That We All May Be One

I suspect that one of the reasons I got interested in ecumenism, and the relationship between churches, is that I have something of an ecumenical past. I grew up in what some would describe as a “fundamentalist” denomination. It was a Christian tradition which majored in judgment!

We stood in fear of God’s judgment, we feared the judgment of other people, and yet we were just about as likely to judge others as unworthy as we felt ourselves to be! And while lots of people still live in that kind of religious world today, more of us have exited that form of Christianity and sought out a more “generous orthodoxy.”

My family and I spent some time in the Presbyterian and Methodist churches before a next door neighbor, who figured out that we were searching, invited us to attend their Episcopal Church and we never looked back! We fell in love with the liturgy and the sacraments, with the kind of pastoral care we received, and perhaps above all else, the kind of common sense and non-judgmental preaching we heard from that pulpit.

For myself, I have no doubt that was the right decision. But there is a danger here of a kind of “flabby” Christianity! The kind of Christianity which views God as a kindly old favorite uncle who makes no demands, is easily persuaded to wink at our transgressions, and – as a matter of fact – does not take what we do or do not do very seriously at all!

Today’s Lessons challenge both of those inadequate expressions of Christianity. Our First Reading from Isaiah makes it perfectly clear that God does take what we do seriously and that God will be the ultimate judge of all our actions. “Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers who rule this people in Jerusalem,” the prophet thunders, “…See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone…a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation…And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plummet…for I have heard a decree of destruction from the Lord God of hosts upon the whole land.”

It’s worth noting that God’s anger here is directed against the civil leaders in Jerusalem. Instead of trusting in God to deliver them, they’ve made alliances with Egypt, and sought out foreign military aid against the threatening Assyrians. God is displeased with their faithlessness and the futility of their “homeland security measures”. And so Isaiah warns of the fall of Jerusalem.  

Lest we think that it is only the Old Testament “God of wrath” who is concerned about judgment, the Gospel reading today has some hard sayings from Jesus as well! When he is asked, “Lord, will only a few be saved?” he replies, “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able.” And then we hear those frightening words about “…Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out!”

Again, we need to remember, Jesus is talking about a specific set of people here: the religiously “pious”! He’s talking about those who are so sure they are the righteous ones and everyone else is going to hell in a hand basket! We know that because he concludes, “Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God.  Indeed some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”  Once again, it’s the “little ones” who can be assured of God’s grace here – the lost and the lonely…the last and the least! 

So, God will judge the unrighteous and the unjust of this world. God has made us the stewards of creation and it does matter how we carry out that stewardship. But that doesn’t mean that we need to cower in fear like Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God!” Rather, we can be comforted by what I’ve always believed to be among the most beautiful passages in the entire New Testament, our Second Lesson today from Hebrews:  

“You have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest…But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…” (from Hebrews 12:18-19, 22-24)

The author is hardly holding up a vision of that permissive “favorite uncle” God I spoke of earlier! No, we do indeed stand before the living God and heavenly Jerusalem, before innumerable angels in festal gathering…and before God…the judge of all!

But we stand there surrounded by the communion of saints – in the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven…the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and…We stand in the presence of Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant… 

Because of his life, death, and resurrection and because of our baptism into that life, death and resurrection, we have learned to trust that – one day – people will indeed come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God.  Our deeds will be taken seriously and judgment is inevitable. But the life of Jesus teaches us that God’s judgment is always tempered by mercy!

Our motivation for doing “good deeds” is not to earn God’s love and forgiveness. We already have that! Our motivation for doing good is gratitude! We are so grateful that we have been given God’s love and the gift of eternal life that we want to live the kind of life God wants us to live! We don’t do good in order to be saved; we do good in thanksgiving for the fact that we’ve already been saved!

 We already sit at God’s table. Today, we eat and drink in the kingdom of God! Today, we who really are last…are welcomed as among the first! Today, the words of the Psalmist are fulfilled in this place:

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.

Therefore we will not fear, though the earth be moved,

And though the mountains be toppled into the depths of the sea;

Though its waters rage and foam, and though the mountains tremble at its tumult.

The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge!

There is a good bit of discussion and debate today in “emergent church” circles about the Atonement – the doctrine(s) which try explain what Jesus’ death on the cross has to do with our salvation.

