Evading the Authority of Truth

A sermon for the fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost, given at the United Church of Acworth, Acworth, NH on the twenty-fifth of September, 2011.

The actual sermon was given extemporaneously. These are the thoughts which I had in preparation, not the sermon as it was actually given.

Exodus 17:1-7

Psalm 78:1-4,12-16

Philippians 2:1-13

Matthew 21:23-32

Two things happen that make the Jewish religious authorities upset.

1) In the beginning of chapter 21, Jesus rides into Jerusalem and palms are laid before him as he goes, people singing praises to him – “Praise to David’s Son! God bless him who comes in the name of the Lord! Praise be to God!”

2)Then, he enters the temple and overturns tables of people who were making a profit off of the worship of God. Once the greedy are kicked out, blind and crippled make their way to him to receive healing. Children come into the temple and praise Jesus saying “Praise to David’s Son!”

Talk about making a scene!

And the religious authorities seeing all of this are just thrown into a fit.

Who is this person who conducts himself with such power and authority? Who does he think he is?

When Jesus makes it over to the temple the next day, he finds the religious authorities waiting for him.

The question that was in their mind, comes out their mouths:

“What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you such a right?”

“These things” had turned into stories all around town. “Did you see? Were you there? You won’t believe it, but…”

The religious authorities, probably having person after person come up to them asking them what their take on “these things” is, are quite ready to put Jesus in his place.

The question is of authority. What our Bible translates “right” is a Greek word which can also be translated “power” or “authority”

What power do you have to do these things? What authority do you have to do these things?

Throwing tables over and telling them that the way the temple is run is wrong is a radical action, a prophetic action – the very act of cleansing the temple and then cleansing those who came to the temple spoke of a unique prophetic authority.

This person obviously thinks that he can change things from how they’ve been done and judge the way they’ve been done. But what makes him right? How can he say that this was wrong?

This person can obviously heal the blind and the crippled. But where does that power come from?

And who does he think he is, riding into Jerusalem just like Solomon did before being crowned the third king of Israel.

Is he seriously associating himself with Solomon?

There is a certain audacity in Jesus’ actions that makes the religious authorities seriously threatened. This guy is challenging OUR authority. He’s challenging the way that WE do things. He is ministering to the people who used to come to US for help. Who does he think he is?

He is treading on OUR territory.

It’s not the first time that Jesus upset the religious authorities. But this is definitely the most audacious he has been.

So they ask the question.

How does Jesus respond?

Indirectly. He responds with a question.

And then three parables.

We can actually look at the rest of chapter 21 and the whole of chapter 22 as answering the question:

“What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you such a right?”

(So for homework, in preparation for the next few Sundays, read chapters 21 and 22 in the gospel of Matthew a few times)

This Sunday’s passage involves a question and the first of the three parables.

So, first the question:

“What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you such a right?”

And Jesus’ response:

“I will ask you just one question, and if you give me an answer, I will tell you what right I have to do these things. Where did John’s right to baptize come from: was it from God or from man?”

John was a folk hero.

Like all folk heroes, John was hated by the powerful, by the ones who benefited from the status quo.

Most disturbingly, John told EVERYONE (not just tax collectors and prostitutes) but EVERYONE to repent for a new time is coming.

The socially acceptable and the socially unacceptable were seen as equals in their need to prepare themselves for the new way that God was bringing in Jesus.

The authority of the religious leaders was trumped by John’s prophetic message which called them to change their ways, to join the tax collectors and prostitutes in receiving baptism.

John spoke with authority and criticized the established leaders of the Jewish faith – calling them a brood of vipers.

What was John’s point?

That they were not listening to God’s call to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God.

They were caught up in their own worlds of power and influence and wealth – and unable to hear the prophetic word to repent and prepare for the new way that was coming.

So they looked at John like he was a raving crazy radical. And he was. He did eat locusts and honey after all.

So, Jesus asks, was John speaking with the authority of God or man?

The religious leaders’ refusal to answer showed that they were not interested in truth, but in their own agenda – to maintain their own power and influence over religious matters and to silence Jesus, or at least shame him publically so he lost his credibility.

How often we trade truth for our own agenda. We trade what is right for what is comfortable.

Jesus sees right through their question and addresses the real issue.

The religious leaders are more concerned about their power, influence, and public image and comfortable lifestyle than about properly following God, or listening to truth when it is spoken.

Jesus refuses, then, to give them an answer to their original question.

He goes further and tells them the parable of two children.

The older child refuses to go work in the vineyard and later repents and does what was asked – the younger child smilingly says a good “Yes, sir!” But puts the matter out of mind and goes on as normal.

Both children in this parable disobey their parent. The only difference is that the first disobeys in word but obeys in action, the second obeys in word but disobeys in action.

The conclusion that the tax collectors and prostitutes are the first child and the religious leaders are the second must have made the religious leaders irate.

But the tax collectors and prostitutes listened to the truth spoken by John and the religious leaders were glad to be rid of him. The tax collectors and prostitutes heard John’s teaching and knew that they needed to wake up and live a life guided by truth – they listened to John and found Jesus.

The religious leaders couldn’t stand John. John was too radical. John demanded that they take seriously truth even if it meant loss of status, wealth, or comfort. They would go to the temple and offer their praises of God and all their most pious words, promising to follow God’s truth, but they refused to recognize the truth on the lips of John or Jesus. The refused to the live life of mercy and hospitality toward the weak and outcast that such a truth would demand of them.

This brings us back to the original question:

“What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you such a right?”

What right does Jesus have to parade into Jerusalem, cleanse the temple, and heal the weak and handicapped – eliciting songs of praise from a extemporaneous children’s choir?

Never giving a direct answer to the question, Jesus unmasks their question.

If he told them straight-forwardly that he has the authority of Messiah, of the coming (final) King of Israel – they would (as they eventually do) have him imprisoned and executed.

Instead, he shows that their asking of the question is their way of suppressing the reality that calls them to turn away from their comfortable lifestyles and follow God – not just in word, but in deed and in truth.

So, what’s the point?

God does not seek our empty words.

God does not want our half-hearted commitment.

We, like King David when he was told the parable about a rich man who stole a lamb from a poor man when he had hundreds of his own…

We feel righteous indignation at the injustice, and immediately disassociate ourselves from the evil of such actions. We identify with the first and not, definitely not the second.

In the same way we read about the empty words and promises in the parable, and we read about the religious leaders and how all they cared about was their own status in society and maintaining a way of life that was comfortable and we react with a sort of disgust at such compromising behavior.

But with King David, we are not prepared to hear the prophetic words of Nathan the prophet:

You are the man!

David was the doing the exact same thing as the unjust rich man in the parable and we need to look at our own lives in light of today’s parable.

Which child are we?

My own response to this question is an uncompromising BOTH. I like many of you don’t appreciate dichotomies – I hardly ever fit one or the other slot.

The truth is that I sometimes repent and zealously seek to live a life dedicated to truth, justice, and mercy. But sometimes I ignore the call to truth – I chose comfort rather than what’s right.

So sometimes we’re one, sometimes we’re the other. But we need to continue to hear these hard truths and ask ourselves the hard questions if we are going to follow Jesus in the path of truth.

Are we trying to maintain a comfortable lifestyle by distancing ourselves from the difficult aspects of living God’s way, of speaking truthfully, of forgiving seventy-times-seven?

Do we offer empty words which make promises to do what is right and good and follow Jesus and turn around and live like nothing we said meant anything?

This is a hard parable. These are hard questions.

But Jesus didn’t come to make us comfortable. He came to save us from ourselves and show the world God’s new way – freedom to the captives and sight to the blind. And if we’re going to be a part of his new way, we need to listen and not suppress the words, the challenges that confront us in the prophetic Word. And not just give lipservice in response, but carry the cross of our Savior who came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many.

May we not be hearers only, but doers of the word. Amen.

-----

further notes that entered into the prep time:

God’s kingdom versus our conventions

“What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you such a right?”

The power struggle is between two rival views of how things should be.

God’s kingdom shown to us in the life of Jesus is constantly threatening to undo our notions of what the right way to be is.

We become satisfied in the way things are and are hostile to the way things might be when the prophetic voice speaks to us.

We create a comfortable system of how to be. We dig our feet into set patterns of behavior and thought and create an established order which becomes truth for us. It’s second nature.

But Jesus calls us to consider where we are going wrong and we respond:

“What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you such a right?”

We assume that we have authority because that’s how we’ve been acting: as if we have ultimate authority and what we create is truth.

