Friday, March 23, 2007

DEADLY SINS: SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The Church of the Resurrection
March 18, 2007
Dan Claire


We continue tonight with our Lenten sermon series entitled “Deadly Sins.” Catholic tradition is right to point to the deadliness of pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth. But we are convinced that the Scriptures go even further in saying that all sin is deadly. “For the wages of sin—all sin—is death.” (Rom 6:23) Thinking and talking about sin isn’t much fun; on the contrary, it’s depressing. But if something is going to kill us, we want to know about it and make every effort to avoid it. For this reason, what we are doing each week during Lent is identifying various sins that are particularly insidious for us as Washingtonians.

Self-Sufficiency is Deadly

Tonight, our topic is Self-Sufficiency. This is an attitude of utter confidence in one’s own ability and resourcefulness in life. Thinking: “I am the captain of my own destiny, I have what it takes, I can do it.”

Self-sufficiency is woven into the fabric of the American mind and spirit. Rugged individualism has fueled exploration, invention, and achievement. The self-made man is the great American hero. We want you to find your own way, to get out on your own and make it, and so we celebrate individual expression and adventure. Burger King wants you to “Have it your way.” The Army wants you to “Be all that you can be.”

But remember while you’re living life to the full to also be a responsible citizen and not interfere with anyone else’s freedom. In other words, go for it, be all that you can be, but also mind your own business and don’t hurt anybody else. Responsible autonomy: the way of life for self-sufficient Americans.

Let me give you some examples of what this sort of Responsible Autonomy looks like here in Washington.

Some people major on autonomy and minor on responsibility. In this case, Responsible Autonomy means adopting the SoberRide program as a way of life. For the uninformed, the SoberRide program allows you to “be all that you can be” with green beer on St. Patrick’s Day, and then make it home without killing anybody by means of a free cab ride. If you apply this philosophy to sex, it means people ought to be able to do whatever they want with their genitals, so long as it’s safe sex. If you apply this philosophy to religion, it means that people ought to be able to believe whatever they like, so long as they tolerate the beliefs of everyone else.

Others major on responsibility and minor on autonomy. In this case, Responsible Autonomy resembles a real life chess match. Play by the rules, but play to win. So, make as much money as you can, and do with it whatever you like, so long as you pay your taxes and give a little to charity. My house, my car, my clothes, my home entertainment system, my eating habits, etc. may seem a little extravagant, but I’ve earned it and I’ve given God and Uncle Sam their fair share. Play by the rules, but play to win. This approach can be very philanthropic: through hard lobbying and political favors, you convince the school board to spend more money on your kids’ school, even though it means less money for the poorer kids across town. Too bad for the folks across town; they could have played to win too. C’est la vie.

This is Washington. Labels come easily. We know these two approaches—life as a SoberRide program, or life as a chess match—as liberal and conservative, respectively, and each of us is inclined to identify more with one or the other. They seem very different to us. But what does God see?

We are all in love with ourselves. Democrat or Republican. Liberal or Conservative. Responsibly Autonomous or Autonomously Responsible. Either way, at the end of the day, everybody comes to this city to make it, to move up, to take care of number one, to “be all that you can be.” Regardless of political persuasion, our culture says that self-sufficiency is a supreme virtue. God says it’s a deadly sin.

You have to choose. You can’t be self-sufficient and also love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. You can’t be self-sufficient and also love your neighbor as yourself. You can’t “take care of number one” and also take up your cross and follow Jesus.

No Need for God, No Need for Neighbors

We have read some of the greatest passages of the Bible tonight. In James 4 and in Luke 12, self-sufficiency is shown for what it truly is: foolishness. “He who dies with the most toys” doesn’t win anything—he still dies, just like everybody else, and then it’s too late to bring ‘deferred spirituality’ to the forefront. The Bible teaches that there is no such thing as complete self-sufficiency. You can try to make it on your own, and in some cases you may even achieve fame and wealth in the process, but in the end, as Paul says, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23). If you have spent any time with evangelical Christians, you have heard this. You can’t save yourself from death, judgment and eternal punishment for sin; only God can do this. How do you get this gift of eternal life? Give yourself fully to Jesus Christ, and in so doing be reconciled to God. Give up self-sufficiency, and trust in God. Again, you have to choose. You can’t be self-sufficient and also love the Lord our God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

But this isn’t the only problem with self-sufficiency; yet sometimes you don’t hear the rest of the story from evangelical Christians. Here’s the other side of it: you can’t be self-sufficient and also love your neighbor as yourself. The wisdom of Ecclesiastes 4 points to this: “Woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up.”

