Fear Not The Disabled

An article from Christianity Today:

Imagine walking down the street and hearing a child say to his mother: "Mom, why does he walk that way?" Or, "Why is she in that wheelchair?" Or, "Why does he have that cane?" People with disabilities don't have to imagine such questions. They hear them regularly—at least those who can hear.

But it's not the queries of curious youngsters that bother those facing physical or mental challenges. It's the indifference, discrimination, or outright hostility that often comes from adults. During the public debate over Terri Schiavo, one especially blunt blogger wrote that Michael Schiavo had been "chained to a drooling [excrement]-bag for 15 years."

Blinded by media-induced visions of health and rugged individualism and by films such as Million Dollar Baby, many people see disability as a fate worse than death. Joni Eareckson Tada, left paralyzed after a diving accident 38 years ago, knows such private attitudes inevitably impact public policy.

"People have a fundamental fear of disabilities," Tada tells CT. "That fear drives social policy."

Jesus' Distressing Disguise

In the debate over human embryonic stem cells, Christians are right to defend the humanity and dignity of the embryo. But our well-reasoned words are unlikely to convince people who fear disease and incapacitation if we do not also demonstrate real pro-life compassion for a whole class already here—people with disabilities.

These neighbors are all around us. And we must not, like the Levite and the priest in Jesus' parable, pass by on the other side of the road. There are an estimated 50 million people with disabilities of all kinds in the United States, and 600 million worldwide. Each one, to borrow a phrase from the late Mother Teresa, is Jesus in "distressing disguise." Relatively few of us see past that distressing disguise to obey the Lord's command to do good unto "the least of these my brethren."

Tragically, the lives of individuals at risk are viewed as expendable. A recent report on assisted suicides under Oregon's Death with Dignity Act found that in 47 percent of the cases, one of the motives in the decision was "concern about being a burden on others."

In the Flanders region of Belgium, a study published in The Lancet found that almost half the newborns who died during one year were "helped" to do so by their doctors. According to a media report on the study, physicians believed the babies in question had no real chance of a "bearable future."

But countless people with disabilities live full and productive lives. Regardless, Tada says, "We just don't know how to deal with any positive aspects of disability."

Disability may open the door to the work of God. Jesus' disciples asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" The Lord said the man's blindness presented a divine opportunity "that the works of God might be displayed in him." We, too, have the daily opportunity to display those works among the disabled.

Of course, reminding the church to care for the weak is a little like asking a fish to swim. It's what a healthy church does naturally. College Church in Wheaton, Illinois, offers a disability ministry "to make access to worship, ministry, and fellowship a reality for any child or adult with special needs."

The church helps people with autism or pervasive developmental disorders and their parents through special Sunday school classes, inclusion programs, recreation nights, summer camps, and other opportunities. Dawn Clark, director of the ministry, points to Luke 14, saying, "God has called [the disabled] to be part of the banquet. We have a mandate from Christ."

Concern for the defenseless has characterized Christ's body from the beginning. The early Christians stood strongly against the widespread practice of infanticide, rescuing exposed infants and raising them in their own homes.

Today, we face a new round of infanticide dressed up as compassionate and enlightened social policy. Our responsibility is to lovingly demonstrate that people are valuable because they bear the image of their Creator.

Unfortunately, the percentage of churches actively engaged on the issue is extremely low. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted. Existing church buildings were exempt from many ADA mandates regarding accessibility, but many cities and states have laws that do not exempt churches.

Whether the law mandates it or not, we should make every reasonable effort, especially as we build new facilities, to remove the physical barriers that keep the disabled from our houses of worship. This means providing curb cuts, ramps, adequate handicapped parking spaces, and doors and aisles wide enough for a wheelchair. If we don't, they won't come. The disabled and the family members who care for them constitute one of the great unreached groups of our time.

Just as important as physical accommodation is an attitude that welcomes the physically and mentally challenged with open arms. A church that welcomes the disabled is great, but a bolder step forward is for churches to be inclusive. When people with disabilities are recognized as participants, not as "the needy," we all benefit. Paul reminded the Corinthians that "the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable." The disabled need the church—almost as much as the church needs the disabled.

