Year A Proper 18

Year A Proper 18
Matthew 18:15-20


Today’s Gospel is a struggle or it should be a struggle. These verses have been and continue to be used to exclude and divide. They have been used to “identify” who’s in and who’s out in the church—to give permission for people to judge and to get rid of those we don’t agree with, don’t particularly like, or those who cause us to question or doubt ourselves, and we certainly don’t like that. These verses have been used consciously and subconsciously in the history of Christianity to justify horrendous acts of violence; they have been used to separate denominations, to police the Anglican Communion, to justify the division of the Episcopal Church USA, and dare I say it, they have been used within these very walls of St. Mark’s.
Today’s Gospel is not about the world out there—it wasn’t written to teach the church how to be in the world. No today’s Gospel was written specifically for the Christian community, for the church. They are important words for the life of the church, and we should take them seriously, and we should use them. We should use all of the words—yes many times we want the “overall meaning”; these particular verses, however, make their biggest impact, have the most power, in the details. The details that we often overlook in order to hurry to judgment—because it’s easier.
Bear with me as I give you some history of the Gospel of Matthew, but I believe it is important to understand the context of when these words were written if we are going to transpose them onto today’s society. The Gospel of Matthew is often called the Gospel of the church. It is the only one of the four Gospels that even uses the word “church” or ecclesia as it is called in Greek. The structure of this Gospel shows us that its author was a systemizer—this author liked rules-policies and procedures (we would have gotten along well). And this author was writing to a community who was trying to define itself. Remember many of the early Christians were from Jewish backgrounds; some even still worshiped in both the synagogue and house churches. Today’s OT reading is but one illustration of how the Jewish faith is full of rules; how it works. There are many absolutes—do this don’t do that. This new community was trying to define itself, and in doing so it was drawing on both what they knew (Judaism) and how they were to live differently in the post resurrection. So this passage is written to a group of people who are trying to establish a community—I repeat, they are trying to establish a community. And here is where we begin to see the differences—Matthew’s Gospel is written to a group of people who are communally oriented and not a culture like ours which is first and foremost about the individual. In reading and interpreting this passage today we need to consciously and deliberately step out of the mindset of individualistic thinking and focus on community—because truthfully, to be a Christian is to be bound in community. The Gospel of Matthew is about defining the community; it’s about giving characteristics to the community. It’s about recognizing that within community there are disagreements. We like to glamorize the good old days of the church when everyone got along. These verses shatter that way of thinking. There are no good old days when everyone got along in the church; there are no good old days when everyone agreed on doctrine or the interpretation of scripture, or the mission of the church, or how to evangelize, do outreach, or educate, not 10 years ago, not 100 years ago, not even 2000 years ago. The Church has always struggled with difference—with diversity. The word struggle always seems to carry a negative connotation. Does it have to? Can a struggle bring about healing and wholeness? Can a struggle bring about community? The community to whom this Gospel was written struggled to define themselves. As we think about this passage, I challenge you to think about our community here at St. Marks. How do we want to be defined? What characteristics do we want to exude? And what process, what system do we use, or should we use to make that happen?
So let’s take a few minutes to look at the details. These verses begin with “If another member of the church”. The original Greek used the word adlephos which actually translates brother, and that is an important detail because it changes the intimacy of the exchange. My brother is not just some other person who happens to sit in a pew three rows over. Brother indicates a relationship—a closeness, a connection. Think of your own family—are there members you are closer to? Are there members you have more in common with? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean you don’t still have a connection to the rest of your family. That doesn’t mean you want to excommunicate or disown the rest of your family because they like a different sports team, have different political views, or even go to a different church. These verses begin with a reminder that we are a community connected—we have a relationship that includes all our differences.
The next detail that is important not to miss is who verse 15 is speaking to. The offended is to take the initiative. How often do we sit back and wait for someone to come to us and apologize? They should know what they did we tell ourselves. I’m not making the first move—in our culture of individualism, making the first move often indicates weakness. Never let them see you sweat is the motto we live by, and believe me approaching someone about a conflict may cause you to sweat.
I have a confession to make as we move to the next detail, the detail that says go alone. I don’t like this part. I want to find a group of people who will listen to my grievance with someone else and build me up by telling me how right I am and how wrong the other person is. Here’s the true confession—I have figured out a way to even do this and seem as though I’m being loving and caring. I tell myself or others that I’m talking about it because a) I’m concerned about the other person or b) I want to make sure I understand the situation right, make sure that I’m not misunderstanding the perception of the other person. That’s loving right? I certainly don’t want to run the risk of hurting someone else by going to them with an issue if I’ve misunderstood. There are many ways to justify talking to others and calling it something other than what it is—gossip, triangulation, and just plain wrong.
No we are to go alone with sweaty palms and shaky voice if that’s what it is or to go with our tears or to simply go for a conversation. The Jewish tradition is to take witnesses and that is how the people of Matthew’s community would have understood it. They would have been familiar with this custom. Going alone first? No way—in the legalistic Jewish culture of the first century witnesses were necessary. Here is where the combining of the Jewish tradition with post resurrection living connected and diverged for Matthew’s community and for ours. Here is where a characteristic of this new community begins to emerge.
Look carefully at the next phrase, if the member listens—notice it doesn’t say if the member throws him or herself at your mercy; it doesn’t say if the member repents and begs forgiveness; it doesn’t say if the member thanks you for pointing out the errors of his/her ways. It simply says listens. True honest open heart and mind listening is the first step towards reconnection and reconciliation.
