all in with Jesus, a few days later, cried out for his crucifixion. Crowds can be very fickle. What the crowd thinks is not something you can take on good authority.

            The question that the Christians in Matthew’s church asked back then could be asked today. Why is it that not everyone believes in Jesus? You may recall a few weeks back I mentioned the book Mere Christianity written by C. S. Lewis that makes a brilliant case for the truth of Jesus as the messiah. But the truth is that clever arguments and testimonies of life changing transformation will not convince everyone that Jesus is the messiah. It just won’t. Do people refuse to believe because they are invested in another set of beliefs? Sure. Do people refuse to believe because they have been victimized and hurt by the church, by those who call themselves Christians but did not walk the walk? Unfortunately, it is true that many people have been turned off to any possible openness to Jesus because of the words and actions of his purported followers. That’s to the church’s shame for failing to always be a good and faithful witness to the gospel. There are a lot of reasons why people choose not to follow Jesus.

            But that’s not you. You and I have decided to follow Jesus. And as that old song goes, “I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back, no turning back.” You and I are on that road. You and I are working in the vineyard, like we talked about last week. And sometimes people question our faith. I still remember this time back in my seminary days when I was having a drink at this bar not far from the seminary. I got into a conversation with one of the bartenders and I don’t remember exactly how the conversation went. But at some point I shared that I was a divinity student at the seminary and that triggered a reaction in this bartender who looked me right in the eye and said to me, “You don’t know ­­­­____ from shinola.” You can fill in the blank. He walked away and another bartender who overheard this apologized on his behalf. I can only guess that he had a negative view toward religious people, perhaps from some bad experiences with them. Sometimes we have our own doubts and questions. Some of us get hurt by the church, by other Christians, and it makes us question what we truly believe. Nothing wrong with that. Doubts and questions, working through hurts and disappointments, are part of the discipleship journey. That’s how we grow and mature in our discipleship. Our faith shouldn’t remain at the level of what we believed when we were kids. Life has a way of forcing us to deal with deeper questions of faith, hope and love. Acknowledging and working through those questions and doubts is part of the path toward wisdom.

            What I am saying is that even though not everyone will get it and even though we have our questions and doubts and struggles in our faith, don’t let that stop you from staying committed to the way of Jesus. You have responded to the invitation of Jesus to follow him. You have said yes. Stay on the journey. Keep working at it day by day to be faithful, to trust in the promises we have in Christ Jesus, to live your life after the example of Jesus, walking in his ways. Keep at it, even when people question your faith or challenge you, make fun of you, dismiss you, or whatever negative response we may get from people from time to time. Just keep at it. Be the best witness of Jesus that you can be. Who knows, maybe those who say “no” to Jesus now will change their minds one day and join you and me in the master’s vineyard.

 

We All Receive the Same

 

Based on Matthew 20:1-16

             Have you ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It is shorthand for a common experience in all kinds of organizations. The rule is that 20% of the people in a group do 80% of the work. That’s not scientifically accurate. But I think we would agree that in many organizations, especially if you are one of those 20% who put in the work, that this feels right. It seems like only a handful of people do the work and everyone else is along for the ride. There are reasons for this. Some people are naturally more active and need to stay busy. Some are more dedicated to the cause. Some have more time or have the skills needed to do the work. We shouldn’t assume that everyone else in the organization don’t care or are lazy. I think most people are spread out too thin and are doing the best they can. But, whatever the reasons, it does seem like most of the work of an organization falls on a small number of people.

            In this parable that we heard today, the landowner of the vineyard was not going to settle for the 80/20 rule. He was bound and determined to get as many people as possible in his vineyard and doing the work that needed doing that day. He wouldn’t settle for the early risers who gathered at the marketplace at the crack of dawn to be hired for the day. He kept going back all through the day to see who else was standing around waiting to get hired. The landowner wanted all available to come work for him. He didn’t want anyone standing around waiting to get hired. Even near the end of the day, and there were still some folks that had not been hired, this landowner would take them on, even if that meant they would be doing nothing more than standing around at the vineyard, this landowner wanted them.

            A basic rule of justice is equal pay for equal work. Another basic rule is that a person should be paid an honest wage for an honest day’s work. In those days, an honest wage for a day laborer was one denarius. When the landowner hired those workers at the beginning of the work day for one denarius, that was a fair wage. One denarius was just enough to feed a typical family for that day. We could call it these days a minimum living wage. It was just enough to keep the laborer’s family out of poverty. It was a fair and honest wage.

