Showing posts with label ephesians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ephesians. Show all posts

Monday, August 24, 2015

Meeting the Principalities and Powers

Sermon; St. Matthew’s, Chandler

 “For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

I have always been interested in why people do the things they do. I was blessed that I was able to focus on that passion in my academic work.  In my undergraduate program, I focused on history and sociology to prepare for teaching social studies. During that time, my studies took a dark turn.  I focused on 20th century history with an emphasis in genocide and religious violence.  An intense class on holy war within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam set the trajectory that took me from teaching high school to further study of religion and conflict at ASU, where I studied violence, torture, religion, sexuality, and politics—all of which are topics one is supposed to avoid in polite conversation at dinner parties. 

As I was studying these grisly topics, and continuing today, I’m haunted by this question:  To what extent can we name the violence of the last century and this century as something beyond the depravity of humankind?  What do we make of the Holocaust? Rwanda? Armenia? This country’s genocide of (and later attempts to wipe out the cultures of) indigenous peoples? Is it enough to chalk up the body count of the last 120 years to mechanized warfare, arms races, totalitarian governments, and effective propaganda campaigns by regimes bent on eliminating others?  We can fairly accurately describe the mechanisms of war, of economic oppression, of the social systems that hold others as deserving of apathy or death, but is there something else?  Is there something beyond the materialistic phenomenon we can study that accounts for the depravity humankind visits upon others? 

Paul would say there is something else afoot, something more than the material world we see.  And he does so in language that sounds odd to modern ears.  Paul speaks in a number of his letters of the "principalities and powers."  By this Paul means the spiritual and worldly forces that exist in opposition to God.  We hear about these powers in Ephesians today.

Contrary to the modern division between the spiritual and political that holds that the political is no place for the spiritual, Paul is:[1]

concerned with spiritual realities precisely in their relationship to political realities. Ephesians 6:12 contrasts the “enemies of blood and flesh” with the true enemies, using a five-fold repetition of the word “against”:
For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh
          but against the rulers
          against the authorities
          against the cosmic powers
          against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places

While the first use of “against” describes those whom the struggle is not against, the remaining four uses describe the actual enemies against whom Christians are called to struggle. These four references move from the earthly realm to the heavenly, connecting the political realm to the spiritual. The terms “rulers” (archas) and “authorities” (exousias) are common terms in the New Testament and usually refer to human rulers and the authority they wield.[2] The third term, “cosmic powers” (kosmokratoras), is understood by most scholars as referring to a supernatural power, moving us from the [material] political realm into the spiritual. Finally, “spiritual forces” (pneumatika) refer explicitly to nonhuman forces, which are said to be not on earth but “in the heavenly places” (en tois epouraviois).
Taken together, these four terms describe “enemies” that span both the earthly and heavenly realms—transcendent, spiritual realities with earthly, political manifestations. The verse recognizes that earthly power relations are animated by spiritual realities that transcend any specific “flesh and blood” person or ruler.
More can be said about the powers and principalities, which stand for a dominion opposed to God.  The powers and principalities traffic in practices and ideas that keep us from seeing each other as equally beloved and redeemable by God.  The powers would prefer to derail the ministry of reconciliation Christians are called to witness to.[3]  Remember that a few weeks ago we read in Ephesians that Christ created in himself one new humanity, reconciling all to God in one body.[4]  In contrast, the powers and principalities keep telling us our differences are final and irreconcilable; attempting to cut us off from God and others.  Further, for the principalities and powers, there is active hostility to the equal loving regard we are offered by God.[5]  Colonialism, sexism, racism, and other forms of social stigma all fall within the control of principalities and powers that devalue the beloved of God while simultaneously telling others that they have a divine right to maintain an oppressive social order "for the good of us all."  Control and power is sanctified in lieu of holiness, forbearance, love, justice, and grace.  The principalities and powers resort to threat, harm, shame, and death.   You can know who you are dealing with by the fruits they produce.  And it is important to call the demons by their names.

