1

The Episcopal Church on Edisto

Christ the King,
Mt. 25:31-46
11/23/14
Who are we and what are we responsible for? For those of you fortunate enough to be here a
week ago, you heard Bert Hatch address the gist of those questions as he unfolded what
baptism means both for his great grandson and for all of us - not just the community that
welcomed Benjamin Reed and promised to uphold him in the Christian faith but also the wider
church - the body of Christ throughout the entire world and history.
Identity and accountability: Bishop vonRosenberg held up those two watchwords before our
recent convention. Who we are, individually and collectively, is affirmed by our baptism into the
body of Christ. Were the Episcopal Church on Edisto and in South Carolina, and while thats
important, its the least of our identity as Christians. Were all of us drops of water in the great
river, whose headwaters arose in an obscure corner of Palestine and flows still through the
entire world and its history. And its what were responsible for, our accountability as
ambassadors of the gospel revealing the breadth and depths of Gods love, that makes any of
this matter.
Is that Gospel alive? I dont just mean alive in our minds and hearts, but alive within itself - not
merely a once-and-for-all-time revelation carrying a fixed set of standards for us to live out and
obey, or is it, like life itself, a living, evolving, adapting being. It isnt an easy question. Without
some sense of the gospel as the solid rock in the middle of the stream of life rushing by, our faith
risks devolving into whatever we want it to be. Today, as the church calendar marks the rule of
Christ the King, were meant to be reminded that faith is much more than a matter of personal
preference. Without a solid, enduring foundation, eventually well collapse under the onslaught
of the rivers current. But, if we look carefully at that rock in the middle of the stream, well notice
that even its shape is changed - slowly and inevitably - as the flow of time molds and reshapes
what once looked immutable.

Today as has been the case throughout Judeo-Christian history, questions of our identity and
accountability sometimes arise as an issue of syncretism - our susceptibility to outside secular
influence. Think of the relatively recent decisions of our church to elevate women to the highest
levels of our authority, to finally be transparent about the centuries old practice or ordaining gay
clergy, and to affirm that God blesses the committed love of every couple with the courage to
share their marriage within the embrace of a supportive Christian community. Critics of these
changes call them trendy and syncretic - an abandonment of the gospel. And the fact is that we
have seen these and many other changes in the church grow out of secular influence, as has
been the case with countless other evolutions throughout Christian history. Does that indicate a

decline in our adherence to the gospel, or does it show a dynamic gospel that nurtures its core
as it seeks us out and finds us in places that weve moved on to?
Isnt adherence to the status quo as glib and trendy as the advocacy for change? Arent the
impulses to marginalize and oppress any disadvantaged, minority population every bit as
secular driven as the drives to change? Of course they are, even when their origins may be as
old as scriptural formation. When you hear theological rationalizations for what are at heart
base, cultural prejudices, its probably time to put on both your thinking caps and your battle
dress . . . time to separate the sheep from the goats. Were meant to be a church of love and
compassion, but we strive also to uphold a godly Love that accords with the strictures of justice.
I was hungry and you fed me, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was sick and you took
care of me . . . you know the deal. How seriously are we meant to hear this measure of our
accountability? How far are we meant to take it? I was gay and you ordained me and blessed
my wedding? Well, I think most of us are sitting right here instead of down the street because
were willing to take it that far. How about I was a guy who used to be a gal, and you didnt
worry about all that and instead accepted me as a fellow traveler, a fellow human being trying to
become ever more fully myself? Can we take it that far?
I want to say a few words here about a guy named Ben, even though I dont know him as well as
I hope to. I met Ben about 8 years ago when he was Nancy, the first close friend my daughter
Liz made at college. Nancy seemed like a nice enough girl - a bit closed off perhaps, a little shy,
at least around Lizs embarrassingly goofy father - but Liz always had good instincts about her
friends, so I just accepted Nancy as part of the scene. She was an art major and a
demonstrably talented artist, and she appeared to love animals as much as Liz did. That isnt a
whole lot for a father to say about his daughters best friend throughout 4 years of college and
beyond, but I rarely gave a second thought about what kind of person lay behind her shy facade,
until one day a couple of years ago I happened to ask Liz how Nancy was doing, and she told
me she was in the process of a sex change.
I havent had the chance to see then-Nancy, now-Ben since I learned of his rebirth. The best I
can say is that were occasional Facebook friends, but as I said, I look forward to seeing more of
him someday and, if hes willing, learning more both about what it felt like to be a boy trapped in
a girls body and what emerging out of that state has been like. Liz and one of her other friends
have mentioned that the once introverted Nancy is much more outspoken, confident, centered
and engaging as Ben, but until I can hear and see more, Im left with only imagining what an
amazing story lies behind his emergence out of her chrysalis. My guess is that although he
likely wouldnt see it that way, I and perhaps many of you would have little trouble seeing the
butterfly hes become as the culmination of a spiritual pilgrimage, with implications for our own
journeys through life.

