We have three very challenging Scripture readings today, all focussed on the questions of how we should treat someone whom we judge to be sinful, and what behaviors God judges as sinful. These readings are highly relevant to our present crisis in the Anglican Communion. But let us look at the readings before we ask what they have to do with the present crisis. In the reading from I Kings, we have one of the classic stories of prophecy. Remember that the role of the prophet was not necessarily to predict the future, but rather to speak God’s truth in times of crisis. At a critical moment around 860 BC, King Ahab was overcome by desire and greed. The fact that he did not act immediately to take over Naboth’s vineyard, indicates to me that he knew it was wrong to do so. His wife Queen Jezebel, was not hindered by her conscience--she was the daughter of the King of Tyre, and continued to worship the storm god Ba’al. So after Jezebel had arranged for Naboth’s death, and when King Ahab had gone to take possession of the vineyard, the Word of the Lord came to Elijah to confront Ahab, and tell him that he had done what is wrong. Although the institution of kingship, and the methods of Jezebel, are largely foreign to us, the desire to possess what someone else owns, is still very much alive in human hearts. In fact, I think I could make a good case that our advertising industry is based on such desire, and perhaps most of our economic prosperity, from clothes to homes, is based on the desire to have what my neighbor has. The crucial question for us, is whether we allow desire to dominate our feelings and carry us into actions which deprive another person of their possession.

In our New Testament readings, we have two situations where people didn’t know or understand that they were doing anything wrong. In the Letter to the Galatians, Paul describes the conflict in the church of Antioch, which was similar to the conflict facing the church of Galatia, and similar to our present crisis. Antioch was a mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians, worshipping together in harmony “until certain people came from James”. The issue was double edged: not only whether Jewish Christians were still obliged to keep the dietary laws, but also whether they should separate themselves from fellowship with the Gentile Christians who did not keep those laws. Before the message from the church in Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians, including Cephas (Peter) ate meals with the Gentile Christians. In other words, they no longer observed the Jewish dietary laws, because Christ had freed them from observance of the law. Now they had to face this delegation from Jerusalem, and suddenly Peter “drew back and kept himself separate” from the Gentile Christians. Other Jewish Christians followed the example of Peter, naturally. Paul named this hypocrisy, and confronted Peter with his inconsistency. The truth of the Gospel is that we are saved (or justified--made right with God) NOT by our obedience to the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. To go back to keeping the dietary laws and refusing to eat with Gentiles, is precisely to nullify the grace of God.

Now, it is important to understand that the people from Jerusalem have come from a very different context. The Jerusalem Church was probably 90% or even 100% Jewish, and there they were living in the shadow of the Temple. They had added the teaching of Jesus to their religious belief and practice, without subtracting anything. They believed that they were avoiding sin, and they were trying to correct their fellow Christians, who were engaged in sin. The problem arose, of course, because the Gospel was preached to Gentiles, who accepted it and were baptized. In the Anglican Communion, the cultural and historical context is similarly important. The Episcopal Church, and the Church of England, each have a long history of independent theological discussion, in the context of largely Christian cultures. The African Anglicans have a shorter history of hierarchy and obedience in the church, in the context of Islamic culture. So the issue of which behaviors God considers sinful, and how we should treat people who may be sinful, appears quite differently depending on the context.

The Gospel reading seems to be addressing these very questions. Here was Jesus, going to dinner in the home of a Pharisee. There are many more stories about his fellowship with outcasts: now he is dining with a wealthy righteous Jew, who observed the law scrupulously. Archaeology helps us understand this scene: the ordinary peasants of Galilee lived in h omes built around a courtyard. The upper class, however, were adopting the latest Roman style of an atrium entrance which led directly to a formal dining room--a triclinium, which could be seen from the street. It would have been much easier for the sinful woman to get into the dining room where Jesus was reclining, if it were a Roman villa. So she slipped in and stood behind him, weeping and bathing his feet with her tears. This detail that she stood and wept didn’t make sense to me until I worked at that Roman fort in England 4 years ago, where they had reconstructed a Roman villa. The “couches” in the triclinium were quite high, about two and a half feet--so the fact that she stood weeping, yet was able to wipe the feet of Jesus with her hair, is probably accurate.

