Our worship series on Christian Missions raises many of these same questions for me. How do we love a hurting world?

Transcription

1 Intervention: Families force addicts to choose between treatment or exile and isolation. ( That sounds pretty dramatic, as you might expect from a reality TV show. I haven t watched Intervention much myself, but it s been around for fifteen years so I ve seen it occasionally. The show tells the stories of addicts of all kinds most often drugs and alcohol, but also sex, shopping, eating disorders, the whole range. The family and friends of the addict have seen their life spiral downward, to the point where they feel they have to do something, anything. So the interventionist specialist is called in to help the family set up a meeting, typically a showdown of high drama where everyone surrounds the addict, tells them how much they are loved and speaks honestly about the harm their addiction is doing to themselves and everyone else. And then they re given a choice, usually to go into rehab and counselling and all of that, or else. The or else is difficult if you don t go into treatment then we re going to have to cut you off financially, or we re going to turn you in to the police, or I m going to end this marriage or take custody of your children. This is serious stuff, and although there are some issues around this as entertainment, it s compelling drama. It raises all kinds of questions for me, about the nature of addiction, about family dynamics and the impact of environment to create and enable dysfunction, and especially about what it means to really love someone. If someone you love is hurting, hurting themselves and others, and are unwilling to change, what does love look like? Speaking hard truths? Ultimatums? Unconditional support? Our worship series on Christian Missions raises many of these same questions for me. How do we love a hurting world? Intervention is one way of thinking about missions. It s obvious that the world we live in is hurting and broken, I don t need to convince you of that. Internationally, nationally, locally, among us and in our families. People are hurting and hurting each other. And we can t seem to make it stop. We need an intervention.

2 Classic Christian theology says that only God can bring that change, that sin or Satan or selfishness or pride or ignorance or all of the above have us in a firm grip that only God can break. Classic theology of Missions says that God has called the Church to be the interventionists. We are the medium, the messengers, the means by which God is changing the world. That s one way of thinking about Missions: God saving the world through the Church. Last week, I suggested that this kind of Missions is just part of the work that God does. My main point last week was that all of this is God s work. So growing a garden has just as much Divine potential as serving communion. Singing happy birthday at a 3-year-old s birthday party can be just as Holy as singing 606 in room full of Mennonites. Sitting quietly with a friend who is grieving is an act of God, whether or not God ever comes up. All of this has value in itself, because it is God s work being carried out by people made in God s image.

3 Last Sunday my sermon was titled So what s a Christian to do? To answer that directly, I think we do all of it. Live fully, participating in the good work of God in every part of life. As we closed the service last week with the words of Colossians 3:17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Today, the question is about how do we do this work of God in the world. What does it look like to do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, to love in the way that Jesus loves? To answer that, we need to get at a little bit of basic theology in a Christian worldview. Theological Anthropology is the technical term, if you re looking for academic credit for your participation. The Christian understanding of Human Beings. Most Christian theology sorts people into to two categories: There are lots of biblical and theological words to describe these two groups or states... The classic Christian understanding is that we all start over here in the sinner category, and as we become followers of Jesus we move into this saved category and there s lots of discussion about how that happens exactly I m not going to sort all of that out. Throughout Christian history, there have been a number of different ways to work out the relationship between these two categories.

4 One is to draw a thick line between them, and even to pit them in opposition to each other. Do not be conformed to this world, writes Paul (Romans 12), but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. True religion, says James (James 1), is to care for orphans and widows and to keep yourself from being polluted by the world. The early church in the first three centuries after Jesus maintained this view of a clear distinction, which makes sense when the authorities of The World were trying to kill and end The Church. Under similar circumstances, our Anabaptist ancestors crafted the Schlietheim Confession in 1527: IV. We are agreed (as follows) on separation: This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who (have come) out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other. A slightly more nuanced way of looking at this is option B, the in the world but not of the world perspective. While that phrase is used often enough that it might seem like a direct quote from Scripture, the closest thing is Jesus prayer in John 17 (speaking about Jesus followers) I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. This perspective softens the boundaries, to an extent. As the Church, we live in the world, we maintain relationships and do business and participate in culture. But we see ourselves differently, we have a different center and purpose and orientation. While very much integrated with the world on the exterior, we maintain a strict internal distinction. And of course there is a whole range of beliefs and practices within that perspective.