The powers and principalities are not as transcendent nor as powerful as God, and yet they are more powerful than we humans on our own.  The promise of order and control that the powers and principalities offer is seductive.  This seductive quality of the powers and principalities explains their continued presence in our world.  We find ourselves caught by the powers and principalities in fallen institutions greater than the sum of our personal failings.[6]  And these powers are strong enough to corrupt even the holy things of God to their own use.  For instance, the very passage we are talking about this morning has the blood-stained dishonor of being one of the passages used to justify the slaughter of millions over the centuries through holy war In which Christians traded the spiritual armor and sword of God for that of leather and steel.[7]

This is the reality that Paul is speaking to:  that behind the forces of evil and degradation we see on earth, there are active spiritual forces at work seeking to destroy and corrupt the creatures of God.  To make such a case for spiritual evil in our modern setting is difficult.  And yet, it is worth noting that regardless of the degree to which we claim human or demonic agency in the problems of the world, it is evident that there are forces and institutions and persons that profit from death, degradation, alienation, and division.  These are powers that Christians have a duty to unmask, name, and engage.[8]

And there is good news.  Earlier in Ephesians, Paul writes that the greatness and goodness of God is at work through and in Christ, who is placed above the principalities and powers.[9]  The Church's role is one of proclaiming God's power—testifying to God's coming reign to these spiritual forces.[10]  And the promise we inherit is the coming complete destruction of these forces at the consummation of history.[11] 

How do we live into this good news?  How do we face this in-between time?

One way in which we practically live out our commitment to unmasking and engaging the powers is by heeding the reminder that they exist and that we are called to resist them.  At our baptism, and at our reaffirmation of the baptismal covenant, we promise and pray that we will “renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God" and ”renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God."[12]  These renunciations speak of throwing off the world's claims about the proper place of others and seeking instead to discern the wild and radical things God is choosing to do. It means de-centering the will to power we find within ourselves in favor of God's will and mission for humanity.  It may mean taking chances since resisting the powers and principalities is not a popular option; hence Paul’s warning to stand firm in truth and faith and righteousness. 

But there is also a promise we share; a conviction Paul held that we are also offered in sure and certain hope.  Paul was convinced “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[13]  This persistent love, stronger than the worst that the world and its powers can attack us with, is a love worth clinging to.  It is also the basis for a gospel worth proclaiming with boldness.

_________________

[1] The following block of text is taken verbatim from Robert Williamson’s “The Politics of White Supremacy—Ephesians 6:10-20.” http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/the-politics-of-white-supremacy/.
[2] See, for example, 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21.
[3] 2 Cor 5:14-21
[4] See Eph 2:11-22.
[5] See Gal 3:28.
[6] This current course of the world is what is meant by the terms institutional sin, or structural sin. 
[7] As I was meditating on these verses from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, I couldn’t help but consider how these verses have been used in Christian moral reasoning in relation to violence.  In Christianity, there are three frameworks for understanding the use of violence:  pacifism, the just war tradition, and holy war (which is more of a notion than a clear framework). Both pacifism and the just war tradition name who is or is not a legitimate target of violence.  Pacifism holds that no one is a legitimate target of violence, and this was the prevailing opinion until the 300s AD.  Following Christianity’s conversion to the state religion of the Roman Empire, the just war tradition began its development.  A component of that moral reasoning was the attempt to delineate between combatants and non-combatants.  What makes holy war more of a notion than a framework is also what makes it instructive across religious lines—and holy war is different from pacifism or a concept of a just and limited war in that it divides the world into good and evil, eliminates neutrality, raises the stakes to a matter of ultimacy and immediacy, and prescribes no limits to the violence that can be visited upon the enemy. What makes holy war so dangerous and bloody is that the enemies made of flesh and blood are considered to be the earthly warriors in the ultimate cosmic battle of Good vs. Evil.  What happens on Earth is interpreted as a mirror or an outworking of the battle in the heavens, and so the targets of violence are to be given no quarter. In this thinking, there is no proper etiquette fit for those deemed to be direct agents of Satan. 
[8] These actions echo Walter Wink’s trilogy of books about Engaging, naming, and unmasking the powers and principalities.
[9] Eph 1:20-23
[10] Eph 3:7-12
[11] 1 Cor 15:24-28
[12] BCP, 302.
[13] Romans 8:38

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

"Truthing" in Love


Proper 13
Year B
RCL




Speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love.

