A sermon preached by the Rev. Deana Frances Dudley

at Holy Fellowship Metropolitan Community Church, London, Ontario

and Christos Metropolitan Community Church, Toronto, Ontario

4 May 2003 – Easter III

When I lived down in Washington, there was a church in Virginia, which is a suburb, that also rented space to a Korean Congregation. And the Korean congregation had a sign out front that said, I guess, when their services were, and who their pastor was, and that sort of thing. Actually, I couldn’t tell you for sure WHAT the sign said. I don’t read Korean. But it had one phrase on it in English – the name: "The One Mind Church."

When I saw that sign, my first thought was, "Well, they're clearly not a Baptist Church." And then I thought, it’s also not an MCC church... or a Catholic church... or a Presbyterian church... or even, despite the name, a United church.... Heck... it’s not any kind of church I ever heard of. Whoever heard of a church where the people are all of one mind??? And it’s been like that pretty much as long as there’s been church. Just a few years after the events recorded in the book of Acts took place, the Apostle Paul had occasion to write to a number of the early churches. And six times in his letters, Paul writes about having "one mind," or having "the same mind that was in Christ Jesus," and always he’s urging it, he’s encouraging it to happen, but his readers never seem to achieve it. That little Korean church in Virginia notwithstanding, "The One Mind Church" may be something about which we hope and dream and pray, but it never seems to come to pass.

It says in the gospel of Matthew, that wherever two or three are gathered in my name, Christ is among them. And that may be true, it IS true in fact, but my experience has also been that it is ALSO true that wherever you have three Christians gathered together, you have four opinions. At least. Christians of every denominational stripe struggle to be of one mind.

So when we hear Luke, who’s regarded as the author of the Book of Acts, claim that "the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul," we’re not surprised, because we’re USED to hearing preachers make pious and unrealistic claims about their congregations. Preachers sometimes tend towards rosy exaggeration. Pie in the sky.

But when we hear Luke go on about how "no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common," then we start to perk up, because we know that’s just nuts. Karl Marx claimed that nearly every human attitude and action could be traced to economic sources. Marx was before Freud... it would have been interesting to hear them debate.... Now, Luke wasn’t a Marxist, but he was enough of a realist to know that there’s a good chance that where our possessions are, there our hearts will be also. Didn’t Jesus mention that? (Luke 12:34, Matthew 6:21.)

In fact, a surprisingly large portion of the book of Acts – the whole title is "The Acts of the Apostles," or the story of the early church – deals with economic issues. And this is generally true of Luke’s gospel, as well. When you look at it, you find that a lot of the parables that we know about money – the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10), the one about the Rich Fool (Luke 12), the one about the Unjust Steward (Luke 16), the one about the Debtors (Luke 7), the one about the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16), the parable of the Talents (Luke 19, Matthew 25) – all but one of those are all unique to the book of Luke. So Luke views wealth not so much as a blessing, but as a trap. For him, to be wealthy is not a sign of divine approval. It’s a danger.

I spoke a few weeks ago about tithing. And I pointed out at that time that we don’t really talk about money all the time in church. But when we do, some folks think we shouldn’t. We should talk about more spiritual things. Well, folks, I’m here to tell you, that for the early church, the way they treated money and possessions WAS a spiritual thing. And that makes it all the more amazing that they were, as Luke says "of one heart and soul," because in my experience, in the church and out of it, nothing is as divisive as a dispute over money. In this sense at least, Marx was right. There is a kind of economic determinism at work in our lives. Money makes the world go round.

Or does it? Is that what really makes the world go round? Have y’all ever heard of Kathleen Norris? She’s a Christian writer and poet and several of her books have climbed secular best-seller lists, among them: The Cloister Walk and Amazing Grace. Norris suggests that one of the earliest traditions of the early Christian church was arguing, fighting with one another. It’s one of our oldest, if not our best, traditions. She says: "Our intense discussions of an issue, our shouting and weeping and praying, is in the long run a good thing. It’s what we do as a church. It’s part of being a Christian, to seek and struggle for the truth."

That may be true, but I have to say I wish it weren’t. I hate conflict. I hate fighting and bickering, and many days I wake up and my first prayer of the morning is to wish that somehow we Christians could be one big happy family. I pray that somehow the Southern Baptists might get along with the Methodists, that the Religious Right might get along with the Religious Left, and that the MCC’ers would get along with, heck, with other MCC’ers! I pray that someday the words of the old song will ring true and, "They’ll know we are Christians by our love." Because I really think it’s NOT money that makes the world go round.... it’s love.

