Sermon preached by The Reverend Dr. Harold T. Lewis

SERMON PREACHED BY THE REVEREND DR. HAROLD T. LEWIS, RECTOR CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA ON THE FIRST SUNDAY AFTER THE EPIPHANY 13 JANUARY 2008


"I truly understand that God shows no partiality." (Acts 10:34)

You will be happy to learn that after much prayer, study, contemplation, and countless hours of conversation with all sorts and conditions of Anglicans on at least three continents, I have figured out what is really wrong with the Anglican Communion today. I wanted you to be the first to know, and tomorrow, I shall fax this sermon to Bishop Duncan, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in order that they might set in motion the actions that will result in what the Prayer Book calls "an happy issue out of all our affliction." The insight came to me when I read a poem written by John Godfrey Saxe, (printed in its entirety at the end of this sermon) who put into Victorian verse the famous Indian parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. It starts off like this: It was six men of Indostan, To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant, (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind.

The next six verses describe, in turn, how each blind man, touching, feeling or groping a different part of the elephant's anatomy, came to different conclusions about the beast. One, experiencing the broadness of the animal's side, said the elephant was like a wall; another, feeling the sharpness of the tusk, decided that the elephant was like a spear. The trunk-fondling blind man was convinced that the elephant was like a snake; he who explored the great ear declared that the elephant was like a fan, and so on. The poem's penultimate verse draws this conclusion: And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! The last verse contains the moral, which is especially instructive to us: So, oft in theologic wars The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean; And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen!

The amazing thing about this blind sextet, as the poem points out, is that "each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong." "Partly in the right," because their descriptions were accurate given their limited contact with the elephant; "all in the wrong" because no description contained the whole truth about the elephant.
Is this not a parable for our church? Some see the church as the preserver and enforcer of a particular code of behavior. Under such a view, there is an unwavering standard of conduct for everyone who wishes to be a member. For others, the church is an embodiment of beliefs. A member of the church must ascribe to certain tenets and eschew others. Still others see the church as conciliar --- that is an organization all of whose members are bound by the decisions of the councils of the church (even if they do not all agree on which councils should be on the list). For others the church is an extension of the Bible, an organization whose members are obliged to adhere to Scriptural mandates. Many Christians believe the church exists primarily to worship God. Some Christians believe the church is an organization whose bishops are the defenders and interpreters and therefore the final arbiters of the faith. Another group sees the church as a hospital for sinners; still others see it as a agency whose primary role is to bring about social change; still others understand the church to be first and foremost a prophetic voice; others espouse a theology that understands the church as a dispenser of good works; and yet other groups believe the church should be a champion of the oppressed, and an upholder of justice.
If we take all these ingredients together and mix well (and I do not presume to suggest that the list is exhaustive) we come close, perhaps, to what the church is all about. The problem which we are facing today is that there are many who have chosen, based on their limited perspectives, one or two of these and have declared that they constitute the sum-total of the church, much in the same way that the blind man from Indostan, feeling the elephant's leg, could declare that the animal "is very like a tree."

In today's lesson from the Book of Acts, we come across the Apostle Peter delivering a sermon, a sermon in which he must defend an act which many of his fellow Christians found unacceptable. Peter has baptized Cornelius, who in the minds of many of the neophyte members of the church, was especially unfit to become a member of the church. He was a Gentile (a non-Jew); a Roman citizen who worshipped the emperor, and moreover represented the Empire that occupied the land, oppressing her people. Moreover, he was an army officer, a fact that would deeply offend the pacifist early church.

In defending his actions, Peter shares his life-story with the congregation, a story in which he makes it clear that Jesus found room in his heart and in his church for him, although he had rebuked his Lord at Caesarea Philippi and had later denied him outright. Indeed, Peter is the one to whom Jesus entrusted the keys to the kingdom with the words "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church," [Mt. 16:18] a verse that makes more sense when we know that the Greek word for Peter (Petros) is the same as the word for rock. (It also works in Latin. To me, one of the most impressive features of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome are the gigantic letters chiseled in stone around the perimeter of that great edifice: Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Peter then makes a statement which is probably as important as the Beatitudes or John 3:16, which we all had to memorize in Sunday School. He says: "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him."

Now this verse (which is sometimes translated "God has no favorites" --- in the King James Bible it read: "God is no respecter of persons") is usually cited in reference to people outside the Christian fold. It is sometimes invoked as a rebuttal to statements that only Christians can be saved. But I would like to suggest this morning that we hold up Peter's statement for the members of our own factious and polarized church. When the rector of a neighboring parish can declare, categorically, that the Episcopal Church no longer represents the Christian religion, when the bishop can state that we have come to a fork in the road, and can no longer share the same spiritual home, it is time to remind ourselves that God shows no partiality. What has happened is that all of us, in one way or another, have glommed onto one or two aspects of the church and have ignored others to our peril. Indeed, provinces of the Anglican Communion have been like the several blind men. Some of them see the church only in terms of Biblical morality and others can understand it only in terms of social justice. And instead of asking each other to describe aspects of the church they cannot see, they, like the blind men, "rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean."
Today we gather to baptize little Jacob, and we trust no one will object, as they did to the baptism of Cornelius. How appropriate that on a day when we talk about the church's blindness, we should incorporate into Christ's church a child whose Biblical namesake experienced one of the greatest visions recorded in Holy Scripture. At Bethel, he lay on a stone, he saw a ladder reaching up to heaven, with angels ascending and descending on it. And the Lord spoke to him and promised him blessing and posterity. We ask that the Lord will also richly bless this Jacob, and that he will be imbued with such vision that he may say of the church as Jacob said at Bethel, "How awesome is this place. This is none other than the House of God. This is the Gate of Heaven."
THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT
It was six men of Indostan, The First approached the Elephant, To learning much inclined, And happening to fall Who went to see the Elephant Against his broad and sturdy side, (Though all of them were blind), At once began to bawl: That each by observation "God bless me! But this Elephant Might satisfy his mind. Is very like a wall!" The Second, feeling of the tusk, The Third approach'd the animal, Cried, "Ho! What have we here And happening to take So very round and smooth and sharp? The squirming trunk within his hands, To me 'tis mighty clear, Thus boldly up and spake: This wonder of an Elephant "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a spear!" Is very like a snake!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, And felt about the knee: Said "E'en the blindest man "What most this wondrous beast is like Can tell what this resembles most; Is mighty plain," quoth he, Deny the fact who can, "'Tis clear enough the Elephant This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a tree!" Is very like a fan!" The Sixth no sooner had begun And so these men of Indostan About the beast to grope, Disputed loud and long, Then, sizing on the swinging tail Each in his own opinion That fell within his scope, Exceeding stiff and strong, "I see," quote he, "the Elephant Though each was partly in the right Is very like a rope!" And all were in the wrong. MORAL So, oft in theologic wars The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean; And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen! John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)