Today's first reading, the account of the stoning of the
deacon Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles, is the story of the first Christian
martyr. Stephen was the first but by no means the last Christian martyr. In
just the 20th c. the number of Christian martyrs easily numbers 50 million, if
not more.
The thing that makes this story problematic is that Stephen
is put to death by Jews. Really, I should say that Stephen is put to death by
his FELLOW Jews, because in Stephen's time, there was not a clear and distinct
difference between Jews and Christians. In Acts 11.26 we read that
"in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called
Christians." In other words, the followers of Jesus only began to be
called "Christians" in the period covered by the book of Acts.
We also know that Paul went first to the synagogues
scattered around the eastern end of the Mediterranean because he understood the
Christian message to be good news for Jews. For most of the first c. the
difference was not between Jews and Christians but between one group of Jews
and another group of Jews. But toward the end of the 1rst c, when non Jews
began to outnumber Jews in the Christian communities, then Christianity was
understood to be a new and different religion, rather than a sect of Judaism.
I'm sorry to say this, but within 300 years, Christians
started to persecute Jews and continued to do so for most of the next 2000
years. That is a history with which we have only begun to reckon and we have a
long, long way to go.
Regardless, my point is that the stoning of Stephen was
motivated by religious differences.
The so-called "cultured despisers of religion" are
likely to snort and mutter "how typical!" under their breath. There
are many who blame most of the world's ills on religion. They point to
conflicts between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East; between Catholics and
Protestants in Northern Ireland; and between Hindus and Muslims in India; and
between Christians and Muslims in many parts of the world.
There is something to be said for the idea that religious
differences can foster hostility and even violence.
Following the Protestant Reformation Europe was rocked by a
series of wars - the so-called "Wars of Religion" - that lasted a
century and killed hundreds of thousands and caused untold misery and
suffering.
However, it seems likely that religion is less a cause of
violence and more of an excuse. The Islamic extremists who killed Wall
Street Journal reporter Daniel Perl were not nice people who would have
been his best friends had it not been for their religious convictions. They
were killers. Period. Full stop. Killers don't need a reason to kill; they just
kill.
But I think there is far more to be said for the explicitly
anti-religious states of the 20th c as agents of death. By conservative
estimates the Soviets, Nazis, communist Chinese, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia,
and others killed between 50 and 100 million.
Nevertheless, we are Christians, and we must take
responsibility for those who kill others under the sign of the cross.
What is the answer? What can we do to end religiously
motivated war and murder?
Before I answer that question, I want you to consider Jesus'
answer to Thomas's question in today's gospel reading. Thomas asks Jesus,
"How can we know the way [to the Father]?" And Jesus answers, "I
am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
me."
That presents us with a real problem. Even if religion is
not primarily a force for violence and unrest, there is no doubt that sometimes
religious differences cause or at least are used to motivate terrible conflicts
and even terrible crimes.
Just this week the people of India elected a new prime
minister, Narendra Modi, who some hold responsible for the deaths of 2000
Muslims in religiously motivated violence.
What do we do with Jesus' statement, "I am the way, the
truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." It
appears that Jesus is saying that there is a non-negotiable difference between
Christianity and all other faiths, that Christianity is the one true faith,
that without adhering to the Christian faith there is no hope of finding God,
no hope of finding the eternal life that God promises.
Furthermore, here at Christ Church we have committed ourselves
to evangelism, to making every effort to reach out to and bring in people in
this community who are without faith, who are looking for hope, for answers to
life's problems. We say that we have good news for the despairing and joyless.
And I want you to know that I believe that and believe that we are right to do
that. I believe that we do have good news to offer the world.
At the priests' conference this weekend Bishop Edwards had a
team of consultants lead the priests of the diocese in a workshop on evangelism,
including how to use social media to promote the Christian message. I believe
this is something that the Episcopal Church has desperately needed to do for a
long time.