            What does not seem fair in this story is that those who only worked one hour got paid the same as those who worked all day. We would assume that those who worked would get paid based on the hours they worked. If you worked half a day, you should expect to be paid half a denarius, for example. For those hired at the eleventh hour, it is fair for them to be grateful to receive whatever little bit they got. I don’t know what the unit of money that would be. Certainly, nobody expected the workers last hired to get paid a full day’s wage. But if that is how it is going to be, we can understand why those who worked all day would expect to get paid more. That only seems right. So, they grumble about it. We probably would too.

            I think we would agree that the landowner is generous. He is generous in two ways. First, he is generous because he paid those workers who were only there for one hour a full day’s wage. Second, he kept going back to hire more workers. We don’t know exactly what all those workers were doing. Was it harvest time? Did the landowner really need all those workers? Maybe they all had something to do. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them were standing around waiting for something to do. The point is that this landowner would take anyone available and he paid each one of them a denarius. That is generous. But those who were hired on first may not have seen that generosity. They were probably thinking to themselves, “if this landowner is so generous with his money, how about giving us a bit extra?” It just doesn’t seem right that everyone gets paid the same. Remember that basic rule of justice, equal pay for equal work?

            It’s true. In this story, the landowner does not follow the rule of equal pay for equal work. But that doesn’t mean that the landowner was not a good man or was unjust. Look at it this way. Day laborers depended on getting hired and getting paid a denarius to feed their families and make ends meet. If someone isn’t hired, then the family will go without. They didn’t have food stamps back then. The landowner knows this. Every time he would go back to the marketplace and look around, he would see people waiting to be hired who had a responsibility to care for their families. He took it upon himself to hire them on so that they would have the dignity of earning their denarius and be able to provide for their families. That is just. And what about those who stood around all day and never got hired? We can imagine they were not hired because they did not appear to be able to do the work that was required. Maybe they had some kind of disability. Maybe they were too old…or too young. Whatever the reason, these people who had been passed over all day long also had families to care for. It was right and just that the landowner hired them as well. And, again, he gave them the dignity of earning that denarius. He didn’t just give them a denarius and send them on their way. He said, “You also go into the vineyard.” Even if it meant they would be standing around, they would be at the job site. They were included. This right here is what I believe is a big part of why Jesus told this story. Everyone is invited. Everyone is wanted. Everyone belongs.

            The temptation here is to take this parable and use it as a blueprint for how to run a just economy. Those who advocate for a living wage, or looking to the government as the employee of last resort to make sure that everyone has the dignity of work, would point to this parable as justification for their economic policy. But this parable is not intended to be about economics. Jesus told this story to describe the kingdom of God. This story is about the goodness of God and about the eternal life that God offers to all.

            Some of us grew up in the church. We can’t remember when we didn’t know about Jesus. We consider ourselves to have been Christians our whole lives. Others of us accepted that call to follow Jesus later in our lives. Maybe it was in high school or college, or a bit later in life. Some of us don’t give our lives to Jesus until we are well into our senior years. It is not unheard of for people in their 70s and 80s to get baptized. Maybe you have heard stories of death bed confessions. When a person is lying there contemplating the reality of death and confronting head on their demise, they decide they need to get right with God and they ask God to forgive them as they accept the promise of resurrection. That promise of resurrection, of salvation from the power of sin and death, that is what we receive as believers in Jesus Christ. Everyone receives eternal life, whether you put your faith in Jesus when you were 3 or 93, it makes no difference. The gift is the same for everybody. For some that is a word of comfort and for others that’s a warning against being presumptuous of God’s grace.

            Peter seemed to need that warning. Bless his heart. He was always opening his mouth that gave Jesus an opportunity to teach a lesson about faith and humility. Just before this parable, Jesus had been in conversation with a man who was eager to know what he needed to do to have eternal life. He was doing all the right things. So, Jesus said all he had to do was sell all his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor and then follow him. That was this man’s limit. He had a lot of wealth. The cost was too much. He couldn’t do all the things to achieve salvation on his own strength. He walked away. Peter had to point out to everyone that he and the disciples did that. “Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Oh, Peter. That sounds like those eager day laborers who were out there first thing in the morning so they could get hired and earn that money. They were all in. Jesus told this parable to let Peter know that he and the rest of the disciples will receive much more than they sacrificed and will inherit eternal life. But so will that man who hung on the cross next to Jesus, who asked, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And Jesus said, “Today, you will be with me in paradise.” The one who comes to Jesus just before their last breath will receive eternal life just the same as Peter and the rest, who bore the burden of the day and the scorching heat of being a follower of Jesus in this old world.