Look, ma, one hand!

Imagine this scenario: A couple has two children, and one of them has a visible disability. The other child is emotionally disturbed because the sibling looks abnormal. Will the parents abandon the child who has a disability so as to protect the other child from being traumatised constantly by the presence of the sibling?

That seems to be the logical conclusion based on this article in The New Paper entitled 'One-armed TV host blamed for scaring kids' (2 March 2009):

She's a children's TV show host who has only one hand.

Instead of getting sympathy, Cerrie Burnell has found herself in the middle of a controversy over her disability.

BBC spokeswoman Katya Mira told CNN that the channel has received at least 25 'official' complaints about Ms Burnell.

The 29-year-old, who was born with one hand, is the host of two shows on the BBC-run CBeebies television network.

The programmes are aimed children younger than six.

Ms Mira says Miss Burnell has also been bombarded with negative comments on Internet chat rooms.

Worried about nightmares

One father said he was worried that seeing Ms Burnell would give his daughter nightmares.

Another mother said her two-year-old daughter thought the presenter had been hurt, reported the BBC.

On the message board for Miss Burnell's show, one viewer wrote: 'There's a time and a place for showing kids all the differences that people can have, but nine in the morning in front of two-year-olds is not the place.'

But it's not all bad.

Miss Burnell has also been getting messages of support from viewers who think she is very brave for daring to appear on TV.

The former part-time theatre actress, who has performed in the UK and Brazil, began hosting TV shows in late January.

When the BBC released its press release about Miss Burnell as a new host, it did not mention her disability.

However, a publicity photo clearly showed the right sleeve of her sweater pulled up, showing that her arm stops just below her elbow.

In an interview with the Telegraph, Miss Burnell said she is not ashamed of her disability.

She said: 'People are frightened by disability so they don't want to see it; yet, if they saw more of it on television they wouldn't be so frightened.'

Miss Burnell added that she stopped wearing her prosthetic arm in primary school and refused to wear despite advice from her teachers at her drama school.

'One warned that were I to be cast as Juliet I would have to wear a cardigan.

'I thought to myself: 'Why would Juliet have to wear a cardigan? Would it be breezy on the balcony?' Then the penny dropped - it was to cover my lack of limb.'

Of her experience with stage work, which she hopes to return to, she said: 'People are reluctant to cast disabled actors in main roles; so we don't get any profile, and then, casting directors presume we don't exist, and even disabled roles go to actors without disabilities.

'And the vicious cycle goes on.'

Miss Burnell also denies that she got the BBC job because of the quota-filling equal opportunities policies.

BBC's controller of CBeebies told CNN that the channel is standing by Miss Burnell.

'Cerrie is warm and natural and we think that, in time, all moms and dads and children will love her as much as we do,' he said.

Sir Bert Massie, from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, believes the problem lies with ignorant and prejudiced parents.

He told the BBC: 'I think what's happening is a number of adults do have prejudices, do have very negative views about disabled people, and instead of admitting the views are their own, they're projecting them on to their children and saying the children are doing this.'

Miss Burnell said the criticism doesn't bother her and she will continue hosting.

She said: 'It can only be a good thing that parents are using me as a chance to talk disability with their children.

'It just goes to show how important it is to have positive, disabled role models on CBeebies and television in general.'

On living with her disability, she added: 'People assume there is a sadness attached to a disability like this. But to me, there is no sadness. If I had to change anything about myself, it wouldn't be this.

'It would be to make my hair blonder so I didn't have to keep paying for highlights.'

How have we robbed God?

Church-goers who attend churches that advocate tithing will be familiar with the following oft-quoted verses:

"Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, 'In what way have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation." (Malachi 3:8-9, NKJV)

So if we have fulfiled our duty and have given at least our tithes to the church faithfully, then we should be safe from the indictment, right? Personally, I don't think so.

Jesus says that even if we have paid our tithes to the exact cents but have "neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith", we would have been as guilty as the hypocritical Pharisees (see Matthew 23:23). And Jesus is not the first to associate tithing with issues of justice and mercy. Before Jesus, the Old Testament has already made provisions for the support of refugees, orphans and widows through tithing (see Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 26:12-13). All this shows the heart of God - that He cares for the poor and the needy, the disadvantaged people in the community. For us, as followers of Christ, we must reflect the heart of God in our giving (or tithing or offering or whatever you call it).

Steve Atkerson of New Testament Restoration Foundation wrote an article entitled ‘The Ministry of Giving’ which shows how much our giving pattern has deviated from what God has intended it to be for the New Testament church:

Which group of believers is better able to fund church planters and assist the poor, a thousand believers organized in a single traditional church that meets in their own church sanctuary, complete with a Sunday School complex and family life center (containing a bowling alley, racket ball courts, and gymnasium), or a thousand believers divided up to 50 house churches with mostly bi-vocational leaders? A survey of U.S. Protestant congregations revealed that 82% of church revenues goes toward buildings, staff and internal programs; only 18% goes to outreach.1 In the biblical house church, those percentages can easily be more than reversed!

Since there is no building complex to support, no budget to meet, and no offering plate passed each week, one of the most frequently asked questions from folks new to the biblical house church is, “What do we do with our tithes and offerings?” The answer to this is both fun and liberating. First, God loves a cheerful giver (2Co 9:6-7), and giving the New Testament way can be great fun! Second, it is liberating in the sense that your giving resources are freed up to be given where need most: supporting full time church workers and assisting the needy.

The house church in which I participate rarely takes up a collection. Each family is encouraged to set aside a percentage of every paycheck into their own special giving fund. Week after week each family’s funds can accrue there, stored up until a need in the congregation arises. Giving in our church is usually directly from giver to getter, with no middleman involved (though collections are occasionally taken). In this way we give to missionaries, foreign orphanages, the persecuted church, local elders, and the needy. In our case, we have no church bank account nor church property.

Collections

Few causes in the New Testament warranted an actual collection from the church corporately. One was to help other believers in need (Ac 11:27-30; 24:17; Ro 15:25-28; 1Co 16:1-4; 2Co 8:1-15; 9:12). Another was to support apostles (church planters) in their work (Ac 15:3; Ro 15:23-24; 1Co 9:1-14; 16:5-6, 10-11; 2Co 1:16; Php 4:14-18; Tit 3:13-14; 3Jn 5-8).

Whenever believers in other places were undergoing hardship (due to famine, persecution or whatever), the other churches were called upon to supply financial aid. Evidently such collections were not ongoing — they ceased after the need was met (Ac 11:27-30; 12:25; 1Co 16:1-4). To this end we in the Western church would do well to support our brothers in the Chinese church. Local giving to the poor was done in secret and directly (Mt 6:1-4, 19-21; Ep 4:28). Also, a list of local widows who qualified for assistance was kept by a church (1Ti 5:3, 9, 16).

The church was also obligated to support (send out) apostles (church planters). The Greek word for send (propempo) is, in the New Testament, associated with helping someone on his journey with food or money, by arranging for traveling companions, means of travel, etc. It means to send an apostle off with material sustenance (Ac 15:3; Ro 15:24; 1Co 16:6,11; 2Co 1:16; Tit 3:13; 3Jn 5-8). The same case can be made for the word welcome (Php 2:29; 3Jn 10). To welcome a church planter was to provide temporary lodging for him and to meet his physical needs. New Testament church planters were given lump sums to get them to their destinations. Once there, they would evangelize the area, establish churches, train them in the basics and move on. En route they might be welcomed at existing churches and then be sent along again.

1 Corinthians 9:1-14 states that apostles/church planters have the right to earn their living from the gospel. Paul was versatile enough to be able to supply his own needs when church funds were lacking. Others in the early church who received gifts were full time evangelists and qualified elders. A material debt is owed to those who sow spiritual blessings into our lives.

