SERMON PREACHED BY THE REVEREND HAROLD T. LEWIS, RECTOR

CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST

31 MAY 2009

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. (Acts 2:3)

“Diversity” has become a buzzword.  In the space of less than a decade, it has almost become something of a cliché.  This is especially true in the church.  We boast (and yes, Calvary is guilty as charged) of our diverse congregations, and within them of our diverse parish organizations.  We lament that certain groups, be they General Convention deputations or a Standing Committees or a church organization boards, are not diverse enough. The gentlemen that made up the House of Bishops used to be seated in rows, according to strict seniority.  The old guard in the front row, the newly consecrated (who were expected to keep a vow of silence for their first few meetings) in the rear.  Now, the ladies and gentlemen of the House are seated at tables, reportedly according to “strict” ideological and geographical, and to the extent possible, gender diversity. Diversity is differently defined depending on whom you speak to.  Some people are concerned with racial diversity, others with the issue of gender, still others with sexual orientation or age.  Many conservative voices in the church have criticized those on the progressive wing of making diversity into a religion, and claim that the liberals or that it really believe that when it comes to church membership there are no boundaries whatsoever, that anything goes.

I would like to suggest this morning that diversity is not a recent invention of any particular interest group or theological party in the church, but is a concept firmly rooted in Scripture.  Nowhere do we see more evidence of this than today, the Feast of Pentecost, affectionately known as the “birthday of the church” --- the day, according to the collect, on which God “opened the way of eternal life to every race and nation by the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.” The Book of Acts tells us that “divided” tongues (a word as misleading as the KJV “cloven” was incomprehensible) rested on each person present, and provided a service which we would describe today as “simultaneous translation.”  People, speaking in their respective languages, were instantly understood by everybody else.  And what a motley crew they were!  Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamians, Cyrenians, Cretans, Arabians, and a host of others.  This phenomenon, as Peter was quick to explain in his sermon, fulfilled the prophecy of Joel, who said that “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams” --- that the Spirit would be poured out on them and “even on my slaves,” said the prophet.

But this should not surprise us.  Having a diverse church, an inclusive church, was the wish of our Lord from the very beginning.  His first public appearance, after all, was at the Epiphany, a feast called “the Manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.”  (The original Greek word is ethnoi, which as my Greek professor would say, comes from our word “ethnic”).  As I have said more than once, looking at the depictions of that Feast in mediaeval art, we see that even long before the age of political correctness, the Wise Men were depicted in different colors, an outward and visible sign of the far-reaching intent of the Gospel.  And it doesn’t end there.  On virtually every page of the Gospels, Jesus pushes the envelope, inviting into his Kingdom all kinds of outsiders --- Gentiles, Samaritans, tax collectors, prostitutes, eunuchs, the blind, the halt and the lame. (One must keep in mind that in Biblical times, physical infirmities were seen as punishment for the sin of the afflicted or of their parents.)  So Pentecost comes as the completion, the fulfillment of the Gospel message of diversity and inclusiveness, and the belief that the Kingdom is enriched by the contributions of each group.  The message of Pentecost is not simply that various groups gathered in the same place; it is that they understood each other, communicated with each other.

The question of diversity and inclusiveness has returned to the headlines recently because of the President’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court of a woman of Puerto Rican parentage.  The President’s stated preference for a justice with “empathy” and the nominee’s own comment that she might bring a certain sensitivity to some cases because of her ethnicity and gender have started a veritable firestorm, in which the nominee has been called a racist, a bigot or worse.  If we buy into such arguments, we must realize that we are implicitly buying into another --- the assumption that if there were no ethnic or gender diversity on the Court (as was the case from its founding until 1967) that group would render totally fair, unbiased, and evenhanded judgments --- that the justices would have, in effect, no point of view at all. Objection to the candidate’s espousal of causes that championed the rights of Latinos is only possible if we buy into the idea that one must be indifferent to the plight of one’s fellows once one is “elevated” to a position of authority in mainstream America.  The fact is that we are all products of our backgrounds and environments, our gender and ethnic identities. At worst, those factors make us close-minded, intolerant and unwelcoming of others and of others’ ideas.  At best, we bring the good and bad of our experiences, which are tempered, challenged and mitigated by exposure to other ideas.  It is not for naught that Sandra Day O’Connor described Thurgood Marshall as the “conscience of the Court.”

One of the lessons I remember from fourth grade was “the melting pot.”  We were taught that New York City was the quintessential melting pot, because we boasted immigrants from virtually every corner of the globe. Each group, went the melting pot argument, came to New York and blended into the mix, all becoming Americans.  Many believe that the melting pot is no longer an acceptable metaphor, because it seems to suggest the desirability of giving up one’s identity for the sake of the whole.  In the creation of a sauce, the flavor of each spice, each condiment, each chunk of bouillon is recognizable to the palate, but not to the eye.  A far more helpful metaphor, it is believed, is that of the salad bowl, in which each vegetable --- lettuce, tomato, onion, whatever, adds its flavor without sacrificing its identity.  Looking at the salad, the tomato, for example, is still fully distinguishable.

Making the Supreme Court or any other entity look more like America is not simply a matter of window-dressing.  It is a way of ensuring that the contributions of each group may make its proper contribution and be appreciated by the whole.  This was the message of Pentecost, when each group understood every other group despite the fact that they spoke different languages.  We pray that the cloven flames of the Holy Spirit may descend on us, our communities, and our nation so that the spirit of Pentecost may enlighten us to do our Lord’s will.

Let us pray:

              With your soft, refreshing rains

              Break our drought, remove our stains;

              Bind up all our injuries.

              Shake with rushing wind our will;

              Melt with fire our icy chill;

              Bring to light our perjuries.

              As your promise we believe,

              Make us ready to receive

              Gifts from your unbounded store.

              Grant enabling energy

              Courage in adversity

              Joys that last for evermore.

                                                                                    The Hymnal 1982, 228.