15th Sunday after Pentecost 2008 Proper 16

August 24, 2008

the Rev. Ken Kroohs

(Isaiah 51:1-6; Ps. 138; Romans 12:1-8; Matthew 16:13-20)

WHO DO YOUR ACTIONS SAY THAT HE IS ?

St. Christopher’s, High Point, NC

MAY THE WORDS OF MY MOUTH ... AND THE MEDITATIONS OF ALL OUR HEARTS ... BE ALWAYS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU --- OUR STRENGTH AND OUR REDEEMER AMEN

Before jumping into the meat of the readings I will take a moment to comment on church, theological history. The gospel passage today is one of the most important in church history since it is a primary basis — not the only but a primary basis for the division between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

“and on this rock I shall build my church” is the source of much division. Funny thing, both sides take the passage very literally — they just believe the literal reading is different. .... And that is a great comment on literalists!

In brief summary the Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus was referring specifically to Peter the individual when He said “on this rock I shall build my church”. That basis for that is the word play where “Peter” and “rock” are the same word in Aramaic with a similar structure in common Greek.

Furthermore, and most important the Roman Catholic belief is that Jesus was referring not just to Peter the individual but the individuals who follow in Peter’s “position”. We now call them Pope’s.

Protestants take a different, literal understanding. The Protestant understanding is that Jesus is speaking to Peter but is referring to Peter’s statement ... his confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Under that understanding anyone who follows Peter in that belief is the basis for the church. That is, Jesus’ church will be built upon those who believe in Jesus.

FYI — I am clearly a Protestant on this one!

Note the importance of this debate when considering what is a “literal reading of the Bible”. Both sides claim to be reading literally. And yet they reach very different conclusions.

Another example from the abortion debate: “I have known you from your mother’s womb”. Does this literally mean from the moment of conception? Or from the moment of implantation? Or from the moment of viability? Or from the moment the cord is cut?

My point is not to argue which is correct. All are defensible. I only seek to point out that “literalism” is much more difficult to define than many speakers would have you believe!

Now in Peter’s response I want you to notice something. There is nothing individualistic in it. Peter does not say: “Jesus you are my personal lord and savior”. There are other passages where the more personal connection is emphasized but this one focuses on a communal connection. Peter declares or announces that Jesus is the one sent by God to the world — not just to any specific individual.

This is critically important. That car with the bumper sticker: “God is created in man’s own image” — Jesus is the Lord and Savior of that driver, that atheist. Or the Wicca witch or the Satanist. They may not know it. They may not believe it but it is true. They would have to accept that statement before they benefit from His efforts but the efforts are being/were made on their behalf also. And if we reject the people, not their actions but the people whom Jesus does not reject — we are in a dangerous situation.

Even more important than those extreme examples are the people who when asked say: “I am a Christian” but have no idea what that means. Paul struck at the heart of what being a Christian means when he wrote: “Be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so you may discern what is the will of God – what is good, and acceptable, and perfect.”

Paul helps us understand that a Christian life is less about conversion and more about transformation. Less about some sudden declaration like Peter made – important but incomplete – and more about changing our lives. Remember how Peter kept getting other things wrong including denying Jesus during His trial. Peter was transformed — not converted suddenly.

So how does this all work out for us? If studying scripture does not help us live our life come Monday morning it is not very useful!

Let me approach that from this direction ... last Sunday I found myself intrigued by the Rev. Rick Warren’s interviews of Barch Obama and John McCain. Very well done interviews. If you don’t know Rick Warren he is the author of the Purpose Drive Life series and the pastor at the huge, evangelical Saddleback Church.

One of the questions Warren asked was whether there was evil in the world and if so, should we: compromise with it, live with it, give in to it, or defeat it.

Actually I would argue that Warren’s options are incomplete - and I suspect that if challenged he would agree. Because the way he formatted the question suggests we can defeat evil.

Notice the implications of that conclusion ... if we can defeat evil we don’t need Jesus! If we can defeat evil, if human beings can defeat evil than Peter’s declaration is meaningless. .... This can be one of the most challenging, shocking, and scary spiritual conclusions we can reach. We cannot defeat evil. If we could defeat evil we would not need a savior. We would not need a Lord to lead us. We could just go our own way.

That is a really difficult conclusion and I invite you to spend lots of time considering the implications. Most of us have grown up believing we can accomplish anything we set our minds to. We tend to believe if someone fails it is their own fault.

In other words, we conclude there is NO force of evil in the world that is more powerful than we are and from which we need a savior.

I suggest there are only two possible conclusions – either there is evil more powerful than ourselves, and I don’t just mean a bigger gang or more powerful business opponent – and therefore we need a savior ... or second, no such force exists and we don’t need a savior.

Notice in this I am not particularly concerned with heaven and hell but with this life.

So let me describe a transformation. This is the example from my life and I don’t for a moment believe I have reached any final place.

I call the stages: “being a servant”, “being a partner” and “being served”.

In the first phrase I took the approach that my role versus evil was to be God’s servant. I was to attack and defeat evil. The problem was that I would tell God: “I am your servant so you don’t have to dirty your hands with this evil. Leave it to me.” ... I took the attitude that I could defeat evil.

The second phase, the partnership phase is better – but not great. In this I admitted I could not defeat evil by myself so I would tell God: “Just give me the power, the knowledge, the wisdom and the courage. Then you don’t have to dirty your hands, just leave it to me.”

Better — at least I admitted I needed help. But still not right since I was still trying to do God’s job.

The third stage and this feels a little backward is “being served” — when I ask God to serve me!! Strange, very strange, very very strange that the progress is from my independence to my total dependence. From offering to do it for God to asking God to do it for me.

Don’t mis-understand me. The partnership part is still important. But in this stage I admit I am very much the junior partner. That I must do what God wants ... I must do my part.

The wonderful old saying: “Without God we cannot do it ... without us God will not do it.”

Frequently the role I am called to play is to step aside and let others. Other times I am called to step forward and take a lead. Those are difficult decisions to make and I do get them wrong at times!!

A few years ago and I doubt anyone can think of the exact meeting – we had a meeting in which there was more than a little stress. Yes that happens in church! The challenge is not to avoid stress the challenge is how the stress is handled.

Anyway as each speaker made their points ... usually many times! ... I looked at them and then wrote on my pad - as if I was taking notes. I covered two and a half pages with tiny print. But these were not notes. They were prayers or more specifically a prayer: God help me – us. Probably written a thousand times.

In that meeting I made the declaration and acknowledgment that Peter made. I turned to Jesus as our congregation’s messiah ... the one sent to us by God ... and also my personal messiah but more importantly the congregation’s messiah and allowed the messiah to do messiah stuff. .... It all came out amazingly well! Maybe other people would not use the phrase “miracle” but I just might.

Who do you say He is? Who do you act as if He is?

AMEN

We have previous sermons on our website. To read an earlier recent sermon just enter: www.st-christopher.org/sermon.html.

CLICK HERE TO RESPOND: I would enjoy reading your comments about this sermon. Please feel free to discuss content or presentation. (If you wish to use another email system send your comments to: ken@st-christopher.com)