Recently I was listening to a podcast on my run where Frances Kissling was being interviewed. She served as the chair of Catholics for Choice for 25 years. She adamantly disagrees with many of the policies of the Catholic Church, but she remains in communion. One of the things she said in this interview has haunted me—led me to think, to reconsider my views on many people and things, forced me to reconsider my idea of reconciliation, and I offer it to you. She says there are some issues in the world that we will never be able to reconcile and come to agreement on—there are some issues that we may not and probably will not find common ground. She dares to say that she doesn’t believe there is much promise in finding common ground with those whose views and ideology we fundamentally oppose. She writes and speaks about the power that comes when we have the courage to be vulnerable with those whom we passionately disagree. She says that our rush to come to agreement can get in the way of our really understanding each other. In the face of issues that she asserts can never be reconciled, she advocates listening and honestly trying to find the good/the truth in what the other person believes. She challenges us to try to understand why someone may believe something different than us even if we never agree. She states we must approach differences with the notion that there is good in the other.
So, all the other person must do according to these verses is to listen. What it doesn’t say but I believe is implied is that both parties should listen. If the person doesn’t listen this is where other people are brought in—not the easy way. We’re not called to go find our two or three closest friends in the church, talk about the grievance for hours, and develop a plan. I’m not going to belabor these two steps of two or three people and then the whole church because it is part of the system this church put into place in much the same way we have systems in our churches today—vestries etc. I do want to consider, however, why it is important to get others involve. Why is it important to bring individual issues within a congregation to the whole church? I return to the fact that to be a Christian is to be in community; we are not a bunch of individuals who happen to attend the same church, but rather we together are the body of Christ. We are a community. Within communities individual issues can effect directly and indirectly the entire congregation. Have you ever been with a group of people and two don’t get along—perhaps it’s a group of couples and one couple is clearly having an argument although no one knows what it’s about. The whole atmosphere of the gathering is affected. Perhaps a couple of you being to whisper, “do you know what’s going on?” and then people begin to guess, try to read into what’s going on, and the misunderstandings and misperceptions intensify. Reconciliation doesn’t mean not addressing issues even as an entire congregation. We cannot keep walking around the elephants in the room, whispering about them behind closed doors and expect to remain a vital life giving community of faith. It doesn’t mean ignoring the issues that need to be discussed and it also doesn’t mean addressing and blowing up issues at are trivial. Discernment through prayer is needed to decide which is which. Nonetheless, all three of the steps mentioned in the passage are important--, alone, two or three people, and the whole congregation have the same goal—listening and reconciling and keeping the community together. All three of these steps involve an openness and honesty that is difficult and that can be painful. It sounds easy, but it’s not. We want justice; we want others to admit they are wrong—to agree with us. We want to be right and we believe that in order to be right the other must be wrong and we want to make sure everyone knows how very wrong that person or that group of people are. Richard Mouw the a conservative theologian and president of Fuller Theological Seminary says, “The way people are treated is a greater measure of Christian virtue than the position one takes.” These steps help make certain we are treating people in a way that brings healing to all.
I can see some of you reading ahead, thinking ahead and thinking that sounds good, but it does say if they won’t listen let them be to you as a Gentile or tax collector. So clearly there are issues that occur where we are justified in kicking someone out---dismissing someone—refusing to have any further relationship. We get to treat them like Gentiles and tax collectors—it says so right here. We know that in the community of this Gospel Gentiles and tax collectors were the lowest of the low. Remember, Jesus is talking not the leaders of the community. So who do we model ourselves on-the leaders of the Roman Empire, our culture today, or Jesus? If we treat them as Jesus would, then we have to eat with them, we have to talk to them, we have to engage with them—we might even have to pass the peace with them or sit near them during coffee hour or even serve on a committee with them.
This passage isn’t about separating the wheat and the tares; it’s not about going on a witch hunt, it’s about building up a community—it’s about relationship, forgiveness and reconciliation in spite of our differences. It’s about hearing other people and daring to make a connection. How do we connect? We connect through knowing each other and we know each other through story. The whole of the Bible consists of stories which help us to know who God is and how God is manifested in the world. Several months ago our senior warden sent a letter to the congregation challenging us to branch out—sit in a different pew even attend a different service. I would like to add to that challenge, and I hope some of you will take me up on this. Look around today or over the next month and seek out someone you don’t know well. Perhaps it’s someone you don’t think you have anything in common with; perhaps it’s someone you’re pretty sure you disagree theologically or politically. Or perhaps it’s just someone you don’t know. Seek someone out and have coffee or lunch or dinner with them and hear their story and tell them yours. You don’t have to discuss touchy or tough issues—just hear their story; why do they live in Louisville? What brought them here? Do they have a partner, children? What do they do in their free time? Why do they go to St. Mark’s? I’d love to have you share these experiences with me; I promise to maintain confidentiality.
As I close, I’d like to share one more thought. As I’ve reflected over the interview with Frances Kissling, there is a point that I adamantly disagree. She says there isn’t much use in finding common ground with people whose ideas we oppose; I will concede that may be true if you only look at the issue, but not if you look at the person as another human being created in the image of God. I also disagree that there is no common ground—as Christians we have the common ground of believing what we assert in the Nicene Creed as we are about to do. We not only have common ground, but we also have a common table and we will all come before it today. We will kneel next to those we love and next to those who we are called to love, next to those we with whom we agree and next to those with whom we don’t. As we kneel before our common table seeking forgiveness, sustenance and transformation, we remember that we are all a part of the community of faith. And then together as the community of faith, we will rise and go out into the word to do the work God has given us to do, loving and serving God as faithful witnesses of Christ the Lord. Amen.