It is disturbing to contrast New Testament giving objectives with where ministry money often goes today. A Memphis newspaper reported in the mid-1980s that a local Baptist church’s downtown building complex had 330,000 square feet of inside space, 1,400 parking spaces, 221 classrooms, and an auditorium that held 2,700 people. Their average monthly utility bill, even back then, was $25,000.00! Their pipe organ was valued at $800,000.2 How did Paul and the other apostles ever get along without such ministerial tools? There is not much justification in the New Testament for such expenditures. Instead, New Testament pattern is to give to people, not property.

Tithing

“The Bible teaches it; I believe it; tithing.” Such are the words chanted weekly by the congregation of a large church I used to attend. Some pastor-teachers have emphatically declared that unless God’s people tithe, they are robbing God (Mal 3:8-10)! One mega-church has its members cite the “Tither’s Creed.” They repeat, “The tithe is the Lord’s. In truth we learned it. In faith we believe it. In joy we give it. The tithe!”

Of course, the Bible does teach tithing. The same Mosaic Law that requires tithing also teaches God’s people not to eat shrimp or oysters. The real question is whether such Old Covenant laws are still binding under the New Covenant. Is the law of Moses identical to the law of Christ?

By way of contrast, the Old Testament tithe was compulsory, not voluntary. Its purpose was to financially support a theocratic government. It was like our federal income tax. It was part and parcel of the whole Levitical system with its priests and temple (2Ch 24:6, 9). Unlike Israel, the church is not under a theocracy, but rather human, secular governments. Unlike Israel, the church has no special class of priests, but rather all in the church are priests. Unlike the Mosaic Covenant, the New Covenant has no elaborate temple to build and upkeep. Instead, the church met in the homes of its members, and believers themselves (both individually and corporately), make up God’s temple (living stones in a spiritual temple). Just as there is no more temple, no more separate priestly class, no more theocracy, no more holy land, no more restrictive diet (oysters, shrimp), so also there is no more tithing. Tithing is never commanded in the New Covenant. There has been a change of law (Heb 7:12), the former regulation has been set aside (Heb 7:18), and the New Covenant made the first one obsolete (Heb 8:13).

Some brothers still feel compelled to tithe since the practice of tithing actually precedes the Old Covenant. For instance, Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, and since the Old Covenant was not initiated until several hundred years after that event, tithing is seen as an ongoing practice that transcends any one covenant. This argument seems plausible at first. However, once it is realized that this is an isolated (not an ongoing) event in the life of Abraham (the same can be said for Jacob’s tithe), and that Abraham also offered animal sacrifices and circumcised the males of his household (both of which are now considered obsolete religious practices by all Christians), the strength of that argument wanes. At best, one should conclude that we only have to tithe once in our entire lives!

Other people’s conscience are bound based on Jesus’ statement that “you give a tenth of your spices . . . but you have neglected the more important matters of the law . . . you should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Mt 23:23). The key to correctly applying this lies with the word law (Mt 23:23). Jesus was speaking to the teachers of the law and to the Pharisees – men who lived prior to the initiation of the New Covenant. The law is that of the Mosaic Covenant, not the New Covenant. The Israelis of Jesus’ day were indeed required to tithe (and, by the way, to make animal sacrifices). We of the New Covenant are under no such requirement since that first covenant and its law has passed away. Viva the law of Christ!

Of course, there is nothing wrong with tithing if that is what God has led you to do. As was pointed out above, Abraham and Jacob both tithed voluntarily before the law was given. They serve as good examples to follow! Just don’t feel obligated to tithe. The key is that our giving is to be according to how we have purposed in our hearts to give. Did Jesus die on the cross so that we could give less than ten percent?!

Reaping & Sowing

Without dispute the New Covenant extols the virtue of generosity. In Matthew 6:19-21, Jesus taught us to store up treasures in heaven. In Matthew 19:21, Jesus told the rich young ruler that by giving to the poor, he could have treasure in heaven. 1 Timothy 6:18-19 exhorts us to be “generous and willing to share . . . lay up treasure . . . as a firm foundation for the coming age.” We are to share with others, “for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Heb 13:16). Based on your present giving habits, how much treasure do you have laid up in heaven?