But how can we promote the idea that Christianity is unique
and special, that we have a message of eternal significance, and at the same
time reject the kind of violence that resulted in the deaths of Stephen and the
millions and millions of other throughout history who have been killed in the
name of religion?
This is no simple question.
One solution to this is the solution of Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson rejected all the supernatural elements of Christianity. Indeed, I
would say that he rejected everything that makes Christianity unique. Jefferson
took the New Testament in one hand and a pair of scissors in the other and cut
out all the miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus, and all references
to the Trinity. Jefferson gave us an emasculated gospel, a gospel of
"gentle Jesus, meek and mild," a religion without all the hard bits.
But I don't believe we can have a religion without the hard
bits.
As most of you know one of my dearest friends in the world
is Rabbi Jonathan Miller, the spiritual leader of Alabama's largest synagogue.
Jonathan is not just a friend; he has been a spiritual advisor for me.
Sometimes we even read and offer comments on each other's sermons. But,
needless to say, Jonathan and I disagree about many things, not the least of
which is "who is Jesus Christ?"
For me, Jesus is the messiah and the Son of God. For
Jonathan, Jesus is a wise teacher, a wonderful representative of 1rst c.
Palestinian Judaism, but in no sense is he the messiah, much less the Son of
God. I believe that Jesus rose again on the third day after his crucifixion;
Jonathan believes that Jesus died and sleeps the sleep of the just with his
fathers and mothers before him.
But Jonathan and I agree on many more things. Jonathan and I
believe that God created the world. We believe that God directs us to live
good, ethical lives, and inspired Israel's prophets to give us directions about
the best way to live our lives. We believe that we have an obligation to care
for the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed.
You and I live in an age when the "nones" are on
the rise, and by "none" I don't mean women vowing to live a life of
prayer and service. The Pew Foundation recently issued a study showing that one
third of people under the age of 30 have no religious affiliation. A
representative of the Pew Foundation said, "Young people today are not only
more religiously unaffiliated than their elders; they are also more religiously
unaffiliated than previous generations of young people ever have been as far
back as we can tell."
In the age of the "nones" I am happy to make
common cause with Rabbi Miller. I am happy to make common cause with Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, with anyone who believes that life has meaning, has
an eternal and transcendent significance, that there are eternal values
embedded in the very nature of the universe.
But I still believe that Christianity has a unique
significance. I can believe that God is fully and uniquely revealed in Jesus of
Nazareth, and at the same time believe that there is wisdom in the other great
religious and spiritual systems of the world.
I do not believe that only Christians have a purchase on
eternal life. I believe that God has sons and daughters in all of the world's
faith. How can I look at the life of Gandhi or the Dalai Lama and believe
otherwise?
But I still believe in evangelism. I believe that we have a
powerful and life-changing message to share with the world, and I believe that
there is an urgency about sharing that message.
Listen again to Jesus' statement from John's gospel: "I
am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by
me."
Jesus did NOT say, "Christianity is the way, the truth
and the life." He did NOT say, "No one comes to the Father apart from
baptism or without the Christian church."
I am sorry to say this but the Christian church is often an
obstacle. Too often we emphasize ritual, custom, and tradition over the
substance of the gospel.
I believe that Jesus and his way, his message, are the
essence of the gospel. That is what we must share with the world.
We may feel that telling the Christian story implies a
negative attitude toward other religions.
On the contrary, I think we show our respect for persons of other faiths
by engaging in serious dialogue with them.
We want to share our story with them, and we also want to hear their
stories. We do not become less Christian
by listening respectfully to our Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu neighbors, and they
do not lose their religious identities by listening respectfully to us
Religion, even the Christian religion, can be used as an
excuse for violence. We must never condone, much less perpetrate, that kind of
violence. On the contrary, I want us to be people of the good news, people of
the gospel, and at the same time, cherish, respect, and love people of other
faiths and make common cause with them whenever possible.