Not only does a self-sufficient person say, “I don’t need God,” but he or she also says, “I don’t need you.” So, the wealthier the neighborhood, the less likely it is that the people really know their neighbors. “Who needs them?” This is not to say that self-sufficient people are anti-social. In fact, they may be very popular people. But social relationships remain within controlled boundaries, because self-sufficient people by definition don’t “need” friends. This is why when self-sufficient people come to their senses, they often say, “I was surrounded by people but I still felt all alone.”

In the Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis takes readers on a fanciful bus tour through heaven and hell. He imagines hell as a city of self-sufficiency run amok:

“It seems the deuce of a town,” I volunteered, “and that’s what I can’t understand. The parts of it that I saw were so empty. Was there once a much larger population?”

“Not at all,” said my neighbor. “The trouble is that they’re so quarrelsome. As soon as anyone arrives he settles in some street. Before he’s been there 24 hours he quarrels with his neighbor. Before the week is over he’s quarreled so badly that he decides to move. Very like he finds the next street empty because all the people there have quarreled with their neighbors—and moved. So he settles in. If by any chance the street is full, he goes further. But even if he stays, it makes no odds. He’s sure to have another quarrel pretty soon and then he’ll move on again. Finally he’ll move right out to the edge of the town and build a new house. You see, it’s easy here. You’ve only got to think a house and there it is. That’s how the town keeps on growing…. And time’s sort of odd here. That place where we caught the bus is thousands of miles from the Civic Center where all the newcomers arrive from earth. All the people you’ve met were living near the bus stop: but they’d taken centuries—of our time—to get there, by gradual removals.”

“And what about the earlier arrivals? I mean—there must be people who came from earth to your town even longer ago.”

“That’s right. There are. They’ve been moving on and on. Getting further apaprt. They’re so far off by now that they could never think of coming to the bus stop at all. Astronomical distances. There’s a bit of rising ground where I live and a chap has a telescope. You can see the lights of the inhabited houses, where those old ones live, millions of miles away. Millions of miles from us and from one another. Every now and then they move further still. That’s one of the disappointments. I thought you’d meet interesting historical characters. But you don’t: they’re too far away…. The nearest of those old ones is Napoleon. We know that because two chaps made the journey to see him. They’d started long before I came, of course, but I was there when they came back. About fifteen thousand years of our time it took them. We’ve picked out the house by now. Just a little pin prick of light and nothing else near it for millions of miles…. He’d build himself a huge house all in the Empire style—rows of windows flaming with light, though it only shows as a pin prick from where I live.”

“Did they see Napoleon?”

“That’s right. They went up and looked through one of the windows. Napoleon was there all right.”

“What was he doing?”

“Walking up and down—up and down all the time—left-right, left-right—never stopping for a moment. The two chaps watched him for about a year and he never rested. And muttering to himself all the time. ‘It was Soult’s fault. It was Ney’s fault. It was Josephine’s fault. It was the fault of the Russians. It was the fault of the English.’ Like that all the time. Never stopped for a moment. A little, fat man and he looked kind of tired. But he didn’t seem able to stop it.”

Self-sufficiency in the Church

As I said earlier, evangelical Christians often talk about our need to be reconciled with God, but rarely do we hear the importance of being reconciled to one another. The reason for this is simple. God is invisible, inaudible, and super cool anyways if we don’t do what he says. (!?!) But people are altogether different. Can you imagine the mayhem if we were to attempt being utterly and completely reconciled with one another?

If you have been a part of this community for any length of time, there are undoubtedly people here whom you have written off, saying in effect, “I don’t need you.” Sometimes it’s a matter of demographics. Maybe you’re single and they’re married. Maybe you’re an adult and they’re children. Maybe you’re young and they’re old. Sometimes it’s a matter of personal ideology or taste. Maybe you’re “conservative” and they’re “liberal.” Maybe you’re fashionable and they’re not. Maybe you’re charismatic and they’re not. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of broken friendship. This person has offended you or hurt you or wronged you somehow, and rather than be reconciled, you simply say, “I don’t need you.” Whatever the case, it’s a lie. You do need this person. Your act of self-sufficiency is a deadly sin. It does no good to talk about racial reconciliation, to celebrate our connection to the ethnic unity of the Church of Rwanda, if we don’t have peace with one another.

1 Cor. 12:20-27. But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.

If it is God who has put us together in this congregation, how dare we say, “I don’t need you”? Reconciliation with one another is not optional. Apart from reconciliation and mutual dependence, we cease to function as a body. This kills the church. If the body dies, the parts die with it.

