When Inaction is Unfaithful

A sermon preached at First Presbyterian Church, Springfield, Illinois
July 11, 2004
Rev. Jake Young
Text: Luke 10:25-37

[7-19-04]

Meditation for use before worship:

Had I but one wish for the churches of America I think it would be that they come to see the difference between charity and justice. Charity is a matter of personal attributes; justice, a matter of public policy. Charity seeks to alleviate the effects of injustice; justice seeks to eliminate the causes of it. Charity in no way affects the status quo, while justice leads inevitably to political confrontation. Especially I would hope that Christians would see that the compassion that moved the Good Samaritan to act charitably-that same compassion prompted biblical prophets to confront injustice, to speak truth to power, as did Jesus, who, though more than a prophet, was certainly nothing less.

- William Sloane Coffin

Well, the 216^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) ended last Saturday. And you know what that means: It's the time of year when you have to listen to me talk about Gays and Lesbians in the church!

In many ways, it was a typical General Assembly (or GA). There was a beautifully inclusive theme chosen - this year it was "That all may have life in fullness" - which belied the church's ongoing exclusion of many persons. And there were non-stop meetings for nine days.

As with every national business meeting of the Presbyterian Church, there were both moments that made one very proud to be a member of this church and other moments of, well, embarrassment at some of the outcomes.

From where I stand, some of the best moments this year were related to decisions about international issues. By very large majorities, often as high as 85 - 95%, the Assembly approved a number of measures at odds with current US foreign policy and popular opinion. These measures included:

In other business, the Assembly upheld the Church's pro-choice position with regard to abortion. But they then refused to recommend that emergency contraception be made available over the counter. Commissioners apparently were influenced by claims that emergency contraception would encourage promiscuity and that it is really a form of abortion. I know, it's inconsistent, isn't it? You affirm a woman's right to choose an abortion if necessary and then restrict access to drugs because you think they may in some way induce an abortion.

Some of the most frustrating decisions by any Presbyterian governing body are those that emerge as non-decisions. A good example this year was the Assembly's decision not to make a decision about supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment that is being pushed by some of our national politicians. The problem here is that we, as Presbyterians, have not fully learned that our inaction sends just as much of a message as an action. Inactions express complacency and our sense of comfort with a typically unjust status quo. In fact, in this case, the Assembly was so happy with their ability to agree upon no action, that a savvy commissioner introduced a resolution that no official entity of the church should be involved with speaking out for or against the Federal Marriage Amendment. This prospect for ongoing inertia with regard to this issue was so appealing that a majority quickly approved it. Only later did it become clear that the Assembly had effectively passed a gag rule for the denomination's Washington Office which was created to express opinions on US policies and pending legislation!

All this is just one more instance of the church managing to do nothing. And that's embarrassing. And depressing. I wonder what Jesus would say in principle about decisions to take no action. Is it significant that our gospel text today is Jesus' parable about the Good Samaritan?

This story describes how a priest and a Levite encounter a bloodied and bruised victim of theft on the road that runs from Jerusalem to Jericho. They each decide to take no action, crossing to the other side of the road and continuing on their way. Now, this parable format was familiar to first-century listeners, who would have immediately understood the priest's and Levite's actions as unsatisfactory. There were many stories circulating in those days that were critical of religious leaders. They typically involved a couple of religious leaders behaving less than scrupulously, juxtaposed with an Israelite who did the right thing. The interesting twist here is that Jesus' third character is not a run-of-the-mill Jewish citizen, but a despised, unclean outsider, a Samaritan. And this Samaritan doesn't just do the right thing, but goes well beyond the call of duty to show great mercy to the victim, including paying for his care at a local inn.

We remember that Jesus tells this parable in response to a lawyer's question about who is our neighbor. The questioner wants to know from Jesus what the limits of neighborliness are. In the first part of the passage, he has learned that in order to have eternal life, one must love God and neighbor. And that's fine, but now he finds himself wondering, just how far does this commandment to love our neighbor extend? There must be some boundaries, right?

First century Jewish society was ordered by the multiple boundaries which defined people's positions. There were boundaries of race, gender, religion and class that were virtually impermeable. So, when Jesus answers the question, "Who is my neighbor?" by introducing a neighborly Samaritan, he is calling into question ALL those boundaries. It is scandalous! It is revolutionary!

We recognize some of this story's scandalousness, as well as its brilliance, when Jesus concludes the parable by asking the lawyer who he thought was a neighbor in the story. His response? He cannot even bring himself to say the word Samaritan, so he simply says, "The one who showed mercy." It is scandalous that he cannot say Samaritan. It is brilliant that the initial effort to define the bounds of neighborliness has now resulted in a clear definition of the essential nature of neighborliness: "One who shows mercy!"

And Jesus' response? "Go and do likewise." Note that his earlier injunction, the one about following the great commandment included a reward. He said, "You have given the right answer, do this, and you will live." But now there is no promise of eternal life, only that we should "go and do likewise," "go and show mercy."

When we seek to show mercy, when we are a neighbor, we do so with no calculation of reward. If you expect a reward, then it is not "likewise," it is not true mercy. Showing mercy with no thought for reward is, simply, what we do, and what we are to be, as followers of Christ!

Eternal life is not the reward for fulfilling religious duties. It is a quality of life characterized by showing mercy.

There is one other point to be made here. Mercy first must see need, then respond with compassion. This first step, recognizing need, is necessary. Walter Brueggemann refers to this as "noticing pain." It is a difficult thing for people of privilege to do. That's why Jesus chooses the outcast, the Samaritan to play this role. But this also indicates a revolutionary sensibility about the dominant social order. In Brueggemann's words:

The Samaritan is Jesus' peculiar articulation against the dominant culture, and so he stands as a radical threat. The Samaritan by his action judges the dominant way by disregard of the marginal. The ones who pass by, obviously carriers of the dominant tradition, are numbed, indifferent, and do not notice. The Samaritan expresses a new way that displaces the old arrangements in which outcasts are simply out. The replacing of numbness with compassion, that is, the end of cynical indifference and the beginning of noticed pain, signals a social revolution.

Oh, I promised earlier to talk about gays and lesbians in the church. I must follow through. Well, it turns out that the General Assembly did not want to address in any way the current wording in the Constitution that excludes gays and lesbians from ordination as ministers and elders and deacons. But the Committee that deals with this issue did decide to recommend that the Assembly effectively remove the earlier Authoritative Interpretations that are exclusive. It would have been like a half-step in the right direction. When it came to the floor, before the more than 500 commissioners, it lost by four votes. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church chose to cross the road and walk on by and, once again, ignore the pain of those who are categorically excluded from answering their call to serve the church.