            Some of us hear the invitation from God early in our lives to work for God, to give ourselves to God as a follower of Jesus. Others of us hear and respond to that call later in life. Some of us near the end of our lives. And some of us never respond in this life. What then? No one knows. But we do know that God is merciful. We do know that Jesus died for everyone, not just for some. The point I’m making is this: be careful about presuming you can earn extra benefits from God. We joke sometimes when someone in the church goes above and beyond and we will say, “Martha, you just earned another star in your crown.” That’s kind of bad theology. Those who dedicate their lives to Jesus and struggle with their discipleship their whole lives ought not to anticipate earning more of whatever or be placed on some higher level in heaven above those people who barely showed up for church. Let’s just do the work. We have responded to God’s invitation to live our lives as followers of Jesus Christ. We are working in the vineyard. It is our task to bear the burden and the scorching heat of these times. But we do this work with confidence, knowing that at the end of our day, when the sun sets on our lives, we will hear the master call each of us forward to receive our eternal reward. And what we will receive in the life to come will be more than enough.

Forgiveness is Medicine

 

Based on Matthew 18:21-35

             This week concludes a series of teachings from Matthew 18, Jesus’ instructions he gave his disciples about how to relate with each other in community. For Matthew’s church, as well as our own, we have for us wise and helpful instructions on how to maintain a healthy community. Like any relationship, it takes work and intentionality to keep relationships strong and healthy. What a gift that we have these guidelines from the scriptures that give us a tangible process of how to keep our relationships healthy but also a reminder of the necessary values that undergird healthy relationships in community.

            Before jumping into this week’s scripture, let’s have a quick reminder of last week’s teaching on how to hold church members accountable when they do something offensive. We recall that three step process, moving to the next level if the person who committed the offense refuses to listen. If, after the three levels of accountability demonstrate the offender won’t listen to anyone, then the relationship with the community shifts. They are no longer like family and are now to be treated like an outsider, like a tax collector or Gentile. And, as we recalled how Jesus was often criticized for eating with Gentiles and tax collectors, this means when someone leaves the church that doesn’t mean we break off relationship. The other part of last week’s teaching that is critical to keep in mind is that for this process of accountability to work there have to be some values in place. We have to love each other like family. If someone is like a brother or sister to you, that means you trust them, respect them, want what is best for them, are invested in their growth. These values have to be in place before we can have the courage and take the responsibility to hold each other accountable. If we lack these values then healthy accountability can’t happen. We either won’t care about holding each other accountable or we will fragment as a community and fall apart.

            Today, we add one more value necessary for healthy community life. It is the value of forgiveness. As family, who love, trust and respect one another, we must forgive each other when we mess up. Holding on to grudges, withholding forgiveness, is like acid that eats away at the bonds of love that hold us together. It is so important in order to keep relationships strong that forgiveness take place. We are going to talk about forgiveness this morning.

            Peter sets this teaching up by asking Jesus a question as he wraps up his instruction on how to deal with conflict in the church. Peter wants to know how often we are to forgive someone. Why Peter suggests seven times as the possible limit we don’t know. But we can guess that Peter is attempting to sound generous, that forgiving one person seven times goes beyond what can be expected. This question Peter asks is also found in Luke 17:4 but there is a glaring difference between these two versions. In Luke 17:4 Jesus is teaching about forgiveness. He says, “If the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.” The big difference in this teaching in Luke and Peter’s question in Matthew is that when Peter asks the question he says nothing about the offender saying “I repent.” Maybe Peter implied that, but I think it is significant that this is left out.

            Do you remember last week I pointed out that when an offender is pulled off to the side to be talked to privately, all the offender has to do is listen? They don’t have to ask for forgiveness. They don’t even have to agree they did anything wrong. All they have to do is listen. Listening is not the same thing as agreeing. If you trust, respect and love one another however you will listen to each other, and that is the most important thing when dealing with conflict. What about forgiveness? Peter presents the question without specifically asking if the person who offended has to first ask to be forgiven. Jesus goes on to say that we are to forgive the person not up to seven times but seventy-seven times. Actually, it is limitless. As Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 13, love keeps no record of wrongs. People who love one another don’t keep track of how many times they forgive the person they love. That’s kind of silly, honestly. But I think the most important point is that forgiveness is to be offered whether the offender asks for it or not. The following parable underscores this point.