Self-sufficiency will destroy this church in the same way it undermines neighborhoods. Smile and nod to neighbor what’s his name as the garage door closes. Shake hands with brother what’s his name on the way out the door.

Combating Self-Sufficiency

What can you do to combat self-sufficiency? Two things.

1. Be reconciled to God. Repent of self-sufficiency and acknowledge your need. Take up your cross and follow Jesus. Acknowledge each day that you are “just change in his pockets, and he can spend you however he pleases.” This is the place to start.

2. Be reconciled to one another. When we pass the peace in worship, this is not an ancient way for greeting newcomers to the church. It is a necessary part of our liturgy. We have confessed our sins against God and our neighbors. We have been assured of God’s pardon. We are about to go to the table together to celebrate our reconciliation with the Lord. Before we do so, we better confirm that we are reconciled with one another. Jesus commanded this same practice for worshippers in his day when he said, “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering” (Matt 5:23-24).

Hope for the Self-Sufficient

Let’s conclude by talking about what happens when churches seriously undertake both of these. The result is genuine community—what we all long for, and many of us talk about so much. Allow me to illustrate what this looks like with two examples, first, from the early church, and then something more contemporary.

A. The Early Church. I went out of my way at the beginning to show that self-sufficiency is a deadly sin for both conservatives and liberals. Both are “taking care of number one.” The early Christians, in contrast, were taking care of one another, as well as the world around them. Let me read to you ten values of early Christians, developed by sociologist Rodney Stark, and summarized by the Rev. David Fairchild.

1- They refused to attend blood thirsty entertainment. They wouldn't go to gladiatorial events because they believed it defiled humans who were created in the image of God. This made them appear to be anti-social.
2- They did not serve in the military to support Caesar's wars of conquest, which made them appear weak.
3- They were against abortion and infanticide. In this culture, both were considered acceptable.
4- They empowered women by showing their value and dignity in places of learning and service which had previously been exclusively for men.
5- They were against sex outside of marriage. This fidelity was considered odd and against culture at a time when sex was viewed as just another bodily desire.
6- They were against homosexual relationships. This too was odd in a time when same sex practice was not considered taboo.
7- They were exceptionally generous with their resources. They shared what they had with one another and welcomed others in with unparalleled hospitality.
8- They were radically for the poor. In a time when the poor and downtrodden were viewed as getting what they deserved, they were aggressively committed to loving and serving people in the margins of society.
9- They mixed races and social classes in ways that were unseen in their gatherings, and for it they were considered scandalous.
10- They believed that Jesus was the only true God, and they refused to worship other deities. This was in a time when everyone had a god and could believe something entirely different and it was totally acceptable to be polytheists and pluralistic.

If we followed the model of the early church and 1-Refused bloodthirsty sports, 2-Refused militarism, 4-Empowered women, 8-Were radically for the poor, and 9-Mixed races and classes, we might be mistaken as liberals.

On the other hand, if we followed the model of the early church and opposed 3-abortion, 5-sex outside of marriage, and 6-homosexuality, and if we 10-Insisted that Christianity is the only true religion, we might be mistaken as conservatives.

But if we followed the model of the early church and adopted all ten of these values, we would be neither liberal nor conservative. We would be Christians, and they would know we are Christians by our love (John 13:35).

B. The Modern Church. I continue to urge you to see the film, Amazing Grace, which tells the story of William Wilberforce’s heroic efforts to abolish the slave trade throughout the British empire of the day. What it doesn’t show is the essential role of his church in Clapham, in this and all his other endeavors. The reason I keep returning to this week after week is because this church is such an important model for us. Like the early church, the Clapham Saints as they were called were impossible to label in any way except as Christians—people who put the needs of others ahead of their own (Phil 2:3-4). They lived in genuine community with one another. They prioritized reconciliation with God, and they kept short accounts with each other. They were tireless in their concern for the poor and the oppressed, both locally and around the world. Whereas any one of them working independently would have given up long before, together they persevered and changed the course of the world during a period of 40 years.

Because there are so many parallels between our circumstances and theirs, one can’t help imagining how our congregation might take a similar course. When I have been asked what is keeping us from so doing, my initial response has been to say “Money,” because I do think that we need to provide affordable housing in close proximity in order to genuinely live in community with one another. But if the money comes, it will do us no good unless we repent of our self-sufficiency. What good does it do to live in community if we are still saying “I don’t need you” to one another?

Do you want to be all that you can be? Repent of self-sufficiency, for it is a dead end. Trust in Jesus. Take up your cross and follow him, as he leads you into peace with God, and peace with one another. Amen.

No comments: