The 23rd Psalm

April 13, 2008
Denise Giardina

Acts 2:42-47; Psalm 23; I Peter 2:19-25; John 10:1-10.

The last time I preached, about six weeks ago in Lent, the psalm appointed was the 23rd psalm. The appointed psalm for today is the 23rd psalm. I considered that God was trying to send me a message – I should preach on the 23rd Psalm.

The problem is, I preached on the 23rd Psalm several years ago. And I read that old sermon, and the other lessons for today, and saw things from a slightly different angle. That is the joy of preaching from a lectionary.

But there are also problems about preaching from a lectionary. Things get left out. Today’s epistle is a prime example. First Peter tells us, in the 19th verse of chapter 2, that it is a credit to endure pain while suffering unjustly, and that if we suffer pain though we do not deserve to, we have God’s approval. What we are not shown is that in verse 18, which introduces this passage, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, not only kind masters but harsh ones.

It is easy to see why a modern lectionary leaves out this verse. This is the passage used by generations of Southern slaveholders to justify their horrid mistreatment of African- Americans. Never mind that slave-owners themselves by implication do not come off well in the passage. Their very existence, and the admonition that slaves should be obedient to them, was enough for slave-owners to love this reading. A lack of context prevented slave-owners from seeing that their slaves were being compared to Christ, and that they themselves were compared to those who abused and killed Christ. A lack of context in our own lectionary prevented us from seeing this morning that this passage refers to slavery at all.

Failing to put biblical passages and religious pronouncements in their proper context can lead to grave distortions. We have had a very good example of that in the news over the past month or more. Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been castigated because he attends a church whose pastor once proclaimed “God damn America”.

Now, before I continue, I might suggest that if anyone here is planning on running for president, you might want to leave now. Otherwise, you are going to be held accountable for what I am about to say.

What did that pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, say in proper context? First, the Rev. Wright preached to an African-American congregation familiar with both their own history and, according to a recent article in the New Yorker magazine, with liberation theology. Second, he did not utter just that isolated sentence --- “God Damn America” – he preached an entire sermon. That sermon, growing from the context of the African-American experience in this country, should be taken itself in it entire context.

In his sermon, the Rev. Wright surveyed the sweep of American history. Among other things he addressed the enslavement and continued mistreatment of African-Americans, the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII, the tragedy and travesty of the Vietnam War, and the deaths of thousands of poor people in Central America at the hands of oppressive governments and paramilitaries like the contras directly supported by the United States.

The Rev. Wright surveyed as well the history of empires. Ancient Egypt failed, he said. The Romans failed. The British failed. The Russians failed. The Japanese failed. The Germans failed. And, he said, the American government has failed and will continue to fail. He also noted that sometimes governments change for the good, as when the U.S. finally ended segregation. But while governments may change for better or worse, he said, God does not change. While governments and empires fail, God does not fail. “God,” he said, “is the same yesterday, today, and forever more.” And then he said, not God bless America but “God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is Supreme.” At the end of his sermon he apologized for his wording but emphasized his central point. “As long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme.”

The full context makes a difference. Let me tell you, I see no difference in the message of the Rev. Wright and the message of another prophet named Jeremiah and others in the Old Testaments such as Amos and Hosea who pronounced condemnation for the many sins of their own nation.

Let us also recall the entire context of scripture. After the destruction of Israel comes repentance, and restoration. But mixed inextricably with that restoration is the establishment of justice in society. Justice cannot be excluded. Not in Israel and not in the United State of America.

I want to consider context as I look at the three lessons and the Psalm appointed for today. As I looked for a common thread, it seemed to me that the lessons fall into two distinct groups. First, we have the 23rd Psalm and the Gospel reading from John. In both the metaphor of God as shepherd is employed, and it is a message of great comfort. Yahweh is our shepherd, we shall not want. We sheep follow our shepherd with perfect trust, because we know his voice, and Jesus is the gate through which we enter.

