Sermons

Choosing Sides

Rod Frohman                            Third Presbyterian Church
April 15, 2007                      Acts 5:12, 17-30

There is a question that has made its way around the church for years; “If you were ever arrested for being a Christian would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

It is an interesting question which gets at the issue of how we put our faith into action. It assumes, and rightly so, that Christian faith is not just an intellectual or spiritual exercise but somehow concerns food, shelter, income, family, community, freedom, nation, love, hate, war, peace.

We have in our second scripture lesson of the morning the story of an unspecified number of apostles who have been arrested for their Christian faith and hauled before the local magistrates, for a second time, for engaging in certain actions and making rather specific speeches that were offensive to certain leaders. (Parenthetically, just to eliminate all doubt, this is not a Don Imus story. That would be a comparison equivalent to making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.) In American terms what we have here are First Amendment issues of free exercise of religion, freedom of speech as well as some civil disobedience and charges of disturbing the peace.

The protagonists of the story feature The Christians versus the Sanhedrin, or the Council of Elders.

The Christians are the newly-formed multi-ethnic community of the faithful who have gathered around the leadership of Peter. They do not even call themselves “Christians” yet. They are a Jewish reform movement. They find themselves in the public arena in multiple occasions explaining themselves after Pentecost as the non-inebriated followers of the resurrected Christ—the true messiah of Israel. They were small enough at this point to pool their resources and “hold all things in common”. They exercise community discipline toward those who do not share their possessions. They frequently all eat together. And they are growing in number.

The public location of their speech making is logical for this Jewish reform movement—the outer courtyard of the Temple of Herod—a grand public plaza where taxes were collected, animals sold, where people watched each other and debated the issues of the day. In computer terms it was the mother board of the central processing unit of life in Roman-occupied Israel.

The other protagonists are the Council of Elders or the Sanhedrin. It was operated mainly by the religious-political party called the Sadducees who traced their spiritual genealogy 1000 years back to Zadok, the high priest of the Temple in King David’s day. To these high priests of the Sanhedrin, the Romans had “entrusted the routine political administration of the Jewish sections of Palestine…so they held both religious and political supremacy” (Filson, Floyd A History of the New Testament, p. 49) Among other things, they were specifically responsible for the collection of taxes for the Roman occupation (Interpreters’ Dictionary of the Bible Vol. 4., p. 216), an easily corruptible system which, you may recall, Jesus was not too fond of. The authority of the Sanhedrin over judicial matters finds recognition in many places in the New Testament. (Ibid.) So the Sanhedrin was, in effect, a regional appellate court – not the supreme court, for that would have been the Roman Senate-- for both political and religious issues. In World War II terms in France, it was a local Vichy government for the German occupiers.

So what exactly did the apostles say and do that twice resulted in their imprisonment and flogging? It was a cumulative effect. Peter had called this Sanhedrin “lawless men” (Acts 2:23), not a nice thing to say to those who considered themselves the protector of Hebrew worship and scriptural tradition. He called the culture of the times a “perverse generation.” (2:40) John and Peter had healed a crippled man begging at the Temple gate, thus creating a significant “me-tooism” following. Further the apostles were preaching that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, a theology that the Sadducean leaders of the Temple denied, (4:2) but which their political opponents, the Pharisees, partly affirmed. So they had to have the apostles arrested.

In his first arrest, Peter accused the Sanhedrin of crucifying Jesus (4:10). This did not seem to offend the Council the first time, and Peter was released. A few months passed, more miracles are ascribed to the apostles, and their influence is growing. They seem to be dominating a major public gathering place on the Temple plaza, Solomon’s Porch, and they are arrested again. This time the council is upset and the high priest says, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than human authority.” (Acts 5:27-29) Had not cooler heads prevailed the apostles would have lost theirs. They were flogged and released, and received their flogging as a compliment to be considered worthy to suffer for the cause of Christ. “If you were ever arrested for being a Christian would there be enough evidence to convict you?” Apparently there was enough evidence in this case.

Obviously we hear this story in the context of our own experience and history. And our initial reaction might be that the apostles were pretty brash and pretty gutsy and pretty confrontational. But the first readers of the story also have their own experience. The first readers of this story hear about it some 60 or 70 years later. The story takes place in 30 A.D. But in the meantime there’s a lot of water gone over the historical dam. Mad Emperor Caligula has persecuted Christians. Nero made Christians human torches lining the Appian Way outside of Rome. And then General Titus over-ran Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and leveled it and the Temple to the ground, scattering Christians and Jews to the four corners of the Empire. On this day of Yom HoShoah (Day of Holocaust Remembrance) it is important to remember that the WW II concentration camps were not the first Jewish holocaust.

As I hear this story again I am reminded of another confrontation, now almost 40 years ago. On May 17, 1968, nine people, including Roman Catholic priests Daniel and Philip Berrigan, walked into a Catonsville, Maryland draft board office, carried 378 Selective Service files in wire baskets out to the parking lot and burned them with homemade napalm. A statement released by the Catonsville 9 read, in part: "Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children, the angering of the orderlies in the front parlor of the charnel house... We could not, so help us God, do otherwise… ." (http://www.jonahhouse.org/pics67-73.htm)

Sounds like a paraphrase of the apostles in front of the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than human authority.”

It was a remarkable era in 1968, as was 30 A.D, when the cause was quite clear. It was Christ AGAINST culture. And there have been many other incidents between the two dates, whether it is William Wilberforce challenging the culture of the British Parliament on slave trade or Susan B. Anthony challenging a male dominant American society that refused to let her vote, or now gay and lesbian brothers and sisters confronting the culture of the church and society which denies them full membership.