            We go to this parable of the two servants. Both servants are being held accountable for the debt they owed. Notice that both of them ask for patience as they attempt to pay off the debt. Neither of them asked to have their debt forgiven. That’s an important point that underscores that whole process of accountability we talked about last week. The king out of pity forgave the first servant the debt that he could never pay. He could not. It was an unrealistic amount he owed. For perspective, it would take a common laborer fifteen years to earn one talent. To earn 10,000 talents would take one person 150,000 years. This is a ridiculous number meant to make the point that there was absolutely no way this servant could repay that debt. Even if the king did sell him and his family into slavery as well as all his possessions, that would barely make a dent in this massive debt. Yet, the servant asks for patience, knowing full well he would never be able to pay it back. So, the king forgives the whole debt. What an amazing act of generosity. And, again, the forgiveness was offered out of pity, not because the debtor asked for the debt to be forgiven.

            Then, being mindful of the incredible amount of debt that this servant had been forgiven, we are shocked when he fails to forgive the debt a fellow servant owed him. One day of common labor equaled one denarius in payment. This servant owed 100 denarii. It is still a significant amount but payable. They could work something out, some kind of payment plan. It would take time but that debt could be repaid. It is nothing in comparison to 10,000 talents of debt. Yet, the servant throws the fellow servant into debtor’s prison until the whole debt is paid. He had the right to do that. But wow, that was pretty harsh, especially when you consider how much he had been forgiven.

            And that is the core point of the story, which is underscored in verse 35, the moral of the story, where Jesus says that we are to forgive each other from the heart. I think forgiveness from the heart means the forgiveness is sincere. But I also think Jesus says it has to be from the heart because when forgiveness is withheld, that’s where the corrosive acid of unforgiveness does its work, on our hearts. I am convinced that forgiveness is critical medicine to heal the hurt inflicted on our hearts when we have been hurt by someone else. That’s why it doesn’t even matter that much if the offender asks to be forgiven first or even acknowledges they did something wrong. It’s not really about them. Forgiveness is necessary for our own healing. That’s why it is to be offered regardless and as many times as needed.

            A spirit of forgiveness is a necessary value for the health of a community. Forgiveness is medicine. It helps to heal the hurt in our hearts. It helps to heal the relational bonds that hold a family together. A community in which forgiveness is not freely offered is a community quickly headed for destruction because unforgiveness will absolutely obliterate a community. For our own heart health and for the health of the community as a whole, forgiveness must be offered to those who mess up.

            But there is one thing so important to keep in mind. Forgiveness is not the same as permissiveness. I could see how this parable of the two servants can give the impression that forgiveness means letting someone off the hook. The first servant got his massive debt forgiven. He didn’t have to pay it. Here’s the problem. If forgiveness means a “get out of jail free” card, then people can get the attitude that they can do whatever they want to each other and there won’t be any consequence because they will be forgiven. That’s not the kind of forgiveness that Jesus is talking about. I mean, it is true that when a debt is forgiven that you don’t have to pay it back. But when we forgive each other from the heart this has to do with heart healing and with keeping relational bonds strong.

            What I am trying to say is that we can forgive someone and hold them accountable for what they did. If someone offends you, you want to forgive that person from the heart as Jesus directs, but you also want to pull them aside privately and talk about what they did, which also Jesus directs. Forgiveness does not short circuit the accountability process. In fact, forgiveness is the lubricant that helps make the process work. Accountability without forgiveness can quickly lead to bitterness. Healthy accountability requires forgiveness.

            Please hear me, I am not saying this is easy. I’m not going to start naming examples of how people hurt each other in ways that makes forgiveness hard, if not impossible. Each situation is different and the intensity of the pain or betrayal can vary. Some people are not as easily offended as others. Some people have an unbelievable capacity to forgive while others struggle with forgiving others their whole lives. Sometimes we are in a good head space and we are able to forgive easily while other times when we are tired or stressed forgiveness is much harder to achieve. Sometimes forgiving someone is easy and sometimes it’s hard. Forgiving one person over and over for the same thing gets frustrating. Still, forgiveness is the medicine for healing. We offer forgiveness to those who sin against us, not only because of that line in the Lord’s Prayer, “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” but because forgiveness is necessary for our own healing. It is a process. It can take time. And some offenses are so great, the hurt so deep, that forgiveness just isn’t going to happen. Withholding forgiveness, however, should be the exception and not the rule, unless we are bound and determined to have a bitter heart, weigh ourselves down with grudges, and rip apart the ties that bind us together. I for one have no desire to be a part of a community where forgiveness is not freely offered, even as I am held accountable for the times I screw up.