But how much should we give? The answer depends on how much we want to reap later, how much we want to be blessed, and how much treasure we want in heaven. Scripture says to remember this: “whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2Co 9:6-7). According to the New Covenant, each man should give “what he has decided in his heart to give.” That’s all there is to it! Tithing, as required by Moses, is not a New Covenant practice. Notice that the text declares our giving is not to be done “reluctantly or under compulsion” (2Co 9:7). If some teacher says you must tithe, else you are robbing God, is that not placing you under compulsion? Yet do not use your freedom as a cover for stinginess. Give generously. Give cheerfully. Give frequently.

Give whatever you have purposed in your heart to give. Consider that perhaps it may not be the best use of your giving resources for them to be spent on special church sanctuaries, janitorial fees, landscaping, fancy throne-like furniture for pastors to sit in, or $800,000 pipe organs. Primarily, God intended for His people to give to help the needy and to support church workers (missionaries, church planters, apostles, evangelists, qualified elders, etc.). Pray about how much, and to whom, you should give.

Notes

1 “Where Church Revenues Go,” The Atlanta Journal And Constitution (Atlanta, GA: April 19, 1992).

2 John Belfuss, “Mississippi Boulevard OK’s Bellevue Purchase,” The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), A-1.

A reply to a letter in Straits Times Forum

A letter in Straits Times Forum entitled 'One can always say no to hard-sell religion' (16 April 2008):

I READ with interest the complaint by Ms Wee Feng Yi in her letter on Saturday, 'Let's respect a person's private space in public', in which she expressed her concern over 'the increasingly noticeable trend by Singaporeans to proselytise in public.' Personally, I do not like to be disturbed in public by salespeople peddling their wares, so I empathise with Ms Wee to a certain extent. However, I disagree with her perspective on religious freedom, which she said includes 'the right not to be annoyed by someone who over-enthusiastically tries to promote his or her beliefs'.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines religious freedom as follows: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance'.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore defines freedom of religion in Article 15 Clause 1: 'Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it'.

For followers of certain religions, having the freedom to practise one's religion includes the freedom to propagate the faith, albeit within certain limits. For example, no follower of any religion should use physical force to advance their cause or compel people to convert.

True allegiance to any religious faith must be voluntary and cannot be compelled by force. If one is compelled to be a member of any religion, then it is no longer a voluntary act of the individual and therefore the essential quality of true faith is lost.

Likewise, a democratic government like ours should not enforce laws requiring or prohibiting different kinds of religious beliefs or practices, with the exception of maintaining internal security as spelt out in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. As long as followers of the different religions are propagating their faiths in peaceful and respectful ways, the Government should continue to maintain a level playing field where every religion can compete without restrictions for members in a marketplace of ideas and beliefs.

Unless one uses deceitful or coercive methods, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with presenting the exclusive benefits of one's religion, not unlike companies highlighting the unique benefits of their products in a free market economy of choices whereby one can accept or reject freely. While Ms Wee cannot avoid being approached by members of any religious group, she can definitely exercise her individual right to decline.

A letter in Straits Times Forum

A letter in Straits Times Forum entitled 'Let's respect a person's private space in public' (12 April 2008) by Ms Wee Feng Yi:

I WAS sitting alone in my school canteen one afternoon when a girl came up to me and asked if I had time to spare. Yes, it was yet another get-to-know-God session.

I'm sorry if this sounds impolite, but I've had enough of such encounters in school and other public places.

I find the increasingly noticeable trend by Singaporeans to proselytise in public worrying.

It is not uncommon when one is sitting alone outside Starbucks, or on a bench in school, to find oneself being approached by some stranger who starts introducing his or her concept of religion.

It may be acceptable to spread one's religion by setting up a booth at Orchard Road, putting up a website, or distributing fliers but it should not go further.