But I would be remiss as well as inaccurate if I didn’t say that Christ against culture is one possible stance for Christians vis-à-vis our society. There are at least four others. The great American theologian, H. Richard Niebuhr in his classic mid-20th-century work CHRIST AND CULTURE, (c.1951 Harper and Brothers, New York) reminds us that life isn’t always so simple or so clear because our relationship to our culture is highly situational. Culture is “language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes and values.” (Niebuhr p. 32) This “social heritage” is what the New Testament writers frequently had in mind when they spoke of “the world.” (Ibid.)

Yes there are times when Christian faith stands over against the culture, or some aspect of the culture. Indeed this is the beginning place of the Protestant Reformation.

Yet there are times when there is a fundamental agreement between Christ and culture. There is a sense in which the life and teachings of Jesus “are regarded as the greatest human achievement; here and it is believed the aspirations of people toward their values are brought to a point of culmination; Christ confirms what is best and brightest in the past and guides the process of civilization to its proper goal.” (Ibid. p. 41) This Christ OF culture synthesis is experienced sometimes when we hear the “Hallelujah Chorus” on Easter Sunday. And yet this Christ of Culture also sincerely believed by those who want to make America a completely Christian nation.

But there are three other typical answers to Peter’s Christ-culture dilemma. The third one might be called Christ ABOVE culture. That is, “Christ is the fulfillment of cultural aspirations, the restorer of institutions to their true meaning.” (Ibid. p. 42) This is the heart of the “social gospel” movement at the turn of the 20th Century and clearly espoused by Third Church Pastor Paul Moore Strayer when he began his pastorate here in 1903. In this understanding “Christ enters into human life from above with gifts which human aspiration has not envisioned and which human effort cannot attain.” (Ibid.) That is, we try to create the just society and Christ meets us more than halfway, pulling us progressively up the mountain so to speak.

Yet there is another type that says that throughout life Christians are citizens of two contradictory worlds. This assumes polarity, tension or paradox between Christ and culture. Hence life must be lived precariously and sinfully in the hope of justification which lies beyond history. (Ibid. p. 43) This is exactly what Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran theologian affirmed, when he decided to get involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler. Quoting the reformer Martin Luther, Bonhoeffer said that he needed to, “Sin boldly, but rely on grace more boldly still.”

The affirmer of fifth type of Christ and culture would look at Bonhoeffer rather strangely and ask, “Is not the defeat of Hitler a way by which culture is transformed and made more just? Is not death to tyrants, obedience to God.” (This quote was liberally used during the American Revolution.) So this fifth type is the conversionist solution. Christ is seen as the converter or transformer of culture. (Ibid. p. 43) The purpose of the Christian in the world is to transform the world into a more just and equitable place. Should it be of any surprise to anyone that John Calvin, the founder of the reformed and Presbyterian tradition is, along with St. Augustine, the main protagonist of this position.

So we have Christ against culture, the Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox and Christ the transformer of culture.

So, we might say to St. Peter, “It appears that you have given us an example that does not fit all situations.” What in the wide world are we supposed to do?

This is neither 1942 nor 1968. It is 2007 we live in a very different world. Is a world that is much flatter, poorer, more ecologically fragile and culturally diverse than we previously thought. We are in a national political situation in which the legislative branch and the executive branch of government are facing a fundamental challenge to each's identity. 70% of the American people want to end the war in Iraq in some way shape or form. The President of the United States is ignoring this opinion. So, is it time to burn more selective service files? Some in good Christian conscience may chose to imitate the Berrigans.

So what exactly does it mean to obey God rather than human authority? Well there are five faithful ways to negotiate the Christ-culture dilemma. Therefore, it is important to not snub our noses at those who choose options we might not choose.

Despite this complexity, “For Christians the critical present decision of loyalty and disloyalty to Christ in midst of our cultural tasks is always an historical decision.’ (Niebuhr page 248) So, we are Americans, not British. Our constitutional dilemma is solved in England by a vote of no confidence in Parliament. That is not our historical circumstance. [Further, we confront a “compressed” present in which many events seem to be simultaneously jammed.] “And we affirm a living and contemporaneous Christ. We also remember our denials and mistaken interpretations of Christ’s words. As Christians we are a member of a larger community, the church, which has a history of multiple relationships to Christ. To be contemporaneous with Christ is to be contemporaneous with whole those heroes and martyrs of the past and with the least of our sisters and brothers in the present.” (Ibid. 248)

So what does St. Peter have to say to us today? Despite the partial knowledge that we possess, despite the small measure of faith we imagine ourselves to have, despite the historic circumstances in which we live, we have this particular Christian community, Third Presbyterian Church, in which we act out our own faith in dialogue in correction and seldom in conflict. We have the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a church which is struggling to keep those who want to leave the church because it has become just too inclusive for their sensibilities. As Presbyterians we also work ecumenically.

I stared long and hard at this story of Peter and the apostles before the Sanhedrin. And then finally I noticed what perhaps, is the most important thing to notice about this story. Notice Peter does not say, “I must obey God rather than human authority.” So often we hear this familiar story as a hero who stands alone facing his accusers.

But notice he says, “We must obey God…” This is the most precious thing about how the church conducts its life in dialogue with the culture. We do it together. And that, my friends, is the evidence which convicts us of being Christians.