So, when Jesus turns over our tables, calls us greedy or apathetic, when Jesus starts to show that we haven’t been attending to the needs of the weak, the handicapped, and the socially outcast – when Jesus starts exposing our injustice – and when Jesus parades into town like He is in charge…

We have to say:

“What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you such a right?”

The Injustice of Grace

A sermon for the fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost given at the United Church of Acworth, Acworth, NH on Sunday September 18, 2011.

Exodus 17:1-7.

Psalm 78:1-4,12-16.

Philippians 2:1-13.

Matthew 21:23-32

The last will be first, and the first will be last.

Justice for Aristotle is based on proportion: what is received must be proportional to what has been done. Fairness for one person will not be the same as fairness to another person, but they will be proportionally the same.

“For if the persons are not equal, their shares will not be equal; and this is the source of disputes and accusations, when persons who are equal do not receive equal shares, or when persons who are not equal receive equal shares.” (Ethics, V.3)

this is the source of disputes and accusations, when persons who are equal do not receive equal shares, or when persons who are not equal receive equal shares.

Justice as Aristotle sees it is exactly the way most people in today’s world see it.

I get what I deserve.

If I don’t get what I deserve or if I get what I don’t deserve – it’s unfair, either for me or for someone else.

Human justice has been ingrained in our souls since we were very small.

But Jesus said, the last will be first and the first will be last.

If any one statement could crush our sense of what is good and right in the world, it is this one: the last will be first and the first will be last.

With one statement, Jesus undoes our false sense of superiority.

With one statement, Jesus elevates our sense of total failure.

With one statement, He gives hope to the miserable.

With one statement, He ignites outrage from those who pride themselves in all of their accomplishments.

the last will be first and the first will be last.

This statement is the point of Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard.

We’ve dwelt a little on what all of us understanding justice to be with Aristotle as our spokesperson. But, this parable gives a portrait of God’s justice. It’s a little different than our version of justice. Let’s take a look.

The landowner has a lot of vines. Each of these vines have a lot of grapes. If those grapes aren’t picked soon, they’ll go bad. So, frequently during harvest times, 12 hour days would be expected (Keener, 306).

The landowner wants to get as many of the grapes picked as soon as possible.

This seems to be one possible motivation for his frequent returns to the market to gather more laborers.

There’s a lot of work to be done, we can use all the help we can get. Not the time to be selective.

So he goes out at the start of the day to the market. This was most likely right around sunrise or 6:00 am.

They make an agreement. The agreement states that they will work and the landowner will pay a proper day’s wage for their full day’s work.

So these lucky workers -- lucky to get a full day’s work during harvest time – lucky to get picked among the rest of the workers available – lucky to have had the strength, the well restedness to make it to the market for sunrise – these lucky workers head on over to the vineyard and get to work.

About 3 hours later, the landowner goes out again to the market hoping to find more bodies to contribute to the effort. He finds more people there waiting for someone to hire them and says “You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.”

“Whatever is right”

The workers would understand by this, according to our human notions of justice, you’ll get paid an amount proportional to what you put out.

They agree to this proposal and join the early-risers in the vineyard.

Three hours later, around noon, and then again at 3:00 pm, the landowner went out to the market and each time found more help willing to work for:

“whatever is right”

“whatever is right”

At five, one hour before the end of the long harvest day’s work, the landowner again goes out to the market and again finds able-bodied laborers unemployed.

“Why are you standing here idle all day?”

“No one hired us!”

“You also go into the vineyard.”

Notice: the landowner said nothing more than “You also go into the vineyard.”

These last employees had no guarantee of getting a single thing for their work (what would an hour’s work earn anyways? Certainly not enough to put food on the table.)

These last employees went into the vineyard with a sort of resignation. I can imagine this being their thoughts:

“If we stay in the market we won’t work and won’t have a dime to bring home. IF we go into this person’s vineyard, we’ll at least have something.”

These last employees were the most desperate and vulnerable. They were the last-picked. The leftovers after all the landowners had gathered their stock of workers.

But they go, because it’s work! Something’s better than nothing.

About an hour or so after the last laborers were hired and brought to the vineyard, the day’s work was done. Time to get paid and go home.

The landowner asked the manager to pay the workers in order from last to first hired.

The last hired to their utter astonishment received from the manager a full day’s pay!