Proselytising in school is too much. I am well aware that these people mean well, and feel intensely about their beliefs and that good things are meant to be shared. I feel the same way about my religion too but I do not do what they do because it is not the right way to share my beliefs.

Such get-to-know-God sessions are undemocratic because they indirectly convey the message that a person feels his religion is superior to the beliefs of others, and that others should therefore switch.

It is also intrusive especially if courtesy requires one to listen when one wishes to turn away. I am glad that my friends, who are of a different religion, do not try to convert me.

Religious freedom does include the right not to be annoyed by someone who over-enthusiastically tries to promote his or her beliefs.

Tolerance and acceptance have their limits.

I believe that the only way for a person to win respect for himself and his beliefs is for that person to be a good person first.

He should embody the values which his beliefs teach him, and prove the strength of love through actions, not sermons.

Show me that your beliefs make you a better person, and that your religion makes you care for the world; that is all you need to do.

After encountering one too many sessions in public, I think that there perhaps should be a law to ban such religious touting.

A poem on the journey

stray

the distance is measured
friendships once treasured, still
can't help but cry
to salvage, did try
the loss had started
a thousand miles ago
i got on the right train, right?
so why the strain? now
staring out the window of time
see seasons change and mountains yet climbed
can't look back, can i
stay on track?

They are just not my kind of people!

One contemporary church (or rather a network of congregations that meet primarily in homes) that has caught my attention recently is The Crowded House located in Sheffield, UK. I am particularly impressed by one of their core values, that is, “Being an inclusive community”:

We are committed to making church accessible to unbelievers and welcoming to the socially marginalised. We want all who come to have a sense of belonging. We will not let our welcome be dependent on adherence to any cultural norms when these are not demanded by the gospel. We will not do that which might make unbelievers feel left out.

Here is a message by Chris Richardson (perhaps one of their members) that focuses on this value that is posted on their website. It is definitely worth the read:

The problem with making Eric feel welcome is that he smells. He never seems to change his clothes; he probably never washes! “I couldn’t invite him to my home! Just a few minutes talking to him here is enough. And anyway the way he looks at my children worries me!”

Everyone feels embarrassed when Scarlet is around. It’s widely known that she has lots of male visitors in the middle of the night, sometimes even during the daytime; and someone of her education and background simply shouldn’t be able to afford what she has.

The problem with Ahmed is that he’s a Muslim. “I wouldn’t know what to feed him if he came into my home. I’d be sure to offend him by putting bacon in the soup or something!” “Anyway, he makes me nervous too. I know he’s not a terrorist, but he does have very worrying political views.”

“They are just not my kind of people!”

“I do have different kinds of friends, but not people like them. It is unreasonable to expect me to reach out and welcome people like them, isn’t it? Never mind talking to them about Jesus! I mean, we all know that Friendship Evangelism is the best way isn’t it? ...And they aren’t my friends, so... case closed!”

As we think about “Being an inclusive community” we’re going to look at our Lord and our supreme example, Jesus, and how he welcomes all kinds of people. And then think about us, and how we are to respond.

You cannot fail to see inclusiveness as a characteristic of Jesus when you read any of the records of his life, particularly Luke. Jesus goes where others never went; he welcomes people who are outcasts to the religious; he eats with people hardly considered human by the respectable people of his day. In Luke 7:34 he is accused of being “a friend of tax collectors and ‘sinners’.”

How would “friend of tax collectors and ‘sinners’” translate into today’s culture? Jesus, friend of pimps and illegal immigrants? Or friend of terrorists and paedophiles? Hard to say, but it was meant to be a damning insult. Clearly they thought he mixed with the sort of people we’d never want our children to mix with... because we’d never want to mix with them!

Jesus on earth was an inclusive person? He is building an inclusive community. It will include people of every tribe and nation in the world; it will include poor people, those with disabilities, notoriously bad people will be in, and just maybe, if we’re very careful, there may even be some respectable people there too!

Let’s look at one of these events in the life of Jesus (Luke 7:36–50) to start with.

This interruption is shocking! The way Jesus deals with this interruption is outrageously shocking! The acceptance and love he shows towards this woman would have been on the front page of the Sun... outrageous and titillating.

