Every Member Ministry -- And Judgment?
Sermon
Here in England, despite being constantly told of the drop in church attendance, the Church continues to be headline news whenever there's the slightest hint of anything going wrong. So there are unedifying stories of vicars who have affairs with parishioners, or vicars embroiled in rows which split the church, or vicars acting so insensitively that the rest of the world gasps in horror.
It doesn't really matter what the story is, if there's the slightest hint of any scandal whatsoever in the Church, it seems people want to read about it.
Perhaps the greatest damage is inflicted by clergy who seem to think they have the right to judge other people. I remember some time ago and a long way from here, a vicar who decreed that the local village choir would no longer be allowed to practise in the village church because the choir leader had left his wife and taken up residence with another member of the choir.
The vicar thought his action might force the choirmaster and his wife back together again. Needless to say, all that happened was a huge upsurge in enmity and resentment between the village and the church, and a rift which continued for years. And the choir, to a man and a woman, stood solidly behind their leader.
There are many such stories, and few local communities have histories which are unruffled by clashes with the local church. The trouble is, the damage caused by just one such incident can go on for generations and take an enormous amount of hard work and prayer and patience to heal.
Yet in the Ordination Service, when people become deacons (the first stage towards priesthood), among other things they are all exhorted to: “search out the careless and indifferent.." (my italics). And the following year, when those deacons are ordained priest, they are further exhorted to: "..call their hearers to repentance.
According to today's reading from Matthew's gospel, it isn't just the priest who has those duties. The gospel says, "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
It sounds as though there were quite a number of problems in the early church, and Christians were expected to be very forthright and rather harsh on the matter of other people's sin. Which makes an odd contrast with so many of Jesus' injunctions to "judge not, that ye be not judged.." (Matthew 7:1)
In today's reading, Matthew puts these words of judgement about showing your brother his sin, into the mouth of Jesus, but a moment's reflection shows that Jesus couldn't possibly have spoken them, at least, not in this context.
It wasn't until after the crucifixion that bands of disciples began to meet together for worship, and even then they met as Jews, not as Christians. Followers of Jesus first became known as Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Prior to that they had been known as Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) and this continued to be their designation in Semitic languages. And it was another two generations before Christians considered themselves a separate "race" beside Jews and Gentiles (Early Christianity, edited by Ian Hazlett, page 66).
So Jesus knew nothing of the Church and couldn't possibly have set any rules of church order. Matthew's gospel must have been written after AD 70, when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, since Matthew 22:7 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.
The new Christian Church probably began to emerge as a church after AD 70, arising like the phoenix from the ashes of the Judaism which was destroyed when its central institution - the temple - was destroyed. In those early days the church was focused in the home and community, where Christians met together for worship (Early Christianity, page 29).
Once the Jesus Movement began to evolve into an institution which became known as the Church, rules and regulations became necessary, especially as the leader (Jesus) was no longer physically present. If the new church was to survive, its members had to be seen as exemplary in their behaviour, so Matthew's gospel sets out in minute detail the way in which disputes between church members should be settled. And scholars often refer to this whole section from Matthew 18 as the "church order" discourse.
But we don't live in the early days of Christianity. We live in a time when the Church has long been established and when even the law of the land is based on Christianity. So what do we do? Do we continue to base our behaviour on these words from Matthew's gospel and judge other people's sin both forthrightly and harshly, or do we follow words which are much more likely to come authentically from Jesus, and avoid all judgement of our neighbours?
Perhaps there needs to be a middle way. Jesus wasn't speaking in institutional terms, because when he was on earth there was no institution of the church for his followers. When he spoke of forgiveness he was speaking to them in personal terms.
Now there is an institution, and so it would seem obvious that somehow or other we must ensure good order within the Church. But at the same time, perhaps we need to be especially conscious of how easy it is to slip into self-righteousness and judge other people whilst remaining totally unaware of our own faults, and of especially our self-righteousness.
And we live in an age when public perception of the church appears to be at an all-time low ebb, so we need to do all we can to be sensitive to the needs and opinions and attitudes of those outside the church, without denying our own integrity.
How is it possible to perform this balancing act? And how do we know which issues are of first priority importance and must therefore always be upheld by the church, and which issues are less important or can be allowed to change, as public awareness changes?
The easy way is to leave it all to the church hierarchy, to the various synods and to the bishops and archdeacons to pronounce their judgements on behalf of us all. But there comes a time when we all have to decide for ourselves. It happened over the issue of women priests, and it will probably happen again over the issue of gay people within the church, especially gay priests.
Jesus taught that the most important rule of all is love. And that if you really love, everything else follows. Jesus loved so much he was able to heal, through that love. For us on the ground at the level of the local church, love must surely be the overriding factor in all our considerations.
Once we begin to love so much that we actually take the trouble to get to know and understand every person we meet and their circumstances, then judgement seems to disappear and tolerance and compassion and forgiveness take its place.