5 A third way that I see is what I ll call the Church Incarnate. The Incarnation of Jesus, God-made-flesh, draws these two categories really close together. In order to make sense of Jesus, his followers had to see him in both columns, at least a little bit. Jesus was/is eternal, holy, perfect, fully God. And yet, he was/is also fully human, he lived in the flesh, he died if temporarily, and he even took sin and guilt on himself if only for a moment. And even though that makes us uncomfortable and pushes the boundaries of logic, Christian theology is rooted in holding those two together, fully God and fully human. This idea of the Church Incarnate extends that stubborn blurring of the lines to Jesus followers as well. It recognizes that we are both mortal and eternal, we are both holy and yet also sinful, and that we really have one foot in both worlds, that we live in the world and that even though we are followers of Jesus, the world also lives in us. There s a whole lot more I could say about this To bring it back to our theme of Missions, our understanding of these categories is significant because it defines our purpose and intent. Worldviews A and B call for an outlook of Influence: the church s role and calling is to change the world. God is changing the world redeeming, renewing, saving and the Church is God s instrument. So in A, at least part of the motivation for separating from the world is to be the City on a Hill, shining the pure light of God so that the world might see it and be changed. And in B, the reason for engaging in the world is to shape it, to be the salt that preserves and brings out flavor and goodness, and especially to make relationships that will draw people from the unsaved column to the saved column. I see both A and B as following the Intervention model of missions. At its best, they create change by speaking the truth in love, by confronting the world with its addictions and harmful behaviour, and by pointing out firm boundaries and consequences if there is not change.

6 For the worldview of the Church Incarnate, change is important, but not the primary objective. The primary objective of Incarnation is Presence. John chapter 1 describes that of Jesus: The Word (Jesus) became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the fullness of God, full of grace and truth No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, the true heart of God, who has made him known. Jesus did change the world, and so too his followers changed the world. But the change came through the Presence of God, and the Presence of God remained even when there was no change. That s what the Easter story is all about here I am, here s the best way to live, but even if you don t see or understand or choose to follow, I m still here. You can resist, you can run away, you can hurt me, you can even kill me, but I m still here. Change or don t change, God s love will never leave us, nothing can separate us from the Love of God in Christ Jesus. The Incarnation is its own good, regardless of outcomes. The Church Incarnate is rooted in that belief, that what we need most all of us, both The Church and The World is God s Presence. Not that the all of us don t need to change, because we certainly do, but that Presence is more important. Here s the thing about influence and presence. If you aim at influence, you will lose the opportunity for presence. But if you aim at presence, you will gain the opportunity for influence. - Trevor Hamaker, varsityfaith.com Approaching a relationship with the intent to change someone changes the relationship. It creates an agenda, an imbalance of power if you don t do what I

