Erl Purnell Sermon

cLent 1 ~ February 25, 2007 ~ A sermon preached by The Rev’d Erl G. Purnell at Old St. Andrew’s Church, Bloomfield, CT

Deuteronomy 26.1-11; Psalm 91; Romans 10.5-13; Luke 4.1-13

This Lenten season begins with considerable sadness. In recent weeks our parish and extended parish family has suffered several deaths. On Thursday, Dr. Louis Venne, Yves’ father, died and on Friday Harold Miller, Liz’s grandfather, died. On top of those deaths, Titi Stedman, John Stedman’s mother, also died on Friday, a week after John’s own death. We hold Yves, Liz, the Stedman family, and all who are grieving, in our hearts and prayers in the coming days. “May the Souls of those who have died and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace,” Amen.

On Ash Wednesday I spoke with those gathered here about the fragility of life. It was a reminder really, for, don’t we all know that life is short and can end ever-so suddenly? And now, as I reflect on these losses and other things, I find myself asking, What’s really important anyway?

For me, when I take the Gospel seriously, and I do, I’m constantly challenged to jettison some innate thoughts and feelings in favor of those taught by Jesus in word and deed. A good reason to read the Scriptures and meditate on them during Lent is to bring Jesus’ lessons into consciousness and practice.

I know it’s become a trite saying, but I find myself asking What would Jesus do? For example, I wonder who Jesus would bomb? I wonder who Jesus would exploit and cheat? I wonder who Jesus would lie to? I wonder to whom Jesus would be prejudice? I wonder who Jesus would exclude? I wonder how would Jesus treat Mother Earth? I wonder how would Jesus care for the marginalized today—the hungry and poor, those without healthcare, the unemployed, widows and orphans, the mentally ill, prisoners, people living with cancer, addictions, or AIDS? I wonder how Jesus would treat our children and what he would teach them? I wonder what Jesus would say was really important in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer?

There is a fork in the road of my thinking right now. Down one lane, an exploration of how modern people might react to Jesus if he came back today. Perhaps you’ve read Joseph Girzone’s best selling 1980’s book Joshua about this very thing happening, that is, Jesus appearing among us. If I take that road, I will be saying something about Jesus being kicked out of many (most?) churches and that he would drive politicians as well as religious people nuts with his radical message of compassion, forgiveness, justice and love. I would also imagine that he would again be killed. In many ways, humankind is still not ready for Jesus.

Which brings me to the other lane, the one I have chosen to go down this morning. Although this lane looks like something else, it’s really about the acceptance of Jesus, too. We’ve been down this road before. Today the specifics have to do with the Anglican Primates’ recent meeting in Tanzania and what is happening between the Episcopal Church and the world-wide Anglican Communion. Although most of you are familiar with the situation, let me first offer a sketch of how we got to where we are in 2007.

In the 1960s, the Episcopal Church began to change, perhaps as a reflection of post-WWII American culture. There were three initial issues. The first was ‘What constitutes membership in the Church and so eligibility to receive communion?’ The answer emerged through many, many conversations throughout the Church. Baptism. So, beginning in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, the Holy Sacraments became available to even the youngest members of the Church. Since then, and certainly at this church, the theology has been broadened so that ALL people are welcome to receive Communion whether baptized or not, for, it’s clear that Jesus would certainly never exclude anybody from his table?

The second issue was about the ordination of women. In 1976, women were, at long last, accepted as full members of the Church, that is, Holy Orders became available to the other half of humanity that had been traditionally prohibited from ordination. And, over fifteen years ago, women began to serve as Bishops as well, so that just last summer, a woman, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, was elected Presiding Bishop.

Lastly, the Book of Common Prayer was revised in 1979. The “new” Prayer Book—you may not know this—attempted to recover much of the theology of the early church. In addition, the language in the 1979 Prayer Book was modernized, updating the King James language of the 1928 Book and its predecessors (circa 1662), and the Book was expanded to provide more breadth and liturgical flexibility.

These three issues sparked a fire-storm of controversy at the time and echoes of it continue to be heard today. Indeed, there are still Episcopalians who will not accept communion from a female priest and there are bishops who will not ordain women. A few places even continue to worship using the 1928 Prayer Book. Be that as it may, these changes in the Church in combination with the civil rights movement, protests against the Viet Nam War, the feminist movement, and the liberation of gays and lesbians in the country deeply affected how the Episcopal Church began to live into the Gospel.

I hasten to remind us all, the Church of which I speak is the Body of Christ. In other words, when I say “the Episcopal Church”, I am speaking of the people, both lay and ordained, who constitute it, who worship together, who govern it locally and nationally. I am not speaking of a monolithic, external institution that rules from on high, although that is often how the Church is viewed.

Remember now that my question this morning is What’s really important anyway?