Immediately, the first hired thought: “Oh boy, if those that worked only an hour got that, I can only imagine what I got.”

The ones hired at 3:00 were next and they put their hands out and received a day’s wage each. A little confused, they went on their way.

The ones hired at 12:00 came next and to their confusion and slight frustration, they too received the same as the other two groups of laborers.

The ones hired at 9:00 came and their confusion and frustration was a little greater than the ones before them when they too received the same.

Then the first hired came. Actually they strut over to the manager proud of themselves for their loyalty, their early-rising discipline, their obvious physical superiority to other workers not picked first.

The manager gave them a day’s wage and they were considerably upset.

They went to the landowner and said, “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat!”

“Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?”

The landowner had not done any kind of disservice to his first-hired employees. As far as their case goes, they were justly compensated according to the contract they had agreed to at the beginning of the day.

The laborers hired at 9, 12, and 3 all were promised “whatever is right.” Was it right for them to receive the same as the first-hired?

And the last-hired, the outcasts, the rejects, the ones who get stigmatized in the streets for being idle when it has nothing to do with their willingness to work, just the prejudices of the employers. These last-hired to their utter astonishment and to the great irritation of the rest of the laborers received a FULL-day’s wage. Their families will not starve, they will not go home embarrassed, ashamed, guilty of fruitless day spent watching others get hired in the market.

These last-hired are exhilarated. They’ve received so much above and beyond what they expected or deserved.

This is grace. This is the abundance of God’s generosity.

Grace is the great leveler.

We contrasted Aristotle’s justice with God’s justice. Here is clear:

For Aristotle, if persons who are equal do not receive equal shares, or when persons who are not equal receive equal shares, this is injustice.

But this parable reminds us that God’s justice is higher than human justice. It doesn’t stop at giving what is due to the one’s who’ve earned it. God’s justice gives what is not due to those who haven’t earned it!

God’s justice is his mercy. God’s dealing with humanity is not according to what we deserve. God’s dealing with humanity is according to his mercy and love.

The generosity of the landowner is impartial. It does not give according to circumstance, duration of work, physical ability, amount of grapes picked.

The landowner gives what is needed by all to all regardless of their merit.

Impartial generosity, pointing to the unconditional grace and love of God toward humanity.

But Stanley Hauerwas notes: “It is not impartiality that characterizes God’s grace in this parable, but rather the sheer abundance of God’s grace. God’s love cannot be used up, making possible the wide diversity characteristic of those whom Jesus calls.”

God’s grace is the true equalizer. All receive favor out of the abundance of God’s storehouse of grace.

When we think of Aristotle’s understanding of justice. We realize that God’s justice as displayed in this parable transgresses that understanding.

We and Aristotle stand with the confusion and frustration of the first-hired and criticize the landowner for not being fair.

But the landowner responds, “Are you envious because I am generous?”

The first-hired received what they deserved, they just thought that others shouldn’t receive the same as them. They didn’t do as much. According to our commonly held notion of fairness, this is unfair, this is unjust.

But God’s love transcends justice. The first hired are just as loved as the last hired. There is no power hierarchy in God’s kingdom. True equality is the equality resulting from God’s abundant grace toward humanity. The last shall be first and the first shall be last because there is now no distinction between the two inasmuch as both have received abundantly from God’s great love.

Let us not despise God’s generosity, but learn how to live in response to such abundant grace. Let us participate in the abundant generosity God has shown us by extending that generosity to our neighbor. The neighbor who’s capable, on top of the world, wealthy, influential – but also the neighbor who might be among the last-hired. Let us not treat either one with impartiality, but in response to God’s abundant and impartial grace, extend our love, friendship, and care to all equally.

And when we do, we manifest the kingdom in which the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

To Gain a Brother

A sermon for the 12th Sunday after Pentecost, given at the United Church of Acworth, Acworth, NH on September 4, 2011.

Exodus 12:1-14

Psalm 149

Romans 13:8-14

Matthew 18:15-20

Let us revisit the teaching of Jesus in verse 15 of today’s gospel reading:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.

I’d like to begin my thoughts on this passage with someone else’s thoughts. The following is excerpted from an article on the eighteenth chapter of Matthew’s gospel that Elaine Ramshaw of Luther Seminary wrote in the periodical Word and World.

"When someone hurts another, she is using some power she has over him. She may continue to exercise control over her victim, or she may be "one-down" now in their relationship, with the victim having the power of injured innocence, the power of one to whom something is owed (cf. the parable of the unforgiving servant). If she is identified by the community as a wrongdoer, she may be abused by the community or by its leaders. Alternatively (or even simultaneously!), she may have great power to disrupt the community. The one she hurt may be abused by the community because of the stigma of victimhood, or he may find sympathy and support. He may be abused by being told that if he doesn't forgive her unilaterally and immediately, God will hand him over to the torturers! And on top of all this, there's the further confusion that many situations of interpersonal harm are not neatly divided into victim and victimizer; often a relationship has gone bad and there is a shared responsibility for the harm done."

Situations of conflict bring out the worst in individuals and communities.

How do we go forward, how do we repair what has been broken? How do we reconcile? Is it possible to amend the wrongs? How do we keep one wrong from breeding many?

How do we untie the tangled emotions – the power struggle that is spawned out of the dynamic of victim/victimizer?

Jesus makes clear that the way forward is not the way of self-preservation. It is not the way of vengeful seeking of dominance, of seeking to regain power over the enemy, control over the situation. We are not called to be the one with the last word, the last punch.

Jesus makes clear that the most important thing is that we love.

The instructions given in today’s gospel lesson are instructions in how to respond to injury with love.

Aurelius Augustine, or “Saint”, as he’s become known through the ages, shows how Jesus’ instructions that “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” are instructions of how to love your neighbor who has made himself your enemy.

In his sermon on this passage he says,

"Hatred then is darkness. Now it cannot but be, that he who hates another, should first injure himself. For while trying to hurt another outwardly, he lays himself waste inwardly. Now in proportion as our soul is of more value than our body, so much the more ought we to provide for it, that it be not hurt. But he that hates another, hurts his own soul. And what can he do to him whom he hates? What can he do? He takes away his money, can he take his faith away? he wounds his reputation, can he wound his conscience? Whatever injury he does, is but external; now observe what his injury to himself is! For he who hates another is an enemy to himself within. But because he is not sensible of what harm he is doing to himself, he is violent against another, and that the more dangerously, that he is not sensible of the evil he is doing to himself; because by this very violence he has lost the power of perception. You are violent against your enemy; by this violence of yours he is spoiled, but you are wicked. Great is the difference between the two. He has lost his money, you your innocence. Ask which has suffered the heavier loss? He has lost a thing that was sure to perish, and you have become one who must now perish yourself. Therefore ought we to rebuke in love;

not with any eager desire to injure, but with an earnest care to amend.

If you neglect [Jesus’ instructions], you are worse than [the one who did you wrong]. He has done an injury, and by doing an injury, has struck himself with a grievous wound; will you disregard your brother’s wound? Will you see him perishing, or already lost, and disregard his case? You are worse in keeping silence, than he in his reviling. Therefore when any one sins against us, let us take great care, not for ourselves, for it is a glorious thing to forget injuries; only forget your own injury, not your brother’s wound. Therefore “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone,” intent upon his amendment, but sparing his shame. For it may be that through embarrassment he will begin to defend his sin, and so you will make him whom want to help, still worse."

Our enemy in harming another, has done more harm to himself than to the harmed person.

This is an insight that we cannot miss and is incredibly important in understanding the compassion that we see as Christ cries from his place of execution, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

So often the person who harms is caught up in the darkness of anger, resentment, and hatred – perhaps the product of a long stewing of emotion, perhaps the product of a moment’s inciting.

The ones who harm another cut themselves off from the community and for as long as they go on without recognition of their wrong, cut themselves off from having a truthful relationship with God – who knows and sees all. They begin to participate in the darkness of hatred and of self-seeking and the lies which they have to tell themselves in order to justify their hatred and hateful actions or speech.

The one wronged stands with the unique opportunity to extend God’s love to the one who wronged them. They are able to bring back that one to the community and to right relationship with God. They stand able to shed light on the darkness that has already clouded the wrongdoer and wounded their soul.

So, let’s imitate Christ and seek the reconciliation of the enemy who has wronged us. But how should we approach such an awkward subject?

Common wisdom urges us to “bury the hatchet.” Common wisdom urges us to “Forgive and forget.”

But forgiveness without truth is a house built on sand.

And truth only comes out painfully and through a process that requires patience and a faith in the healing power of truthful love.