If you are like me, you might cringe every time you read or hear the phrase "speak the truth in love." I think this is because the main way I run across the phrase is in blog posts and open letters on social media that take one’s opponents to task over an issue. And if you are like me, you might have found that what follows the author’s promise that they “speak the truth in love” is neither truthful, nor loving.  Typically, it signals one person publically telling another, “if you do not have the same opinion as I do, it is my task to correct you, and if you do not heed the correction, you are no longer in community, communion, or have been judged to have left the faith.”  In other words, when someone decides to write an open letter, and it contains the phrase “speaking the truth in love,” it is typically said in the context of an ultimatum to change or be cast away.  As a result, there are many who hear this phrase and wonder if it can be salvaged from its use as a blunt brutalizing tool that masks disdain at the least and malice at the extreme, all the while hidden behind solemn tones and counterfeit piety.

There is a longer conversation to be had regarding the overuse, abuse, and trivialization of some passages of scripture.  The way out of such situations that seems too easy, however, is to pretend the passages are not there and consign them to simply being read in worship without comment.  That unfortunately leaves the passages to those who would continue to weaponize scripture against their opponents, and that will not do.  It would also impoverish our own understanding of what it is we are reading.  Every generation is called to the proclamation of the Gospel in their own time and place, and to find the words to do so in conversation with sacred scripture. Finding those fresh expressions of the truth and looking for the world God is bringing forth will necessarily involve stripping away from our tradition and interpretation of scriptures the rot that has left by time, by abuse, and by carelessness bred by familiarity.

So, how does one get beyond the phrase’s abuse? Given that even within Christianity there are different claims to truth, and that Christians of all stripes at least agree that the truth should be spoken (and lived!), I'm curious about what sort of salvaging needs to happen with this phrase, this “speaking truth in love.” 

I think the first thing that needs to happen is to look at our passage from Ephesians in context.  What might the author, who may have been Paul or a disciple of Paul, have wanted it to mean? Throughout Ephesians Paul is making a case for a mystical unity in Christ that should characterize the relationship of the church.  It is the type of relationship that breaks down barriers.  The recipients of this letter were most likely Gentile Christians instead of Jewish believers.  Paul is reminding them that these two distinct people, Jews and Gentiles, two groups who hated each other in most other contexts would not even deign to eat together, have become one new humanity, writing that “Christ might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.”[1]  Christ brought down the dividing wall.  This is the reality of God’s ministry of reconciliation, and it would have been a shocking image.  No one is thrown out.  No one is cast aside.  Everyone is invited. 

Many of the letters we find in the Bible contain a moral exhortation that stems from proclamation. This letter is no different and our passage today is the hinge between the theology and the ethical expectations that flow from the theology.  “Through the Cross, Christ has unified ethnic groups so that peace should ensue and hostilities cease, creating what Ephesians calls “one new humanity,” which has singular access to God through one Spirit.”[2]  This unity is further emphasized by what it is that we share:  one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God who is parent of everyone.

And through Christ we are given gifts, for the purpose of building the body of Christ. But the gifts are different.  Our varied gifts that we have by the Spirit speak to a unity with diversity.  This is unity without uniformity, and it is a marvelous thing that is difficult to maintain.  It requires every effort on the part of the baptized to create spaces of grace where diversity in life and practice are honored.  Diversity here is not just a slogan that one would slap on church sign, or the kind of diversity that find its expression in a shallow tokenism that pays homage to difference while shying away from the opportunity to be changed by an encounter with the Holy one could not imagine before.  We are instead talking about the recognition, acceptance, practice, and celebration of gifts and people given to the community for the building up of the body of Christ.[3]

This radical vision of unity is a reality difficult to live into.  With that Paul’s letter points to necessary elements, one of which is humility.  The necessity for humility comes from the fact that we all have different gifts that bring us into contact with varied truths about God’s work in the world. We are finite beings, and no one has the total picture of God’s work and purpose at any given time. Our diversity, our gifts and experiences, shows us all aspects of God’s good purposes; and the call to unity in one body and community is to give us the ability to listen and discern a truth greater than we can know on our own.

Now--The passage about speaking truth in love is a part of warning; namely that the Christians ought to be in the process of “growing up” in faith and truth, and the community must be wary of attempts pull them to a truth lesser than the vision God has for them and the world.   

What is interesting about the phrase of “speaking truth in love,” however, is this:
‘Speaking the truth in love’ is not the best rendering of his expression, for the Greek verb makes no reference to our speech. Literally, it means, ‘truthing in love’, and includes the notions of ‘maintaining’, ‘living’ and ‘doing’ the truth.[4]

Following the truth includes speech and conduct. How else to avoid hypocrisy Christians are so famous for when we deceive ourselves and do the very things we hate?

