Texts: Ezekiel 33:7-11; Romans 13:8-14; Matthew 18:15-20
As I have indicated in the pewsheet this morning, the Diocese has made a very interesting little DVD about various initiatives taken around the Diocese to reach out to the wider community. It is the brainchild of Kate Nichol, the lay member of Diocesan Council with special responsibility for evangelism; and the DVD features Kate talking to various members of the Diocese from different parishes about outreach ventures they have going in their parishes. One in particular caught my eye as I was thinking about today's readings.
One of the questions Kate asked the participants was: Have you run something that did not work; if so, why did it not work and what in hindsight do you think you could have done better?" Something like that. And Kelvin Wright's answer to that question was particularly interesting to me. He said they had tried a Friday evening group, which met together for a shared meal, and would then look at a DVD together and discuss it. And it went well for a short while, before folding. Why did it fold?
Well, said Kelvin in his gentle way, when a parish like St John's begins to attract new people, included in those it attracts can be some difficult people, and included among those difficult people there can be one or two very difficult people. He said in a large congregation on a Sunday morning one or two even very difficult people is not too great a problem – they can be absorbed. But in a small group of 8-10, even one very difficult person can be ruinous. And that's what had happened to the Friday group. The other members of the group finally had enough and left. End of group.
He didn't spell out the exact nature of the problem, but those of us who have ever been in small groups will have little difficulty in filling in the gaps for ourselves. There is the person who is completely focussed on himself or herself, and every week brings his or her problems to the meeting and shares them liberally with the other members of the group. And then there's the know-all who has not come to learn anything, but to show how much he or she knows about anything and everything, and how little everybody else in the group (including the leader/teacher, if there is one) knows about anything. Such people can close down groups quicker than the norovirus.
And so to the second part of Kate's question. What in hindsight could Kelvin have done about it to solve the problem? As usual, Kelvin was refreshingly candid. "I have no idea," he said. "I have yet to find a solution." And then he added this: "Obviously, you cannot tell someone not to come to church." That's the bit I want to reflect on this morning, particularly in the light of our gospel passage. Kelvin's comment sounds right, doesn't it? As he says himself, it is obvious – we cannot tell someone not to come to church. I found myself nodding as he said it.
And yet, he's wrong, isn't he? At least, we have to conclude that either he's wrong or St Matthew is wrong. And please notice how I have put that last bit: I said St Matthew, not Jesus. And I'm not just being coy here. I usually get a little tense when people argue that Jesus didn't say this or that attributed to him in the Scriptures. But I think they must be right here, at least in the direct sense. Jesus could not have said this during his lifetime for the simple reason that there was no church during his lifetime. If any matter of dispute arose among the disciples he dealt with it himself.
So if these words came from Jesus it must have been from the Risen Christ in prayer – which is what St Paul means on the frequent occasions when he tells us something he has got from the Lord himself. So maybe Jesus spoke these words through the Spirit; or maybe St Matthew is simply recording the practice of the church in his area. Whatever the case, we can assume that this highly sophisticated disciplinary procedure was already being used in the Church by the time St Matthew was writing – say around 80AD. And if nothing else, this tells us that Kelvin's experience in St Johns is not unprecedented! Very difficult people were already turning up in the community of faith that produced St Matthew's gospel. Once again we have to say that those who wish the present-day Church could be more like the early Church have already had their wish granted!
But there is one very important difference. What is obvious to Kelvin was not at all obvious to St Matthew's community, and that reflects a very different mindset. If we follow St Matthew's disciplinary process through to the end, we find exactly the final step that Kelvin ruled out. St Matthew says we should treat the recalcitrant offender as we would "a pagan or a tax collector". And if we cut to the chase that means ex-communication, or in Kelvin's words, we tell them not to come to church again. Why the difference?
Because in St Matthew's day the community of faith had priority over the individual member. St Paul's theology leads to the same conclusion. So does Jesus' teaching. Remember his rather gruesome remarks about plucking out our eyes if it offends us or causes us to sin. What matters is the health of the community of faith; and if one member of that community is harming the community, the leaders must act to protect the community.
Our passage in Ezekiel this morning is a good backdrop for this teaching. He talks about the responsibilities of a watchman. In the days of military attacks and all the rest, the city's well-being could well depend on its watchmen remaining vigilant at all times and warning of the advent of enemy forces. Today we might think of the lifeguards on our beaches, or those who are (hopefully!) constantly on the lookout for the possibility of tsunamis heading this way. If these people warn us they have fulfilled their responsibilities: if we choose to ignore their warnings, be it on our own heads. But if they forget their responsibilities, if they decide it really doesn't matter, or it's best not to say anything, then they should be held to account if anything goes wrong. A failure to warn people who are in danger is a terrible thing.
Another analogy might be the health check. If a doctor notices something that might be of concern but decides not to say anything in case it upsets the patient, he or she will have some explaining to do if problems arise later on. And if we are warned and take no action, then we bear the consequences.
Back to Kelvin's problem. According to St Matthew, Kelvin should have gone to see the offender in private. That's the first step, and there are two important points there. The offended party should make the first move; and the first move is to take the issue up with the offender privately, "just between the two of you", as St Matthew puts it. Is that what we usually do in the Church? No, it isn't. We are far more likely to talk to everybody else in the parish than to the person concerned. We prefer to complain to others about someone, rather than complain to that person. And, of course, if we do think we would like to take it to the person concerned, we take it for granted that each side should be entitled to have a support person with them, if not a lawyers. Why? Because that's what happens in the outside world, and so that's what should happen in the Church. Whatever St Matthew says.
If that doesn't work, says St Matthew, then bring one or two others into the discussion; and if that doesn't work then take it to the whole congregation. And there we see the great wisdom in this approach, born out of an understanding that ultimately it is the health of the community of faith that is at stake. Because the difficult person was not dealt with in this biblically-authorised way Kelvin's group folded; we might say, because the tumour was not removed, the body died. Because the warning was not heeded the group was washed out of existence.
And, of course, the difficult person has not been shown the error of his or her ways. Perhaps we need another DVD?
No comments:
Post a Comment