St. Luke implies, but does not state, two things about the woman: that her sin is sexual, and that she has previously encountered Jesus. Whether or not these things are true, clearly Jesus’ acceptance of her, has moved her deeply, and her actions flow from love and gratitude. In his response to his host, Jesus drew a clear distinction between the Pharisee’s behavior toward himself, and the woman’s behavior. In other words, Jesus shifted the focus from the woman’s past sinful behavior, to the way each of them, have treated him. He has reframed the issue. What matters most, is the response we make to God’s love and forgiveness. The woman of the city, responded to the forgiveness Jesus gave her, with love and gratitude, while the Pharisee made no effort to welcome Jesus. The parable of the two debtors underlines this point. What matters least, is the nature, or the degree of sinful behavior.

Do you recognize how scandalous this was, and still is? Here and elsewhere, Jesus swept away all human evaluations of sinfulness. He was saying, in effect, that murder is no worse than anger, in the eyes of God, that adulterers are no worse than those with lustful thoughts. He was saying that God loves the sinner despite their sin, that God freely forgives without imposing punishment or disgrace, and, that we should do the same!

We believe that Jesus offers us a vision of wholeness: the wholeness of our humanity, the wholeness that is possible for each of us, as we accept God’s forgiveness, as we rejoice in the grace we have received, and as we struggle to become forgiving ourselves.

With all of this in mind, we come back to the present situation in the Anglican Communion. The big question is, can the liberals and conservatives, can the Episcopalians and the African Anglicans, respect and accept the differences in our interpretations of Scripture, in our understandings of what is sinful, and in our way of being Anglican, or are we headed toward schism?

You could say that the Anglican Church--originally the Church of England, was born of schism. That was in 1533 when the English Church denied the supremacy of the Pope, and separated from the Church of Rome. It was an era when English theologians and others believed that the Roman Church had become corrupted. The genius of the new Church of England was not in its separation from Rome, however, but in its spirit of accommodation. The Church of England tried to become a place where old Catholics and new Protestants could worship together using liturgies in English, called “common prayer”.

Since that time, unity has become a defining characteristic of our church. Although the Revolutionary War separated the American church from the Church of England, we still sent our first bishops to be consecrated in Scotland and England. Later in the 19th century, the Episcopal Church was the only major Protestant denomination which did not divide over the issue of slavery. So we have gone on choosing this ambiguity, this range of beliefs, trusting that even when we disagree, we can still worship together, because we are one in Christ.

Beginning in the 16th century then, and increasingly in England, the United States and Canada, we have become a church that welcomes a wide range of belief and interpretation. You don’t have to check your mind at the door, and in fact you will have to use your mind the longer you stay, because you will meet Episcopalians with whom you do not agree. Many of us discovered how uncomfortable this could be, in the debates of the 60’s and 70’s over the war in Vietnam, and the civil rights movement. Many Episcopalians agonized over the decisions to ordain women in the 70’s, and some left. Today, I hope you will notice that we heard about the unusual diversity of Jesus’ disciples at the end of our Gospel reading. Along with Peter and James and John, there were disciples named Mary and Joanna, and Susanna, who provided for Jesus out of their resources. We don’t know what they provided, but my guess is, meals and lodging.

Probably you are aware that in February, the leading bishops of the 38 Anglican churches, issued a Communique in which they asked the Episcopal Church, to refrain from blessing same sex unions, from consecrating a gay bishop, and to adopt a system of oversight for dissenting parishes. In March, our House of Bishops rejected these demands. On June 14th, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church agreed with our House of Bishops. They said, “we are God’s gift to each other” and so we must have “a deep and abiding honesty with one another”. This means that we wish to continue to live “in the fullest possible relationship with our Anglican sisters and brothers”, and equally, that “the only thing we really have to offer in that relationship, is who we are”. Like the church in Antioch, we are a church that welcomes all.

A truly inclusive church does the hard work of creating the kind of non-judgmental space that the woman in the gospel found, when she approached Jesus and bathed him with tears. We must have the humility of that woman in order to overcome the divisions facing us. We must, like her, recognize our unworthiness in order to move into that ambiguous space where we encounter the mystery of God. Before that mystery, we refrain from judging one another, because we are all debtors, we all need forgiveness, and we are all brothers and sisters of Jesus: God’s beloved children.

(My thanks to Gage McKinney, for his thoughtful contributions to this sermon, especially concerning the historical tradition of unity in Anglicanism.)