            I think this parable also gives us some insight into what can help us be more forgiving. The first servant was forgiven a lot. It was an incredible act of mercy given to him. Anyone who has been under the weight of debt who has had that weight lifted knows what it feels like. If we consider how often God forgives us for the ways we fall short, the ways we offend God by our actions or inactions, the things we say or fail to say, I mean, I’m pretty sure that God is regularly forgiving me for things I didn’t even know I did. That’s often the case in our relationships. How many times have you offended someone and didn’t even know you did it? How many times has someone hurt you and they seem completely oblivious to what they did? Yet God forgives us. We recall how Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sake of the sins of the whole world for all time. All sin has been covered by the blood of the Lamb. The incalculable amount of sin each of us have committed and will commit in the future has already been covered by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. In Christ we are forgiven. To the extent that we can marvel at and deeply appreciate how much we have been forgiven, the grace that has been given to us by God’s mercy, the easier it is to forgive others, whom God has already forgiven. Easier, I said. I haven’t even talked about the struggle of forgiving ourselves. That would be a whole other sermon. I just want to end it here by reminding us again of the values needed for healthy community life which we find in Matthew 18. The values that maintain healthy community are familial love, loving each other as brothers and sisters, the values of trust and respect for each other, and the value of forgiveness. Love, trust, respect, forgiveness: these are the values that undergird a healthy practice of accountability, that provides healing to our wounded hearts, and that keeps a church together.

 

Community Values

 

Based on Matthew 18:15-20

            This pandemic we are enduring has reminded us how precious it is to be physically together. Talking to each other through screens is not the same. We miss being together. Thankfully, we are doing better as a community to slow the spread. There have been some upticks in some places. But we are definitely not seeing our hospitals overrun. We are starting to come back together, slowly and responsibly re-establishing community life. We are still staying physically separated, still wearing masks, still limiting the size of groups that can gather. But at least we are increasingly getting physically gathered and that is a good thing. For our health we need socialization. This is a positive thing that our diligence over these six months is making possible.

            As we are re-establishing community life, it is like we are getting a chance to start fresh. We are being mindful about how we gather and do life together as a community. For sure that means how we engage with each other to minimize the spread of viruses of any kind, especially as we think of flu season right around the corner. But also, we can be thinking about what we value about being in community and letting those values guide how we live together in relationship. What is the value of being together?

            The scripture reading for today is a brief five verses that provide concise instruction on how to manage conflict in a community. These instructions are grounded in a few values that Matthew’s community held, values that we can apply in the communities we belong to, not just our church family but all the communities we belong to, work, social groups, whatever. Let’s take a look at these instructions and see what we can glean from them to help us intentionally re-start our life together in community.

            First, let’s state the obvious…we sometimes offend each other. As we start socializing again, this increases the odds that one of us will say something or do something, intentional or unintentional, that rubs someone the wrong way. That’s just what happens. For a community to be healthy, conflict has to be addressed in a healthy way. The values we hold as a community can go a long way in guiding us in the work of addressing conflict in positive ways.

            See how in verse 15 a literal translation would be, “if a brother sins against you…”. This is family language. We are not talking about strangers offending you, but people you consider to be your brother or sister. The relationship is one of kinship. The community that Matthew is writing to, his church, is conceived of as like family. We have people in our life who are not blood relation but are like family to us.

            What makes someone family who is not related to you by blood or marriage? It is someone you have a significant relationship with. You love each other, respect and trust each other. Someone who is like a brother or sister to you is someone who you are committed to, someone you want the best for, someone you are invested in and want to help them grow. You are going to be with them through the hard times, call them to task when they mess up, encourage and give advice and support. From the beginning of these instructions Jesus gives, it is inferred that the relationships in the church is one of family. It seems to me that before this process in Matthew 18 can even work, these baseline values have to be in place. The community has to be one of mutual trust, respect, and love for each other. If those values are wavering or absent, then this process of accountability isn’t going to work.