I can’t resist adding, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, that if the Bible were written today, the metaphor used might well be that of a dog coddled by a loving family, since most of us are more familiar with dogs than with sheep. Yahweh is my owner, I shall not want. His name, address and phone number are engraved on my dog tags, the psalm might read. My bowl overfloweth with milk bones. In any event, the promise is of security. We will be safe. We will be taken care of.

On the other hand, the readings from I Peter and Acts seem of a different sort. I Peter calls for obedient slaves. Acts tells how members of the early church sold their possessions to help the poor and held all things in common. In both cases a new way, a difficult way, of living is being modeled. I would argue that these verses cannot be understood out of context, and that the psalm and the gospel, as different as they seem, provide the necessary context.

I came to this conclusion by remembering my experiences, in the years of seminary and my early deaconate, with a Christian community in Washington DC called Sojourners Fellowship, founded by Jim Wallis. We were a young and idealistic group of Christians attempting to live as the early church had lived. Around 50 of us lived together in four houses, we shared a few cars, ate meals together, and held our goods in common. We tried to live simply. For spending money for things like movies and restaurants, we had $15 a month. Some of us had jobs – I worked for the Episcopal Peace Fellowship at the National Cathedral – and our income went into a common pot which enabled the rest to work at various community ministries – a daycare center, food co-op, magazine, and tenant organizing effort – all in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Washington.

It was a powerful experiment and lasted for a number of years but ultimately it failed, just as ultimately the early church was not able to maintain the form described in Acts.

Why was that? That is, I believe, the key to understanding what holds today’s lessons together. At Sojourners Fellowship the first problems appeared when married couples began to raise their children. The local inner city schools were substandard. Families began to send their children to schools in wealthier neighborhoods, or to leave entirely. Other things affected both married and single people at Sojourners. There was little money for gas or to maintain cars. While DC had an excellent transportation system, that was not true elsewhere, so travel was restricted. It was very difficult, for example, for me to visit my family here in West Virginia. And then came the biggest problem of all – lack of health care. We were young but we would not always be, and when some of us developed health problems, we realized that even the young are vulnerable. The need for jobs that provided health insurance finally overrode our attempts to share our economic lives in Christian community.

How could the earliest Christians maintain their community in the face of a government and an economic system that was indifferent? How could a slave obey his or her master if there was no one to turn to for support? What was needed was a context – a context of security, and a context that provides justice. And that is why, though God is our shepherd and Jesus is the gate through which the shepherd leads us, ultimate security is not provided apart from the needs of the world.

How might a slave obey his master? More easily if he knew that fellow Christians were working to free him. How might members of the church hold their goods in common, and live simply so that they might share more to the poor? More easily with abundant and inexpensive public transportation, with good schools for all, with universal health care. God, through Christ, may usher us safely into the next life – in this life, we are called to model God and to work for justice so that we can endure mistreatment, and we can relieve the mistreatment of others.

Great Christian leaders throughout the centuries have known this. I think, for example, of William Wilberforce, who fed the poor, and freed the slaves of the British Empire. I think of Nicholas Ferrar, who established the Anglican community at Little Gidding in the midst of the English Civil War that was written about so eloquently in TS Eliot’s Four Quartets; Frederick Dennison Maurice, Walter Rauschenbusch, and many others who promoted the Social Gospel and Christian Socialism; Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement; the many wonderful Catholics like Gustavo Gutierrez who wrote about liberation theology and worked for justice for the poor and oppressed in Central and South America and, yes, in the United States.

Taken out of context, the readings from I Peter and Acts give a hopelessly old-fashioned and even racist call on slaves to obey their masters, tell of a hopelessly naïve effort by the early church to share goods in common. Taken in context we see it is God himself who calls us to work for economic and political justice. Taken out of context, today’s psalm and gospel reading promise us spiritual security, but fail to connect this spirituality to the needs of the world. Context is important, for even as we are promised a good shepherd who takes care of us, we are called to share that blessing with others, and that means to stand up to injustice. Christ is the gate through which we enter: the destination is a new world where justice is established for all. We will reach that destination fully only in the world to come, in the house of the Lord where we will dwell forever. But we are to live as though we are there now.