No; “Truthing in love” isn’t simply a matter of talking, it’s also about doing. [5]  And truth cannot be separated from love. 

On the one hand, one cannot simply speak the truth, as though one were a cosmic referee looking to cut folks down, more concerned with purity than growth in Goodness. Indeed some find it easy to speak truth, to set others straight on how it is, to verbally assault others and then feel deserving of a spiritual reward for braving such enemy territory to deliver truth.  Some people speak truth as a way to show-off or one-up one another.[6]  This is speaking truth out of egotism, not humility. And love is lost in the process. 

“On the other hand, others excel in a type of “love” that produces only warm feelings and smiles, and, therefore, can neither broach nor tolerate truth.  In that case, truth and love are opposing forces are opposing forces, and truth must lose.”[7]  This is not good enough, for a multitude of concrete harms to others can occur because of the confusion of nicety and politeness for love and kindness.

Both truth and love are necessary and symbiotic to create a community that is unified and grounded in goodness while seeking to be a vision of God’s reign among us.  Both truth and love are necessary for our life together among each other, and they are gifts we offer to a world.

So how do we translate this into life today? How do we speak truth in love, or rather, grow into being truth in love?  How do we avoid the pitfalls of speaking truth without love, or refusing to speak when something should be said in both our personal relationships and our life in this world?

I think one interpretive key is to look at the description of love 1 Cor. 13(4-7), and refresh ourselves on what love looks like: 

Love is patient and kind; is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 

It turns out the passage isn’t just for weddings! 

To remember what love would look like, it may be worth taking a look at this passage whenever we feel that it is time to speak a truth to someone.  Love will listen, love will hope that truth comes out, love will seek the substance behind our perception of the surface level in humility and care. 

Relationship matters. Remember, the theme of author’s thought in this letter is unity.  Speaking truth in love is not found in making an ultimatum that holds the relationship hostage to the other’s recognizing the truth, or failure to do so.  It may mean that when we speak the truth we discover, or the truth is not recognized, we maintain relationship as much as possible, short of being complicit in the harm we see occurring in personal relationships or our life together in this world.  In other words, there is a duty to hope for redemption, for we follow of God of second chances, even infinite chances as we make our walk toward a truth more perfectly known.

So far, I’ve talked about this phrase in its more punitive uses.  But,  look, there is something else that needs to be said about speaking truth in love.  Paul frequently wrote about the need for encouragement.  Sometimes, speaking the truth in love may include helping someone remember the love God has for them when they forget it.  Or a word of thanks for a particular gift they bring about in the world. 

So, where might you see an opportunity to be truthful in love, in action and in word?
When you are confronted by the need to say something both true and painful, how might you do so to heal, and not to hurt the other?
May our discernment of truth and love lead us closer to the purpose of God.









[1] Eph 2:15-16.
[2] Jaime Clark Soles, “Ephesians 4:1-16, Homiletical perspective” in Feasting on the Word, Year B, Vol. 3,  307.
[3] This paragraph largely follows and borrows phrasing from Richard F. Ward, “Ephesians 4:1-16, Homiletical perspective” in Feasting on the Word, Year B, Vol. 3,  307.
[4] John Stott, quoted by Dan Wilkenson (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/07/speak-the-truth-in-love/) and confirmed in The Interpreters Bible, Vol. 10, pg.  694.
[6] This paragraph largely follows and borrows phrasing from Jaime Clark Soles, “Ephesians 4:1-16, Homiletical perspective” in Feasting on the Word, Year B, Vol. 3,  307.
[7] Jaime Clark Soles, “Ephesians 4:1-16, Homiletical perspective” in Feasting on the Word, Year B, Vol. 3,  307.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

"Something there is that doesn’t love a wall"

Robert Berra
Sermon, St. Matthew’s, Chandler
Proper 11, Year B
Track 1


A photo of the barrier separating Palestine from Israel, taken by a fellow pilgrim (who I would credit if I could remember who took it!).

Rain quietly spattered on the windows of the bus as we made our way west from Jericho to Bethany on our way to Bethlehem.  This was day 4 of our trip. We had left the north of Israel and our time around the Sea of Galilee, and we were coming to spend two nights in Bethlehem and then three nights in the Old City of Jerusalem.  The politics surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were present on our first days of the trip, but muted.  In the Galilean countryside, the conflict seemed far away.  Now, as we set our faces to Jerusalem, we had some idea that our guides were going to take us square into elements of the conflict.  This pilgrimage was going to be political as well as personal.  As we traveled from Jericho to Jerusalem, we left the main highway for a side trip. There is a church along the road that commemorates the raising of Lazarus and the conversation Jesus has with Mary and Martha about choosing the better way.[1]  Going through the urban area, I noticed a lot of trash piled near the crowded streets.  Many of the buildings looked like they were suffering from deferred maintenance.  It looked like an economically depressed area.   After we finished our worship and tour of the church, we pulled our rain gear over us to re-board the bus and be on our way.  As we traveled, we saw more of the same.  A lot of men standing and talking.  Grocers trying to sell their goods at curbside markets.  We then came to what our guides wanted us to see.  On the most direct path from the church we visited to Old City Jerusalem stood a wall of grey concrete nearly 30 ft. tall with an imposing guard tower in the distance.  As we stared at this wall through the rain-beaded windows, and as the driver turned us around on a path to the nearest checkpoint, our guide read this bit of scripture: 

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us…that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.

It was a calculated move on the part of our guides, and knowing that it was intentional felt like some of us to be manipulation for dramatic effect.  Perhaps it worked; I’m telling you this story today. 

We had to go back the way we came to swing west and then south through Jerusalem to Bethlehem.  It was then that I realized and confirmed with our guides what I suspected.  The path we had taken which would have lead from Jericho to the Old City of Jerusalem was at one time a major thoroughfare.  Now, with the wall in place, the entire community was essentially turned into a cul-de-sac and cut out of the tourism trade.  What used to be a 10-minute walk from Old Jerusalem to that community can now be a 3 hour drive; that is, assuming you are allowed through the military checkpoint.  As a result, few people pass through, and the major industry of that area has shriveled, Folks are cut off from services, such as one’s doctors, from one side of the wall to the other. That, among other things, explains the economic depression we saw along the way.  The barrier was ever-present for the rest of our trip as we drove through both Israeli and Palestinian territory.

And lest we think that we can claim some sort of moral superiority over either side, it is worth noting that our nation currently has one of the largest walled borders in the world, portions of which run through our very state.  And lest we be tempted to think that we can sit back and claim that the barrier is an overreaction, or a sign of collective madness, let me say this.  From 2000 to 2003, 76 suicide bombings occurred in Israel. That is a land space that roughly covers a triangle from Tucson to the Grand Canyon, through Phoenix to Globe; but all of those attacks occurred in urban centers.  After the building of portions of the wall, from 2003 to 2006, only twelve suicide bombings occurred, and the number has gone down from there.[2]  

As a father, if I were in a similar situation and someone promised me that I could send my children out in the world more-confident that they would not be blown up in a suicide attack, I would face a difficult decision.  While I like to think I’d be brave enough to live boldly in a dangerous world as a sign of my trust in God’s good purposes and ends, I may indeed be willing to trade the human dignity of many (reducing their freedom, stopping their movement, taking their land) if I receive a sense of security for my family. (We, sitting in this sanctuary, have certainly benefitted from the historical taking of other people’s land by our forebears who wanted that security and felt entitled to take what they wanted by force.) It might be worth it to think that I’ve done what I can so that when he’s old enough I can send Colin shopping without wondering whether he would be blown up by a suicide bomber. 

I have some very definite ideas about the morality of these situations, but at the moment I simply say that the decision-making process is not “crazy” or “delusional.” Reserve those words for actual psychological diagnoses, because what we are talking about is the human instinct of survival.

Survival is the human instinct that drives us to build walls.

And there are so many walls. 

International borders. 
Occupied territories. 
No man’s lands.  
Demilitarized zones. 
Gated communities. 
Ghettoized neighborhoods (which in the U.S. are the legacy of white flight and the practice of redlining).[3] 
Our own notions of race, class, sex and gender identity, and religion.  
Our political leanings.  
Our propensity to wall ourselves from those who have wounded us or disagree with us.  (How long is your list of those people?  My list is in the double digits, I think.)

Walls keep us safe.

In fact, their existence is touted as a virtue.  Benjamin Franklin once quipped “love thy neighbor, yet don’t pull down your hedge.”  The poet Robert Frost is perhaps most credited with how we often hear this wisdom from his poem “Mending Wall”: “good fences make good neighbors.”[4]  And this is a notion that one can find expressed in many different cultures.[5]

However, Frost’s poem begins with this line: “Something there is that doesn't love a wall.”  Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, would agree.[6]

In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, Paul is writing to a church community primarily made up of Gentiles.  In so doing Paul is making the case that God has done something radical and new in Jesus Christ.  On the one hand, there are the gentiles, strangers and aliens, far from God and unaware of God’s covenant and promises made to Israel.  On the other hand are the children of Israel, near to God in covenant and law, but are indicted by that very law as disobedient.  “Both groups, Gentiles and Jews, for different reasons, are estranged from God.  And both groups are estranged from and live in hostility to one another.”[7]  The heart of the text is Paul’s reminder these two distinct people, Jews and Gentiles, have become one new humanity, writing that “Christ might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.”[8]  Christ brought down the dividing wall.  This is the reality of God’s ministry of reconciliation, and it would have been a shocking image.  These two groups would not even deign to eat together.  And yet, “when the neighbors in ancient Ephesus saw who was eating together in the little church, they were shocked.  And when the preacher in that infant congregation saw those shocked faces, all that needed to be said…was “you are witnesses to God’s kingdom come, God’s will done.””[9]  No one is thrown out.  No one is cast aside.  Everyone is invited.

Even though Paul is speaking specifically to the separation of Gentiles and Jews, this passage speaks to our separations today, our situations that need reconciliation.  We are not invited to reconcile ourselves to God and consider our life’s work done; our space in paradise reserved.  That is a purpose too small for God—who desires no less than the reconciliation of all to all, so that God can be all in all.[10]  And God has given us the ministry of reconciliation that not only brings us into a more perfect communion with God but to make us one through Christ with those we once called enemies.[11] 

But even more audacious than the claim of a new humanity is Paul’s other claim.  Are you ready for this?  Because Christ is our peace, bought through the cross, we Christians proclaim that peace has already been made.  Just as death has been destroyed, just as death is no longer the end; hostility, and war, bloodshed are not the final destiny of humankind.  Aggression and hatred are shadows, intended to pass away.  As Paul wrote, “Christ is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall…the hostility between us.”[12]

It is this abiding peace of Christ that we are called to witness to, and it is this peace that creates the conditions for the walls to come tumbling down.  It is God’s desire for this peace that propels Christians into the world, into situations that seem hopeless.   But the work is difficult.

You see, even at their best, walls do not create peace.  They are the tools of temporary cease-fires, of truces that may end, of stand-offs that can last years and decades, in situations both political and personal.  They are testimonies to humankind’s inability to effect reconciliation and a just peace, and so instead we stall.  The situation still exists, but building the walls allows us to think that we have a solution, and that our attention is now better spent elsewhere.  And when the walls we built seem insufficient, we build bigger and better walls.  Bringing down the wall, however, is not good enough, nor does the simple demolition of boundaries create peace.  The walls we create are symptoms of the hostility behind them. Peace comes only when that hostility is eliminated, and that is the work God calls us to participate in and witness in action. This is bitter, difficult work, well worth the effort and joy that comes with its completion.

“Something there is that doesn't love a wall
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it, 
And spills the upper boulders in the sun, 
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.[13]

And God commends the same to us.
----------------
May we consider these questions:
Where is God inviting us and equipping us to confront a hostility within ourselves or within our world?
Where might we rejoice to take a stone off the walls we have built?
Where might we point with joy to crumbling walls, and testify to God’s work?





[1] Luke 10:42.
[6] Paul’s authorship of Ephesians is contested in modern scholarship.  It is possible that a follower of Paul’s school of thought wrote the letter.  This sermon is written assuming the tradition of Paul’s authorship while noting the uncertainty of that authorship.
[7] George Stroup, “Ephesians 2:11-22: Theological perspective” in Feasting on the Word, Year B, Vol. 3,  256.
[8] Eph 2:15-16.
[9] Edwin Searcy, “Ephesians 2:11-22: Homiletical perspective” in Feasting on the Word, Year B, Vol. 3,  257.
[10] 1 Cor 15:28.
[11] 2 Cor 5:18.
[12] Eph 2:14.