            Notice that the one who has been offended has to take responsibility to speak up for themselves. They have to talk directly to the person that offended them. Not go complain to someone else, not suck it up and internalize the hurt, not become passive aggressive or ghost the person that offended you. If someone has hurt you, offended you, sinned against you as the scriptures say, you have to take the initiative to talk to the person that offended you and not wait for that person to come to you. It is likely that the person that offended you didn’t even know they did anything wrong. Unintentional offense happens all the time. Do you see why trusting and respecting each other is necessary before doing such a thing? It seems to me that before you can tell someone that they have offended you there needs to be some level of trust that the person will listen to you. There has to be some level of respect. If you don’t respect someone, why would you care what they do to you? Why bother? But if you respect someone and they do something that you know is out of character, and you want what’s best for them, it is that love and respect that prompts you to pull them aside and talk about it.

            Now see how the accountability starts small and only expands as necessary. You start by pulling the person aside privately to have a word. Discretion is the value here. You want to save the person from embarrassment. You don’t want to call them out in front of everyone because that can be hurtful. Instead, you want to call the person in where the two of you can talk about it, try to understand each other and grow. This is taking the offensive or hurtful experience and doing something positive with it, to let it be an opportunity to grow but also to strengthen the bond of trust and respect. Talking to the person who offended you privately strengthens the values that hold the community together as a family. Just having the private conversation is good.

            We are instructed that all the offender has to do is listen. That’s a low bar. They don’t have to admit they did something wrong. They don’t have to ask for forgiveness. They don’t have to agree with you at all. All they have to do, according to Matthew 18:15, is listen to you. Remember, listening is not the same as agreeing. I don’t think Kim and I are the only couple that have had this kind of argument. I have a certain way of doing certain chores. Kim has a better and more efficient way of doing things. Sometimes she will suggest to me how I should do it. But I keep on doing it the way I do it. She will say, “You’re not listening to me.” And I say in response, “No, I heard you, but that’s not what I’m going to do.” Listening and agreeing are not the same thing. What we are being instructed here is that the offender only has to be willing to listen to the person who has been offended. Now, obviously if there is already mutual trust and respect for each other, the offender will acknowledge the hurt and, even if they still think they haven’t done anything wrong or have been misunderstood they will at least acknowledge the offense and ask for forgiveness. There have been a few times where something I have said in one of my messages has caused people to be offended. In fact, one time I got a phone call from a parishioner one Sunday afternoon telling me how offended he was about something I said and his expectation that I wouldn’t say such things again. It was something I said about racism. I knew that what I had said may be offensive but it was truth. But I acknowledged he was offended even though I could not promise him that I wouldn’t offend him in the future. Listening and agreeing are not the same thing.

            But let’s say the person who offended you won’t even listen to you. They wave you off. Then you take one or two others with you and set up a meeting so you can talk it out with a neutral party. And if they still blow everyone off, then you take it to the church. And by that point, if the person won’t even listen to the church, then they have already essentially exited themselves from the community. It is clear that they have lost trust and respect for the community. So, you let them go. They are no longer your brother or sister. It’s just naming the reality of how the relationship has changed.

            So, if someone exits themselves from the community, then the church re-identifies them as like a Gentile or tax collector instead of like a brother or sister. That means the church relates to them differently. The relationship is not cut off, it is changed. What does that new relationship look like? Jesus gave the example for them. One of the critiques leveled against Jesus was that he ate with tax collectors and Gentile sinners. So, looks to me like when someone exits themselves from the church then the church treats them like tax collectors and Gentiles by breaking bread together. If that person that offended you has lost your trust and respect and has walked away from the church, reach out every now and then and see if the two of you could get together for coffee. In other words, keep the line of communication open, or, as Jesus talks about in vv. 10-14, take on the role of the shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine to go after the one sheep who went astray. The principle is that although the relationship has changed, the person is no longer like a brother or sister to you, that doesn’t mean that you have to walk away from them. Grab a coffee, have lunch, keep the conversation light, just hang out. Don’t burn bridges. That’s the principle underlying this teaching.

            Is this instruction we receive from Jesus and passed along by Matthew idealistic? You bet. But we need ideals so we know what to aim for. These directions on how to deal with conflict, and the values and principles that undergird these instructions, give us an ideal for us to strive to create in our communities, whether it be the church, our family we live with, our social circles, whatever relations we have that are like family to us. These aren’t instructions for society at large. It is meant for those smaller, more intimate communities we belong to. We are challenged to do the work of relationship building, to address conflict in ways that seek to keep each other in the family, even as we keep the circle open as we socialize with others who aren’t yet family and see if we can’t bring others in or bring people back in. As we all start the process of re-starting our in-person relationships, I hope we all keep these values in mind and let them guide how we go about renewing our communities of family.