Right Sermon, Wrong Place

(Image is not from Last Night)

Last night I had the great opportunity to preach to a congregation that is a part of Church of the Saviour in Washington DC. Last week, as I was preparing my presentation, I struggled with what topic to focus on. The person who had invited me had felt his inspiration from a sermon I preached at another church that talked about the plight of Millennials in the Church. As I prepared, however, I read and reflected on somethings in my own life that seemed to fit the texts for the evening better. In the end, my words focused more on the actions of Jesus and Elijah in the texts from the Lectionary for June 5th, Year C. There, Jesus and the prophet both reach out and touch dead people in order to raise them from the dead. 

I talked about a book from Richard Beck called, “Unclean,” where he talks about the principle of contamination that was part of the common religious practice of both Jesus and Elijah. I wanted to highlight how the Church is given an image of reaching into places where others would fear contamination. I highlighted it by telling my story of struggling with depression. Many of the events and consequences of which I had never told my wife before as she sat there and listened. It was a good night, and one that felt honest and whole. The presence of the Triune God was deeply felt in that place.

When we got home, my wife commented that it was a great presentation, but that it should probably have been preached at her church on a Sunday morning and not in that place. She felt there was little risk in sharing that night, and though it was well-received, my story was not as much of a challenge to the group from Church of the Saviour. In hindsight, I agree that there was very little risk in sharing certain details of my life with depression in front of that group. But, I challenged her by asking if she really thought such a sermon would actually help her congregation, or responses of resentment and dismissal in reaction to their discomfort. In the end, we agreed that, most likely, controversy and not action or reflection would have been the end result.

Our conversation caused me to reflect on something I heard on one of my favorite podcasts. Tripp Fuller, during one of the episodes of Homebrewed Christianity, talked about how most ministers can only tell their congregation 50% of what they believe for fear of being fired. It brought to mind a joke from undergrad; a group of us thought that most ministers were probably more “liberal” or “progressive” than their congregations and that it would never change. When I think of last night, I feel a mixture of joy that such an open place of worship exists, and pain that such a place is so rare. 

The point of writing about it today, though, is to put that question out in the open. How true is it that in order to be in a church, ministers, or even fully engaged lay-people, have to hide part of themselves in order to be accepted? I have my own answers from my own experiences as a staff minister, active layperson, and friend of minsters, but I wonder how many have actually thought about it. 

Do we actually consider the fact that we are hiding part of who we are and how we engage with God? 

Is it good for our congregations to never hear the more “controversial” parts of our belief systems?

It goes without saying that our overall culture is very polarized. (It doesn’t take a hack from some backwater blog to tell you that.) Conflicts over ideas are heated and full of vitriol. I remember all the way back to undergrad hearing fellow students argue about theology, and heard some of the rather short-sighted proclamations made about those on the opposite side. I know that because of such arguments, I have kept my mouth shut at times because I didn’t want conflict in my life, but does avoiding conflict really serve the best interests of the Church?

What would it be like if we actually proclaimed what we felt to be true?

How different would the Church look if we stopped hiding part of ourselves?