This is a first, a sermon derived from a blog entry! It also owes a lot to the work of Morna Hooker, and is on the theme of Inclusion. The readings were Romans 11 and Matthew 15, 10-28
I watched "Make me a Christian" on channel 4 last Sunday night. It was quite good viewing but raised a number of concerns for me too.It's like a cross between "the Monastery", Big Brother, and Supernanny. The idea is that a motley selection of people of all ages and social backgrounds are mentored by a group of Christian ministers as they attempt to live a Christian life for three weeks.All the Biblical input was fine; the starting point was "God loves you, no matter what you've done".The mentors were then shown visiting some of the group in their homes to get to know them. This looked fairly innocuous to start with, but then the alarms went off because there was some pretty heavy insistence on change - removal of books and other items from houses and flats, and an enforced change in behaviour (in the case of a sexually promiscuous man).Now here's the rub; in real life, when dealing pastorally with someone new to the faith, you might want them to change certain things but (in my book) you wouldn't wade in quite so heavily, being instead a little more patient, loving and reliant on the power of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of the church, to transform the life of the disciple.In this show, though, the starting point is not a conversion to a living faith, but a TV camera driven decision to live by a set of rules; this is not the same thing. I don't think prayer got much of a mention last Sunday night, although Bible reading was high on the agenda.I guess the time constraints and what gets loosely referred to as “editorial control” have meant that things are hurried up, but in real life if I gave this kind of pastoral care to someone I wouldn't see them for dust! It may well be that this would be the case on the show were it not for the 15 minutes of fame that having cameras along will bring.What worries me most is that people like the participants - say "seekers" or whatever you want to call them, will watch this show and think that all ministers behave in this way towards their flocks. Nothing could be further from the truth from my perspective.Yet it wasn't that I disagreed with the aim - it was just the means that made me cross. In "Make me a Christian", what would be many church leaders' underlying personal beliefs and moral practices are dragged to the surface and put into practice jackboot style, for reasons of brevity and "to make good TV". We all wish things would move along faster, but it would be disastrous if we pushed them this hard in real life.Don't get me wrong, I do believe in the power of God to transform lives overnight, I just think that "Make me a Christian" is doing it the wrong way round and seems therefore to have shut God out of the process.
It is so important that we as churches find the right line between moral uprightness and a welcoming approach to outsiders.
And you’ll be glad to know it’s not a new problem; Paul agonised over the issue of the Jews in his epistle to the Romans.
In chapter 11.1-2a, 29-32 Paul spells out the problem that is so important to him. If the Jews have failed to respond to the gospel, does this mean that God has rejected his people? The fact that few Jews accepted the gospel was not only painful to Paul, but presented a theological problem: had God's promises failed, and was he unfaithful to his people? His readers might suppose that the fact that he, Paul, was preaching to Gentiles implied that God had abandoned Israel. Paul is adamant that this is not so; it is not God who is unfaithful, but Israel.
Moreover, there are still some Jews who have responded – Paul himself, for example! But he is not alone. His words echo those of Elijah, whose story is spelt out in verses 2b-4. A remnant has been chosen to be faithful.
Talk of a remnant might suggest a scaling-down of God's promises: never mind the many – a few, at least, will be saved. For Paul, however, the remnant is a promise of something greater. To me this is a great encouragement for the small church.
Israel's fall has led to salvation for the Gentiles (v. 11); the branches cut out of the olive tree can (contrary to normal horticultural practice!) be grafted in again (vv. 17- 24). God has hardened Israel for a purpose – to bring in the Gentiles – but that will bring Israel herself to repent. In the end, all Israel will be saved (v. 26).
So Paul ends triumphantly. Israel has not been rejected, for God is faithful to his words, and his gifts and calling are irrevocable. He is able to use even their disobedience for his purpose, so they are still in a mysterious way included in his plan.
Moving on to the gospel reading, Matthew 15 10-28 we can see that the theme of inclusion and welcome continues …Jesus' teaching in verses 10 to 20 arises from an incident described in verses 1 to 9, where some Pharisees object because Jesus' disciples do not wash their hands before eating. Their complaint had nothing to do with hygiene, but sprang from a concern about possible contamination of the hands by something regarded as 'unclean'. Jesus protests that the Pharisees are so concerned with their own strict interpretation of the law that they have lost sight of the law itself. He insists that what really defiles a person is the evil within him. The various forms of evil listed in verse 19 were all forbidden in the law. The declaration that, 'to eat with unwashed hands does not defile', accords with the law.
So far, then, Jesus is presented as orthodox. But how would Matthew's community have understood the saying in verse 10? Did it perhaps mean that it was permissible to eat foods that had been forbidden by the law? It is clear from Acts that this issue became an important one when Gentiles were converted.
Linked to this incident is the story of the Gentile woman who requests healing for her child. Jesus ignores her and the disciples want to get rid of her. Jesus understands his mission as to Israel alone (v. 24, cf. 10.5-6, 23), and refuses to help. 'Dogs' was a term typically used of Gentiles by Jews. Her answer outwits him, and he agrees to help her because of her remarkable faith. She has acknowledged him as 'Lord, Son of David', and persisted in the face of opposition: she is therefore allowed to share the children's bread.
The story would have been important for Matthew's community. Could Gentiles be included in the Church? Who do we include in our church?
In my ministry I have always sought to ensure that the boundary between “church” and “not church” is a blurry one, and so easier to cross. When new worshippers or just visitors come to us, how will we welcome them? I know I’m preaching to the converted when I assert that we would not as a first action make demands upon their moral lifestyle; it is God’s job to prompt people’s consciences; it is the church’s job to make sure they are listening to him and talking to him as an intimate friend and Lord.
The first step towards doing that is to do it ourselves; let us pray