But lets hold on for a minute. That viewpoint can only spring from belief in a living, breathing
gospel. Is it hyperventilating? Is it so radical, so strange, that it threatens to smash the solid rock
in the stream into gravel and sand that grind away the walls of Christendom itself? Well, Ill
accept some of that assumption. Not the threat, of course. Just as with gay marriage, the
threat is a shibboleth . . . a mirage. There is no threat, other than to whatever artificial
constructs some of us may employ so as not to look too closely within our identities. But lets be
honest. Bringing transgendered people more fully into our own lives and into the open life of the
church could fairly be described by many of us as a bit strange . . . strange meaning outside
the norms of our usual experience. But then, why would anyone who believes that a man named
Jesus was born from a virgin, gave sight to the blind, walked on water, healed the sick and rose
from the dead be unsettled about something appearing a bit strange? As for the notion of radical
change, isnt that a good thing?. We hear all the time how our faith is a radical faith. Maybe
thats supposed to be more than just words.
I wonder whats worse - intentional bigotry or the kind thats apathetic and just playing along.
Some things are just wrong, thats all there is to say. So speaks simple minded thinking. It just
isnt my issue is what apathy says.
Theres a school board somewhere out west - Texas, I think, or it may be Kansas - that tried to
ban critical thinking from being taught in the schools. Cant have our children learning how to
use their minds in ways we cant control or something like that is what lies behind that kind of
initiative. Sounds a lot like tyranny, doesnt it? Like something that would have come out of the
Soviet bloc or the Third Reich. But heres the thing. That kind of tyranny got its start in the
machinations and corruption of the gospel in the upper echelons of the church. Thats why the
clergy made sure to keep the bible in Latin for so many centuries - so that everything about it
came through the lens of their own interpretation. Weve moved beyond ignorance of
ecclesiastical language since the Reformation, but have we moved far enough? Way too much
of church polity is still clergy driven. In my mind, that explains a largely clerical obsession with
things sexual and reproductive in far too many corners of the church. Ive always thought that
claiming authority over peoples sexuality is at heart about nothing so much as trying to accrue
power for those who exercise that authority. Lets be clear. We arent accountable to any church
authority. Were accountable only to God.
Its often worth wondering how much protestations of defending the faith are in truth
rationalizations of much narrower interests.
I have to confess that its only recently that Ive begun to find my way to Mary Anns Wednesday
morning classes here. Just the other week, I was struck there by the notion of how the churchs
growing embrace of the LGBT community has been every bit as beneficial for us as its been for
those people who, now accepted, were once marginalized and estranged if not actually outcast.
As they are amalgamated into the wider church community, into our communion, the integrity

of that embrace redounds to us all. We all become more fully ourselves, as a community as well
as individuals.
Who of us isnt in the process of reaching for an ever deeper realization of ourself? I think its at
the heart of authentic faith - the very thing Jesus is calling us to, and I think its why when we
pause to see Christ in the least of our sisters and brothers, and in our foes as much as our
friends, we hold up a mirror to our own God-given identity.
Whod have ever thought that finding Bens true identity inside my daughters friend Nancy would
not only help me find me but help all of us become more authentically the kingdom Christ is
calling us to? But there it is.
Amen.