And once that happens, it begins to seem important to stand up and be counted on all sorts of issues which perhaps previously didn't much matter. And so issues of church order cease to be simply entertaining reports in the media, and become issues which matter. But the well-ordered church must be the church with ever-open doors, which stands up for its beliefs, but which is full of love and compassion and understanding and forgiveness.
It doesn't really matter what the story is, if there's the slightest hint of any scandal whatsoever in the Church, it seems people want to read about it.
Perhaps the greatest damage is inflicted by clergy who seem to think they have the right to judge other people. I remember some time ago and a long way from here, a vicar who decreed that the local village choir would no longer be allowed to practise in the village church because the choir leader had left his wife and taken up residence with another member of the choir.
The vicar thought his action might force the choirmaster and his wife back together again. Needless to say, all that happened was a huge upsurge in enmity and resentment between the village and the church, and a rift which continued for years. And the choir, to a man and a woman, stood solidly behind their leader.
There are many such stories, and few local communities have histories which are unruffled by clashes with the local church. The trouble is, the damage caused by just one such incident can go on for generations and take an enormous amount of hard work and prayer and patience to heal.
Yet in the Ordination Service, when people become deacons (the first stage towards priesthood), among other things they are all exhorted to: “search out the careless and indifferent.." (my italics). And the following year, when those deacons are ordained priest, they are further exhorted to: "..call their hearers to repentance.
According to today's reading from Matthew's gospel, it isn't just the priest who has those duties. The gospel says, "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
It sounds as though there were quite a number of problems in the early church, and Christians were expected to be very forthright and rather harsh on the matter of other people's sin. Which makes an odd contrast with so many of Jesus' injunctions to "judge not, that ye be not judged.." (Matthew 7:1)
In today's reading, Matthew puts these words of judgement about showing your brother his sin, into the mouth of Jesus, but a moment's reflection shows that Jesus couldn't possibly have spoken them, at least, not in this context.
It wasn't until after the crucifixion that bands of disciples began to meet together for worship, and even then they met as Jews, not as Christians. Followers of Jesus first became known as Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Prior to that they had been known as Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) and this continued to be their designation in Semitic languages. And it was another two generations before Christians considered themselves a separate "race" beside Jews and Gentiles (Early Christianity, edited by Ian Hazlett, page 66).
So Jesus knew nothing of the Church and couldn't possibly have set any rules of church order. Matthew's gospel must have been written after AD 70, when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, since Matthew 22:7 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.
The new Christian Church probably began to emerge as a church after AD 70, arising like the phoenix from the ashes of the Judaism which was destroyed when its central institution - the temple - was destroyed. In those early days the church was focused in the home and community, where Christians met together for worship (Early Christianity, page 29).
Once the Jesus Movement began to evolve into an institution which became known as the Church, rules and regulations became necessary, especially as the leader (Jesus) was no longer physically present. If the new church was to survive, its members had to be seen as exemplary in their behaviour, so Matthew's gospel sets out in minute detail the way in which disputes between church members should be settled. And scholars often refer to this whole section from Matthew 18 as the "church order" discourse.
But we don't live in the early days of Christianity. We live in a time when the Church has long been established and when even the law of the land is based on Christianity. So what do we do? Do we continue to base our behaviour on these words from Matthew's gospel and judge other people's sin both forthrightly and harshly, or do we follow words which are much more likely to come authentically from Jesus, and avoid all judgement of our neighbours?
Perhaps there needs to be a middle way. Jesus wasn't speaking in institutional terms, because when he was on earth there was no institution of the church for his followers. When he spoke of forgiveness he was speaking to them in personal terms.
Now there is an institution, and so it would seem obvious that somehow or other we must ensure good order within the Church. But at the same time, perhaps we need to be especially conscious of how easy it is to slip into self-righteousness and judge other people whilst remaining totally unaware of our own faults, and of especially our self-righteousness.
And we live in an age when public perception of the church appears to be at an all-time low ebb, so we need to do all we can to be sensitive to the needs and opinions and attitudes of those outside the church, without denying our own integrity.
How is it possible to perform this balancing act? And how do we know which issues are of first priority importance and must therefore always be upheld by the church, and which issues are less important or can be allowed to change, as public awareness changes?
The easy way is to leave it all to the church hierarchy, to the various synods and to the bishops and archdeacons to pronounce their judgements on behalf of us all. But there comes a time when we all have to decide for ourselves. It happened over the issue of women priests, and it will probably happen again over the issue of gay people within the church, especially gay priests.
Jesus taught that the most important rule of all is love. And that if you really love, everything else follows. Jesus loved so much he was able to heal, through that love. For us on the ground at the level of the local church, love must surely be the overriding factor in all our considerations.
Once we begin to love so much that we actually take the trouble to get to know and understand every person we meet and their circumstances, then judgement seems to disappear and tolerance and compassion and forgiveness take its place.
And once that happens, it begins to seem important to stand up and be counted on all sorts of issues which perhaps previously didn't much matter. And so issues of church order cease to be simply entertaining reports in the media, and become issues which matter. But the well-ordered church must be the church with ever-open doors, which stands up for its beliefs, but which is full of love and compassion and understanding and forgiveness.
