Tony Campolo is an Evangelical writer,
academic,
preacher,
and social activist.
He has spent much of his career
trying to convince his fellow Evangelicals
that loving their neighbors
requires that they be as concerned
for their neighbors’ physical well-being
as they are for their spiritual well-being.
Campolo used to begin his talks this way:
I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh*t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said sh*t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.
Campolo used this tactic
to expose a hidden truth,
that most of his audiences would care more
about cultural identity markers,
like what is socially acceptable language in public spaces,
than they would about the common humanity
of 30,000 kids dying from lack of food.
In the decades since Campolo became famous for this tactic,
and for enduring a heresy trial
by his ordaining body
for insisting that the gospel compels us to social action,
we have seen this concern for identity preservation
only grow stronger.
We have siloed ourselves into enclaves
of isolation and insulation,
echo chambers
where we believe confirmation bias
counts as “keeping up with the news.”
We avoid certain conversations
with friends and family
in order to “keep the peace,”
and when this isn’t possible,
we don’t speak to those friends
or that family.
Our social media feeds
algorithmically separate us
like Hogwarts’ sorting hat,
into competing houses,
and the more we engage with this curated content
the more isolated and insulated we become.
And even if we are not on social media,
cable news has done
to my parents’ and grandparents’ generations
what social media has done
to my son’s and my generations.
What we believe
is entirely a product
of what we have experienced,.
Religion is 100% environmentally received,
and the more we are able
to constrict and restrict our environment,
the less we experience
and the more indurated our beliefs become.
Eventually,
even the exposure to new ideas and beliefs,
as they challenge us to include new information,
new experiences feel like a threat to our very identity.
And so,
as most of you go about your daily lives,
scrolling TikTok or Facebook,
watching your favorite cable news hosts,
and interacting only with people who agree with you,
and then you come here,
hear a sermon that challenges your beliefs,
and you’re upset
that the bubble has burst.
And now it is September
of a presidential election year
and it is easier to imagine
civil war
than it is to remember civil discourse.
There was another school shooting
less than 30 miles from where we are sitting.
And we have begun to repeat
an exhausting civic liturgy,
a call and response,
where some say we have to do something
to protect our children
and others say we must do nothing
to protect our rights.
And before we could even complete this cycle,
a gunman opened fire on
on both lanes of traffic on I-75
in the mountains of Kentucky last night.
We each draw our own conclusions,
and we retreat further and further,
angrier and angrier,
demonizing the other,
and sanctifying ourselves,
and trying to imagine a world
in which this other doesn’t exist.
Our readings this week are challenging,
as challenging as our surroundings.
The epistle of James
tells us that God doesn’t show partiality,
or, in some translations, favoritism.
But this word,
at least in our particular context,
might be better translated as partisanship.
God does not show partisanship.
As Gen Z might say,
that hits different.
We would like to render that word
as though God doesn’t play favorites,
but a comprehensive reading of the whole of scripture—
to say nothing of a comprehensive reading of James—
tells us that would be incorrect.
God consistently exercises what some have called
a “preferential option for the poor.”
We also want to render this term
as though God doesn’t care about our politics,
but it sure seems like James is calling us to take sides.
“Is it not the rich who oppress you?”
James asks rhetorically.
That sounds awfully political to me.
James goes on to say,
that to encounter the poor
and to wish them well
without actually meeting their needs
is a violation of the law
to love our neighbors as ourselves,
and a violation of the law in one point,
makes us a violator of the entire law.
James asks,
“What good is it,
my brothers and sisters,
if someone claims to have faith
but does not have works?...
Faith without works is dead.”
Or, as Zion put it this week,
“thoughts and prayers
without action
is dead faith.”
God does not show partisanship,
but that does not mean
that God is not concerned with our politics.
A non-partisan God
will not be riding an elephant or a donkey,
will not be draped in a flag or ermine and velvet robes.
God does not choose a party
or endorse a platform.
But you’d better believe
that God is coming to judge how we treat each other,
how we distribute our wealth,
how we defend the vulnerable,
on whether our thoughts and prayers
become voice and action;
on whether we let our partisan affiliation
have a greater hand in shaping our identity
than our baptism.
And these concerns
about how we live with and care for each other,
or fail to do so,
is the very definition of politics.
I cannot preach
an apolitical sermon
that is faithful to the scriptures.
If you have heard here today
that your partisan allegiance
might be out of step
with the values and actions of the gospel,
there is good news.
In today’s Gospel,
Jesus is exhausted and looking for a rest,
but he is followed and accosted by a gentile woman.
This woman has no name in the Gospel of Mark,
she is only identified by her nationality,
a nationality at odds with the people of Judea,
a culture and religion to be avoided
by people of the Jewish faith.
This foreign woman of another faith
wants Jesus to rid her daughter of a demon.
Jesus calls her a dog as he refuses to help,
before he seems to change his mind
and heal her daughter.
Jesus goes on to heal a deaf and mute man
but then tells him not to speak,
and despite this warning from Jesus,
he won’t shut up about it.
Where is the good news in all of this?
If Jesus can change his mind,
so can we.
We can open our eyes
to the problems and the people
we have refused to recognize.
We can open our ears
to the cries we have refused to hear.
We can stand up for those
who can’t stand up for themselves.
We can,
like Jesus,
refuse to make our nationality,
partisan interests,
and religious differences
so fundamental to our identity
that we are blind, deaf, and dumb
to the humanity and dignity of our neighbors.
Jesus does not ultimately
let identity divide.
Jesus does not demand
that either of these two become Jewish
or become his followers.
Nor does Jesus become a gentile
or abandon his ministry.
But when the foreign woman of another faith
insists on her dignity
Jesus recognized their common humanity
and changes his mind.
Another word for changing one’s mind
is repentance.
If we are incapable of repentance,
what good is our faith?
God doesn’t practice partisanship;
can we challenge our partisan allegiance?
Will we lend our neighbors
our voices and actions
or will we just send our thoughts and prayers?
Will we be more worried
about protecting the second amendment
than we are about keeping the first commandment?
Will we be blind, deaf, and dumb
to the cries of Palestinians
while we continue to supply weapons
to the state of Israel?
Or will we refuse to challenge or own thinking,
retreat into echo chambers,
practice dead faith,
pray hollow prayers,
and wallow in wishful thinking?
That is,
will we refuse to repent?
Can such a dead faith save us?
If Jesus can change his mind
without changing his identity,
then so can we.
But we will have to do what Jesus did.
We will have to refuse to retreat
from relationships with the very people
who challenge our own experiences,
our own way of thinking.
We will have to keep the whole of the law
by loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Amen.