Stanley Hauerwas has explored the dynamics involved in the messiness of peacemaking founded on truthfulness and forgiveness and writes the following words regarding this passage in Matthew 18:

"The procedure outlined by Jesus in Matt. 18 is how and what it means for his disciples to be at peace with one another. Jesus assumes that those who follow him will wrong another and, subsequently, they will be caught in what may seem irresolvable conflict. The question is not whether such conflict can be eliminated, but how his followers are to deal with conflict. He assumes that conflict is not to be ignored or denied, but rather conflict, which may involve sins, is to be forced into the open. Christian discipleship requires confrontation because the peace that Jesus has established is not simply the absence of violence. The peace of Christ is nonviolent precisely because it is based on truth and truth-telling. Just as love without truth cannot help but be accursed, so peace between the brothers and sisters of Jesus must be without illusion.

Yet we confess that truth is about the last thing most of us want to know about ourselves. We may say that the truth saves, but in fact we know that any truth, particularly the truth that is Jesus, is as disturbing as it is fulfilling. That is why Jesus insists that those who would follow him cannot let sins go unchallenged. If we fail to challenge one another in our sins, we in fact abandon one another to our sin. We show how little we love our brother and sister by our refusal to engage in the hard work of reconciliation."

It is not an easy road, but there is no other way to follow Christ but to be willing to tell it as it is. To see ourselves, our neighbors, our enemies, and the world as they truly are. And to do this is to learn to speak truthfully about our actions and the actions done to us.

Jesus’ instructions about resolving conflict provide a practical framework not only for reconciling ourselves to the one who has wronged us, but also of providing the “moment of truth” for both people involved, that both might participate in the freedom of being to connected to “the way things really are.”

Relationship is able to be restored both between the wronged and the wrongdoer and between both and God. And this restoration can only happen once truth has been acknowledged and on that foundation, forgiveness and restorative action enacted.

We cannot have peace with one another or unity as a community, without a common desire for truth and a common practice of speaking truthfully. Often times the truth requires us to give up our dignity or to do some form of reparative action. This strikes our independent maverick selves the wrong way.

But if we continue on without being reconciled to our neighbor, we become more and more isolated from the community, unable to tell the story of our lives truthfully (there’s too much to lose!) And therefore we are disconnected, out of fellowship with God and our community, because we create and live in a world of our own making, brought about by the need to defend our pride and tell our story in the most flattering light.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.

So, truthfulness and forgiveness are essential for restoring our own and our neighbor’s participation in the fellowship of God and our community.

Another thing that needs to be stressed concerning Jesus’s instructions for reconciling is that we first need to go to our neighbor ALONE.

This is crucial. In our pain, sometimes we seek out others to come with us to make sure the perpetrator is sorry. But this is not reconciliation, this is revenge. I’m sure there are extenuating circumstances where it would be dangerous for the harmed to go confront alone. But in most cases, it is most appropriate to settle the matter privately. To let what was between you, your neighbor, and God stay between you, your neighbor, and God.

Verses sixteen and seventeen which follow do speak to the need to bring others if the person does not want to reconcile after you have approached them alone.

The others that then accompany the wronged need to also greatly desire the reconciliation, the restoring of the offender to the community. They join with the wronged in confronting the wrongdoer out of love for their soul, out of desire for their restoration and healing. It is never for the purpose of embarrassment or punishment, but only for the returning of truth and love.

Augustine brings up the reality that follows when we do not first seek to settle the matter privately, but immediately bring others into the conversation:

through embarrassment he will begin to defend his sin, and so you will make him whom you want to help, still worse.

By scolding and embarrassing, you may have gained a sense of pride and you may have gained a satisfaction that justice has been done, but you have not gained your neighbor and you have not restored community. You have allowed the person to remain in their sad estate, the darkness of their hatred. Only now that darkness is intensified and you have participated in it yourself.

We are a community of light, following the light of the world, who did not seek to dominate but to give his life for others.

Can we put our pride down and live not for ourselves, but that others might be made whole?

Go to one who offended you, out of love for them and out of desire for truth and forgiveness, out of desire for the greater healing that happens when both offender and offended share in the light of God’s love.

Go alone, because this is not about power and saving face, but about truth and love.

Go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. And the violence that divided has been replaced with peace which unites. Evil has been overcome by good.

Amen.