In 2003, at General Convention, the Episcopal Church’s House of Deputies and House of Bishops overwhelmingly endorsed the election of V. Gene Robinson, a partnered gay priest, to serve as Bishop of New Hampshire. Since, a majority—but by no means all—of the Anglican Communion have chastised the American Church for ordaining a homosexual person as Bishop. They argue that such an action is not Scriptural. A split has occurred in the Episcopal Church as well.

In the fall of 2005, the Windsor Report was published calling on the Episcopal Church to repent for its actions. Last summer, again at General Convention, the Episcopal Church expressed regret for causing harm to the bonds of affection between the member churches of the Anglican Communion. Now, the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion met in Tanzania and the issues regarding the relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Communion were the main topic of discussion.

At the end of the day, and here I’m quoting from the Episcopal News Service, “The Primates of the Anglican Communion called for the formation of a ‘Pastoral Council’ that would work in cooperation with the Episcopal Church to facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation, particularly for those who feel unable to accept the ministry of their bishop or the presiding bishop … The Primates also supported a proposal to name a primatial vicar who would assume some pastoral duties in the Episcopal Church at the Presiding Bishop’s direction” (ENS). This, I’m afraid, is a slippery slope.

Such a demand on an independent member of the Anglican Communion is unprecedented. Bonnie Anderson, the President of the House of Deputies, reminded members of the Church, “the second Lambeth Conference in 1878 said that ‘the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province, in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members.’” In other words, all members of the Anglican Communion are pledged to respect the independence, polity, and decisions of the individual Churches.

Where does all of this land us today? In the short term, more confusion and angst; more focus on homosexuality, as if sexuality was at the heart of the Gospel. The House of Bishops meets in a few weeks to consider the Primates’ communiqué. Meanwhile, Bishop Jefferts-Schori says, “Be of good faith. We’re entering Lent and there’s probably not a better time for us to receive this communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting. It will be hard news for a number of members of this Church; it will be welcome news for other members of this Church. This is a season to remember who is the focus of our faith and it is not we ourselves.” Good point!

Which brings me back once more to my question: What’s really important anyway?

One of the defining things that happened for the Primates during their time together was a side trip to the island of Zanzibar, a notorious center of the slave trade 200 years ago. Worshipping at the slave market itself, the Primates repented for the sins of slavery. Certainly this symbolic action is a good thing, although long over due. I cannot help but notice, however, that slavery is condoned in Scripture. Yet, that Scriptural justification for slavery has been rejected in recent years; that interpretation of Scripture has been obviated to accommodate a changing world view—i.e. slavery is abhorrent.

Curiously, it is the African Bishops—whose ancestors were taken into slavery—who are most insistent that Scripture damns homosexuality and so the Episcopal Church’s actions deserve damnation also. I have to wonder out loud, if the justification for slavery could be re-interpreted—as it has been—is it possible that the Scriptural prohibition against homosexuality, such as it is, could be re-interpreted as well? I lament the amount of time and energy being put into this debate at the expense of the mission of the Church?

Now, I know this sermon is getting long. Please bear with me because I want to share with you what Bishop Smith has said. He is quite clear. “If the Council of Primates is asking us to undo what we have already done, that is a step many of the bishops would be unwilling to take.” Moreover, the Bishop stated that he and most bishops will find it morally impossible to accept the demands of the Dar es Salaam communiqué. This is what he told the Hartford Courant: “It has always seemed to me that if we accept gay and lesbian people as full partners in our church, we have to be consistent on matters of marriage and clergy. We can’t advocate two classes of church citizenship: one for heterosexuals, one for homosexuals. Church unity is important, but you can’t compromise on basic principles of conscience.”

So, What’s really important anyway?

Bonnie Anderson reminds us, “Our baptismal promise to seek and serve Christ in all people must be very carefully considered when we are being asked as Episcopalians to exclude some of our members from answering the Holy Spirit's call to use their God-given gifts to lead faithful lives of ministry. Our promise to strive for justice and peace and respect the dignity of all people binds us together. The Episcopal Church has declared repeatedly that our understanding of the Baptismal Covenant requires that we treat all persons equally regardless of their race, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities, age, color, ethnic origin, or national origin.”

On this first Sunday in Lent, I think Bonnie Anderson is reminding us of what’s really important. It’s our Baptismal Covenant and fully living into who it is God has created us to BE. I think that’s what accepting Jesus is most about. I also think that’s what Jesus would be saying and doing. And sadly, I’m afraid Jesus would be quite off-put by the Anglican Communion’s threat of exclusion ... for the Episcopal Church and for homosexual people.

These, of course, are my own thoughts and feelings. You need not agree with me. I assure you, however, that I will always respect your understanding of these issues and I ask that you honor mine.

Now, with the question What’s really important anyway? in mind, I invite you to observe a holy Lent by searching your heart and soul in order to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit guiding you along the Way of Jesus Christ, our teacher, friend, and brother.

Amen.