And today’s scripture from the Acts offers us a chance to reflect on how difficult that is for us. It tells the story of the birth and growth of the early church. And it shows how that church came into being, not because of human effort, but by the power of God. The same God who raised Jesus from the dead on Easter and breathed life into the church on Pentecost also transformed the followers of Jesus into a community of believers. So this is a wonderful passage for us to consider as we continue to celebrate the resurrection in our lives and in this church. Christ is Risen! – So now what? What kind of community are we going to be?

Well.... what kind of community was that early church? Is that a good model for us? According to Acts, the nature of that early Christian community it is both surprising and remarkable. See how Luke put it: "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."

Amazing. Luke tells us that the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul. And what did this lead them to be? A sharing and caring community. "They were of one heart and soul and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common."

Now, is this practical? I remember when I was working for a very conservative mission board back in California. And we thought of ourselves as patterning our lives and our little community on the early church. So the book of Acts was very important to us, and we did a long term study of it.

But anyhow, we got to talking about the incredible way that these early Christians shared with one another, how there was not a needy person among them. And one of the guys started in on the million dollar salaries that professional sports stars receive, and then went on to deplore the rather modest salaries we pay teachers and firefighters. It was easy for us to take an air of moral superiority, see, since we were missionaries and making diddly squat. Anyhow, he was practically in tears when he concluded, "I just wish that people today had the same spirit of sharing that we find in the early church!" And there was a big chorus of "Amens!" But then our boss, chimed in and finally erupted, "What are you people, Communists? What’s wrong with earning what you’re worth? You don’t work, you don’t eat!" He was a firm believer in that. And since he was the boss, we just smiled and nodded.

I guess he found Communism threatening, politically. I’ve thought about that over the years. And if I could answer him today I think I’d say something like this. This outbreak of generosity among these Christians wasn’t a political statement but a religious statement. As such, I suspect it could be far more threatening.

But what was going on in that early church wasn’t some early form of Marxism or Communism. Rather, it was a theological response to the power of Christ’s resurrection in their lives. One of my favourite preachers, William Willimon, the chaplain at Duke University, put it this way: "The power which broke the bonds of death on Easter, the power which allowed persons of many cultures and languages to communicate with one another on Pentecost, is the same power which broke the death grip which those Christians had on their personal possessions and freed them to share what they had with one another."

And what did that do for them? Well, the passage gives a clue. When they had that spirit of sharing, it says that "With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection.... and great grace was upon them all." This kind of sharing, this kind of community, this kind of church.... comes from affirming resurrection, comes from Christ’s radical extension of the truth that everything we have –even life! – comes from God and belongs to God and is for sharing with others as we and they have need. And the impulse to live this truth in reality seems to come – not out of a political or economic revelation – but out of a new understanding of who we are in light of the Resurrection. Who we are before God.

See, this text is a hot potato for Christians in a North American context. First, because upon initial reading, it seems either too political, or too naive. And second, because preaching about possessions in a consumerist society hits too close to home. We’re all vulnerable on this point, and idealizing communal life in the early church can become a guilt trip. But I’m here to tell you, that the community portrayed here in the book of Acts is not rooted in human guilt, or in naivte, or in political or economic power, but in the power of the resurrection. When we as a community of faith mature to the point where we begin to explore standards of community that are at odds with the values of modern society, THEN we see that our actions, our faith, our love, really are divine gifts of grace.

As followers of Jesus Christ, we not only believe in the power of God which raised Jesus from the dead on Easter, we also believe in the power of God which can resurrect a body of believers and instill in them a genuine generosity and love for one another. That’s the incredible power of the resurrection – not just to raise people from the dead, but also to resurrect among the body of believers a spirit of sharing, a spirit of care for each another, and a heart and soul that are one in the love that God has for us eternally.

********

References

Kathleen Norris, from a sermon preached at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, June 1997, Syracuse, NY.

William Willimon, Acts, in the Interpretation Commentary Series, p. 53.

Albert G. Butzer, III, Providence Presbyterian Church, 2000.

Home   

Prayer_Requests   Pastor's Page    What's Happening     Who_We_Are     Where_We_Are     Why_We_Are