7 want, then I might leave. That s not always unhealthy, we live with those expectations all the time, with professionals like teachers, traffic cops, etc. Some relationships are based on change, based on authority. But what if that authority is rejected? What if the intervention doesn t work? You have to up the ante of forcefulness to create the desired change, and the relationship is strained. How many of you feel love and gratitude towards the police when you get a speeding ticket? They are only looking out for your best interests, after all Committing to presence isn t always as effective at creating change, but it puts the relationship first. And relationships are powerful agents of change. The Church Incarnate worldview uses relationships to create change, but again it s the relationship itself that matters, whether or not the change comes. Some examples of what that could look like. Genesis 26 tells the story of Isaac, son of Abraham. As a nomad, he moved around a lot. One time, Isaac moved into a new area and opened up a well that his father had dug, to provide water for his flocks. No sooner had the water begun to flow, when other residents of the area moved in. Uh, this is our land, we were here first, so that means this is our well. Thanks for the water, but you need to move on now. So Isaac did. He moved his family and his herds over a few klicks and tried again, digging a new well. Again, the neighbours showed up and claimed the well. Again, Isaac moved on, and dug a third well. This time, the neighbours left him alone, and Isaac named the well Rehobeth flourishing because there was enough room and water for all to flourish. He could have argued the legitimacy of his claim it was his father s land and well originally anyway. He could have put up a fight, tried to buy them off, to change their minds. But instead, he flexed, he moved until there was a solution that worked for everyone, preserving the relationship instead of controlling the outcome. Another story. In 1868, in the native territory now known as the state of Oklahoma, the Seventh Cavalry of the US Army attacked a tribe of Cheyenne men, women, and children, and massacred them.

8 100 years later, as US military folks like to do, there was a re-enactment of this military victory in the town, now known as Cheyenne, OK. The Grandsons of the Seventh Cavalry showed up en masse to re-enact the battle. in full uniform and horses and gunfire (blanks, but still). That same day, the descendants of the Cheyenne tribe were also there, holding a tribal ritual of remembrance and burial for the remains of those slaughtered there. Their sacred ritual was interrupted by the sights and sounds of the re-enactment, full uniforms and charging horses and gunfire (blanks, but still) and battle songs, celebrating this traumatic thing that they were mourning. Part of the Cheyenne s burial ritual involved presenting a new blanket to a guest of honour. The tribal chiefs got together and decided to invite the Grandsons of the Seventh Cavalry to join them, and they called their honorary captain to the front. There, they presented him with the blanket of peace, putting it on his shoulders, over his uniform and gun with fixed bayonet. The captain was stunned by the gift. He removed his pin celebrating the victory and pledged that the Cheyenne would never again have to hear the battle song of the Seventh Cavalry. The Cheyenne chose the path of active presence. They could have sued for damages, they could have protested or disrupted the re-enactment. They could have avoided the whole thing, changed their date or simply kept their rituals to themselves as a private ceremony. Instead, they brought their enemies into their midst and gave them a gift, honor that they did not deserve. This free gift was not dependent on any particular outcome, and so it did bring about an incredible change of heart. One more example. In Colorado, there is a church pastored by Nadia Bolz Weber called the House For All Sinners and Saints. This congregation embodies the Church Incarnate approach, accepting people as they are and including them in the life of the church even when it makes the church uncomfortable. And they bless their community in the same way, as an active presence. One of my favourite examples of this is their Thanksgiving Dinner tradition. They gather at the church, and prepare all of the traditional turkey-day foods into bag lunches. Turkey sandwiches, stuffing balls, pumpkin cookies, the works. Then they go around their neighbourhood to find people that have to work on

9 Thanksgiving gas stations, city workers, whoever. And they give them a lunch, with the note that it stinks that you have to work on Thanksgiving! We appreciate the work that you re doing! And that s it, just a simple way to bring the spirit of Thanksgiving to people who might not be feeling it at work that day. Those are some examples of incarnation, of choosing active presence with no agenda of influence. Will those things change the world? Maybe, maybe not. What they do is honour the people that are made in God s image. They are genuine relationships with no preconceived agendas. They don t treat people like sinners, they treat people like saints. The way that God treats us. Obviously I m pretty convinced that the Incarnational Presence of being the Church Incarnate is the way to go. But all three of these are faithful options within the Christian tradition, and they all have their merits. Maybe there is a time for Intervention, when we have to push people to change, when we have to give ultimatums and walk away. As individuals, I think there definitely are situations of abuse and harm where ending the relationship is the best thing. But together, as the church, I don t think we ever walk away from anyone completely. I certainly don t think that God ever walks away from us. As we consider missions, we begin with this spirit of love that never ends. Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.