Community With no Distinction

I was browsing through a number of old sermons at my church a while ago and was saddened by one of the comments that was posted to it. The sermon was about how God's presence in our lives can change the ordinary into the extraordinary. I haven't yet listened to the whole sermon, but what I have listened to was very good.

There were two comments to this sermon. One comment was from a woman who was very touched by the sermon - brought to tears even. The other comment was simply one Bible verse, given with no explanation at all.

I Timothy 2:11-13
¹¹Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. ¹²I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. ¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve...

You see, this was the first time that Imago Dei had a female preacher. This verse was quoted with no other explanation, argument, or offer for discussion. There was no attempt at dialogue or understanding. There certainly wasn't anything related to the actual content of the message.

I don't understand why people do this. What is so challenging about a woman telling a group of believers about her mission trip to the Sudan? I don't share this guy's view on women in ministry, but even if I did what possible benefit is gained by doing this? Even if I grant his view that women shouldn't speak in public that doesn't mean that this woman's message doesn't have value. It doesn't mean that you can simply dismiss her. God uses broken and messed up people to convey his Word to the world. Even if Heather Thomas' preaching in front of my church was somehow an abomination it doesn't mean that what she said doesn't have value.

The thing that pisses me off the most is that he doesn't even comment on what she had to say. For all we know he didn't even go to the service or listen to it online. He dismissed her without even addressing the thing she had come to say.

But the pastor I had in Seattle recently preached another sermon on this subject. Not the subject of women in ministry, but on how we dismiss people without even giving them a fair shake. Speaking on James 2:1-7 he discusses the vision of a 'community with no distinction'.

Richard Dahlstrom argues that if we are to be genuine witnesses and followers of Christ we need to be looking for opportunities to cross over into relationship with people we are uncomfortable with. We will never be challenged to go further into the love of Christ if we only spend our time listening to people who are just like us. But it's so easy, when listening to someone you disagree with, to only listen long enough to put them in a category. Then, once you've judged them as belonging to this category you are free to dismiss their viewpoint. The tragedy is that someone who continually uses this methodology will never learn anything. He or she will just have the attitudes they already have more and more reinforced. It's certainly much safer to live making 'distinctions among yourselves, and become(ing) judges with evil thoughts.' But we are not called to safety; we are called to radical community guided by the spirit of Christ in our hearts.

The Dark Knight

I just saw Batman last night and it was very good. There was one scene especially that really struck me. If you haven't seen the movie yet then go see it before you read this post. It's a great movie, but if you read this first it will spoil a major plot point.

There's one point in the movie where the Joker rigs two ferries up with explosives - a ferry full of prisoners and one full of normal people. Both ferries are dead in the water and unable to off-load passengers. Both ferries also have a detonator, but it's a detonator for the other ferry. If the passengers of either ferry push the button to detonate the other ferry then they will survive. But if neither of the ferries pushes the button then the Joker will blow them both up in 15 minutes.

I want to focus for a moment on the prisoner's ferry. When faced with this choice I envisioned basically two scenarios. First, the prisoners would fight to gain control of the ship and the guards would heroically fight them off to prevent them from getting to the remote detonator. Second, the guards and prisoners would do the same thing, but at some point one of the guards would realize he doesn't want to die and push the button anyway.

The scenario as it ends up playing out has a third option that I'm ashamed to say I didn't even think of. There's a scene where the head prison guard is looking at the detonator among the prisoners, anguishing over the decision. You can tell that he doesn't know what to do, but that he just may push the button. At this point one of the scariest looking criminals comes up to him and offers to 'do what you are afraid to do.' He has killed men and knows what killing men is like. Therefore he can do what the guard wants to do but can't bring himself to do. He says to the guard "I'll do what you should have done 15 minutes ago." The guard gives him the detonator and I lose a little bit of faith in humanity. But then the prisoner surprises everyone by throwing the detonator out the window and I gain that faith back.

He did exactly what the guards should have done 15 minutes ago. And this option never crossed my mind. Even in the scenario where the guards were heroically defending the detonator from the prisoners I think that, placing myself in the shoes of one of the guards, I would have wanted to at least have the option to push the button when it really came down to it. Actions of self-defense are always choosing someone else's death over your own. Some of these scenarios may be more cut-and-dry than this, but it's still basically the same thing - 'I don't want to die, so you will instead.' It's a totally different mindset when the option of violence is ENTIRELY taken off the table. Maybe those loopy pacifists have something there.