This post, by Elaine Poproski, is a reflection on the “Called to Freedom” sermon as part of the “God’s Kind of Freedom” sermon series.
Last week I spent the entire week at a course titled, “Engage Difference! Deepening Understanding for Intercultural Ministry”. It was, quite possibly, the best course I’ve ever participated in. It was offered through the Canadian Council of Churches’ Forum for Intercultural Learning. Expect to hear more from me about this course in the coming weeks and months. My learning helped pull together a number of pieces of the puzzle that I believe is Walmer’s future.
I spent the weekend following the course processing what I’d learned (at least some of it) by talking it through with a good friend who has no connection to Walmer whatsoever. She’s someone with whom I regularly talk about my hopes and dreams for the local church as well as my ever-evolving philosophies of ministry and mission. At one point during our conversations over the weekend, we were dreaming together about what a church might look like that is truly dedicated to being a place of shalom[1] in which all dividing walls are broken down (see Ephesians 2) and we were reflecting on the necessity of such a church being truly intercultural (as opposed to multi-cultural).[2] We talked a lot about power and privilege and the problem of the church being in a position of power and privilege instead of on the margins of society where it began. During our conversation, she asked me, “Elaine, why do you think it is that most churches don’t want this? Why is it that so many churches are so committed to retaining their power and privilege, even though that’s so contrary to everything Jesus taught?”
Those questions, and the conversation and learning that surrounded it, sprung to mind as I listened to Paula Willis’ sermon from last Sunday. At one point during the sermon, in reference to the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ rejection by a Samaritan village (Luke 9:51-55), Paula made this comment: “Instead of dying to self, they wanted others to die.” She went on to say, “It’s amazing how closely we can walk with Jesus and still have wrong inclinations.” The problem with the church is the same as the problem with human beings: we continue to follow in Adam and Eve’s footsteps, preferring to be like God over following God. So often we have the best of intentions! If only we had power, if only we were at the centre of culture, we could shape our culture and our world to look like God’s Kingdom. We could ensure that our culture is one of justice and peace. Except, we’ve been in the position of power, we’ve been at the centre of the dominant culture, and we did not come even close to shaping our world in the likeness of God’s Kingdom.
I’m not really surprised by our abject failure to shape our world into the likeness of God’s Kingdom. After all, every way Jesus spoke of that Kingdom suggests that by its very nature it cannot be at the centre of a culture. It can only exist on the margins. And our fallen, human inclination for power and privilege virtually guarantees that we’ll crave power and privilege if we don’t have it and that we’ll do everything we can to keep it if we do have it. The only way for the church to be what it is supposed to be – the physical manifestation of Jesus who is our peace, through whom all dividing walls have been broken down – is if we commit to allowing God’s Spirit to shape us and empower us to be the church, which by definition requires us to die to self, which is contrary to every instinct toward power and privilege. God help us! and God forgive us! and God make us more like Jesus!
[1] Defined as wholeness, completeness, and peace.
[2] In short, a multi-cultural church is culturally diverse, but is still defined by a dominant cultural group to which other cultural groups must accommodate. An inter-cultural church, on the other hand, is one in which there is no single dominant cultural group. Instead, all cultural groups equally define the church.