A sermon preached by the Rev’d Dr Daniel Dries Epiphany 4 Christ Church St Laurence – 31st January 2016
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in your sight: O Lord, our strength and our Redeemer. Amen. From the seventh Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we read the words of St Stephen: ‘Yet the most high does not dwell in houses made with hands…’ Around this time last week, my daughters had to deal with a rather shocking realisation. The had come to discover that, try as he might, their father is incapable of walking past the open door of any church without popping inside, even for a just moment. This addiction does not usually present too much of a problem, although in a city like Rome, where there are 3 Baroque Basilicas on every block, it did become rather tiresome. Many people encounter something of the divine in the natural environment, while others feel closest to God within a designated sacred space. I think the latter applies to the majority of parishioners of Christ Church St Laurence. It is therefore a little confronting for us to hear these words of Stephen, Deacon and first martyr of the early church: ‘Yet the most high does not dwell in houses made with hands; as the prophet says, ‘Heaven is my throne, and earth my footstool.’ In 2003, the recently installed Dean of Sydney made his way into the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald on account of rather dramatic changes to the fabric and liturgical patterns of St Andrew’s Cathedral. Some years earlier, Dr Jensen published an article on church planting that contained the rather provocative statement: ‘We all know, for example, that the ‘church’ is not the building. The building is the convenient rain shelter that the ‘church’ meets in.’i Soon after St Stephen made his provocative speech, he was dragged out of the city and stoned. It would seem that the Dean of Sydney got off rather lightly. The reality is that viewing a church building as a rain shelter is not entirely inappropriate, albeit a rather insensitive phrase. We would still be the parish of Christ Church St Laurence if we gathered for worship over in Belmore Park, and yet this church building is where we come to meet God; it is the place set apart for our most intense encounters with the divine. In practical terms, these ancient stones may form a rather elaborate rain shelter, and yet the prayer that has been offered within this ‘rain shelter’ for 170 years allows it to take on a completely different identity. ‘Yet the most high does not dwell in houses made with hands…’ As we read Acts Chapter 7, we might reach the conclusion that it is more appropriate for us to starting meeting in Belmore Park, unless of course it is raining. Alternatively, we could delve a little more deeply into Stephen’s contentious speech in the hope of discerning a different meaning.
Page | 1
Earlier in the Book of Acts we are told that ‘Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.’ No doubt Stephen had his share of supporters, but for the Jewish authorities his fate was sealed by his remarks about the Law and the Temple itself. From Chapter 6 we read, ‘This man never stops saying things against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us.’ We see in our time and context that our traditions shape who we are; most of us do not respond well to change and to criticism. However, the Temple and the Law were not merely pleasant and valued cultural traditions. The building of the Temple and the faithful observance of the Law were dictated in Scripture. The building was done according to the directions of Yahweh. It is as though Stephen is criticising Yahweh himself. It’s hardly surprising that they were angered to the point of violence. However, Stephen was not criticising the existence of the Temple per se. How could he when Christ himself faithfully observed the rituals and customs that were centred in and around the Temple? Surely, the point that Stephen is making is that God is not contained or trapped within the Temple. God will never be held captive within religious buildings and institutions. I imagine that most Christians, regardless of their tradition would support this view. This sacred place is where we gather as the church to focus all our attention on God’s living presence in our world. It is the place where we meet Christ in the intimacy of the sacraments. Of course we could do this anywhere, but there is a need for a place that is set apart. Surely this is why Yahweh commanded the building of the Temple in the first place. As the Jews faced centuries of persecution and exile, they would need a place where God’s presence alone would be experienced. And yet, at least for some, it had become the place where God was held captive at the expense of everywhere else. The Temple had been consumed by institutional authority and the quest for power. ‘Yet the most high does not dwell in houses made with hands…’ In recent days, the ties that bind the Anglican Communion have been weakened considerably. A few weeks ago, the Primates of the Anglican Church met in Canterbury to deal with a number of significant issues that are causing ongoing tension within the worldwide Communion. Dominating these issues is the way in which Anglicans have dealt with same sex relationships and the inevitability of same sex marriage in most western societies. The Anglican or Episcopal Church in the United States of America has rather characteristically pushed the boundaries by ordaining openly gay and lesbian people and, perhaps even more significantly, by the recent passing of a resolution in the House of Bishops that redefines the definition of marriage. In the Episcopal Church marriage is no longer defined exclusively as a union between one man and one woman. Amid predictions of all out schism, the Communiqué released at the end of the Primates’ Meeting rather sadly read as follows: “It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity…” Page | 2
It’s not quite the same as being dragged out of the city and stoned, but the sentiment is not dissimilar. In the eyes of some, there is no place within the Anglican Communion for those who push boundaries; for those who profess a different theology. What will happen in three year’s time is anyone’s guess. There has been talk of schism within the Anglican Church for many years. It would be a great tragedy for the Communion to lose a very significant member of the family. However, the guarding of the institution should never be the prime concern as we strive to live out the Gospel with grace, integrity and faithfulness. Whatever happens to the Anglican Communion will ultimately be God’s will. As we move through the next few painful years, we would do well to remember that institutions do not contain God, and they must ever control us. It may be that God is calling us to let go of this particular institution as we know it. Like the crowd that responded so violently to Stephen’s speech, we too cling to our institutions – believing that they give us a sense of security and authority. Perhaps in reality, institutions could also more accurately be described as little more than shelters in stormy weather. In the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen. i
See more at: http://www.phillipjensen.com/articles/from-the-resource-library-the-strategy-of-god/#sthash.trhCDp7r.dpuf
Page | 3