Emergent church is not really a church, but a movement, largely of young people, who consider themselves “post liberal” and “post evangelical” and who are trying to articulate the Christian faith for their peers in this “post modern” world. Predictably, they are finding themselves having to re-address or even redefine classical Christian doctrines for themselves (as perhaps every generation does to a greater or lesser degree).

Among the many theories of the Atonement, three have achieved the most prominence historically. The “substitutionary” theory proposes that Jesus died in our place. We deserve death because of our sins and a just God will not allow that debt to go unpaid, so Jesus came to take upon himself that punishment so that we would not have to suffer it. Many people today find this a harsh and intolerable explanation.

The “moral influence” theory proposes that Jesus came as an example for us. He taught us how to live a good life. If we do that, and confess our sins when we do fall short, we overcome sin and the death which is its consequence. Many people find this theory weak and unsatisfactory.

The “Christus victor” theory sees Jesus as engaging in a great cosmic battle with the Evil One, winning the victory by his life, death and resurrection and therefore liberating all humankind from the bondage of sin and death. Many people find this theory just simply unintelligible and bereft of the kind of rational categories understandable to modern (or post modern) people.

Most theologians agree that no one theory is adequate, that each of the three (and other theories) attempt to explain and flesh out the biblical witness and that a number of theories must simply be held in tension as we seek to understand yet another mystery of the Christian faith which may be beyond our ability to articulate adequately.

My own approach comes from the fact that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.” Because Jesus was the very incarnation (“enfleshment”) of God, it is not  adequate to view God as punishing his innocent son on our behalf. (The caricature of this is sometimes called “cosmic child abuse!”). Rather, God took upon himself, in the incarnation, the full consequences of sin and death.

Because God loves us so much, he was willing to undergo – in the Person of the Son – everything you and I will have to undergo, including identifying with our sin and undergoing death itself, sin’s logical consequence. Therefore, when we cry out to our God we cry out to One who, not only understands us from afar, but who has “been there.”

This effects the “at-one-ment” with God lost so long ago in the mists of human history and the reconciliation with God which leads to abundant life here and eternal life in the hereafter. This is admittedly a somewhat subjective and experiential theory, but at least deserves, in my view, to be held together with the others in a kind of “quiver” of the various approaches to this central mystery of the Christian faith.

In the final analysis, I appreciate Bishop Tom Wright’s observation that “on the night before he died Jesus did not give us a theory; he gave us a meal.” It is in sharing that meal that we perhaps best understand and experience “atonement!”          

“The Context of our Journey” was the theme of the (Faith and Order) conference’s third day and included an evaluation of Faith and Order’s work over these fifty years by Byzantine Catholic priest, Joseph Loya and Pentecostal scholar Mel Robeck of Fuller Seminary. The afternoon included three brilliant presentations on Faith and Order in a post-modern world by Pacific Island Methodist Jione Havea, Orthodox scholar Aristotle Papanikolaou, and Lutheran theologian Michael Root, each representing the best of their traditions. This rich day concluded with a panel addressing “Faith and Order in the Context of Religious Plurality.”

After various offerings of confessional and inter-confessional services of worship on and around the campus of Oberlin College, Methodist theologian Sarah Lancaster, Episcopal ecumenist Bishop Christopher Epting, Evangelical leader Dr. Kevin Mannoia, and Monsignor John A. Radano from the Vatican identified continuing issues facing ecumenism today. Balancing new demands of the many ecumenical “success” stories already achieved with work yet to be done, facing new issues such as human sexuality, welcoming the entry of evangelicals and Pentecostals into the movement, and managing divisions within and among the churches were among the issues mentioned.

The conference reached its conclusion on the last night with a panel moderated by Church of England scholar Dr. Mary Tanner, summarizing the learning and experiences of a sampling of participants. Dr. James Forbes, retired pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City preached at a celebrative evening service in Finney Chapel.

The final morning sent the conferees on their way with a series of practical workshops on state and local ecumenism, higher education, bilateral and multilateral dialogues, and an analysis of the NCC Faith and Order study on Full Communion. A challenge and remaining question for Dr. Thomas Ferguson, associate deputy for ecumenical and interfaith relations for the Episcopal Church, is whether venerable institutions like the NCC and the Faith and Order Movement can be flexible enough to make room for the new voices and perspectives of the younger ecumenists present in such numbers at this gathering. The future (and present) depends on it.