For a banquet of this sort the door of the house is open and there are lots of comings and goings, so it would seem that she came in at the same time as Jesus or even before him (v.45 suggests “from the time Jesus entered” she was doing this).

Let’s get this clear at the start: this woman, who is almost certainly a prostitute, is not here, in Simon’s home, trying to gain forgiveness from Jesus. No, she is responding to forgiveness already announced by him earlier. That’s clear from the way Jesus explains the parable and from v.50 where he says it is her faith not her loving actions that have saved her.

Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet” (Luke 7:44-46).

There is no servant to wash Jesus feet, but she finds herself standing behind Jesus as he reclines. She is overwhelmed with joyful thankfulness and love for this righteous man who has accepted her and announced God’s forgiveness to her. She can’t hold it in and bursts into floods of tears of joy all over his feet. But there is no towel (because Simon provided no water for his feet) so what is she to do, she can’t leave him with wet feet. So she lets her hair down and wipes his feet with her hair!

It’s hard to imagine the shock of this act on those watching. A woman was forbidden to let her hair down with anyone except her husband. Otherwise it was only prostitutes who did this with their clients. And then the perfume, usually used to make her more desirable to her prospective clients, tipped out on his feet.

And she does it, here, in this respectable man’s home, among his respectable, religious guests... and this so-called prophet allows her to do it. He doesn’t even try to push her away or move out of her reach. It’s scandalous! A disgrace! A friend of prostitutes! And we all know what that means!

“Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he cancelled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?” (Luke 7:41-42)

The parable Jesus tells Simon - the respectable, deeply religious Pharisee - gets to the heart of the matter.

Which one will love the most? The one who has had the biggest debt cancelled. It’s not hard to identify who’s who here, is it?

We have two debtors: a notoriously sinful woman and a meticulously religious man. Not hard to imagine who owes the most and who owes the least. Easy to guess who needs to be forgiven the most, isn’t it?

And they have two very different responses to the one who has announced the cancellation of debts. One loves much; the other loves little.

The religious Simon is outrageously rude to Jesus. By not kissing him when he entered his house, by not providing water for him to wash his feet or oil for his head, Simon is failing in all his cultural responsibilities as a host in that culture. These things were not reserved for the special people; this was normal courtesy for any guest. Simon may even feel that to show Jesus these courtesies would be to defile himself by touching this “friend of sinners” (v.34).

The love towards Jesus is shown here in the way each of them welcomes him. And as readers, we’re clearly meant to see that only people who admit they are in debt to God will be willing to accept God’s offer of forgiveness. And those people will respond to that forgiveness in real, costly love. These things characterise Christians!

So Christians are good, respectable people then? No! Christians are people who love because we have first been loved beyond our wildest hopes, and way beyond what we deserve.

But we can tell a Christian community by how that group of people love and welcome. Do we love as Jesus loves? Do we welcome and include the kind of people Jesus includes in his kingdom? He is the great welcomer. He welcomes the worst of people. He shows that even such a bad person as this woman is not beyond the reach of God’s forgiveness in Christ.

This is what his kingdom is like, and whom his kingdom is for. And so he gives us, as his people, an example of how to welcome all kinds of people.

Now how do we at Sharrowvale do here? I’m not going to give us marks out of ten! I’d like all of us to prayerfully consider this question. To help us do that, I want us to look at two aspects of what it means to be an inclusive community:

1. Being an inclusive community when “outsiders” come in.
2. Being an inclusive community where “insiders” go out.

When outsiders come in, do they experience a welcome like Jesus would welcome them? Or do we expect people to become like us before we will accept them in?

About 25 years ago, the pastor of a church in Buenos Aires in Argentina was approached by a new Christian in his congregation. This young man had come to trust in Jesus Christ from a lifestyle that included being part of a drug culture in the city. He asked the church leader that day if he would mind if he brought some of his old drug-taking friends to church with him. He said they needed to hear about Jesus and he thought some of them would come.

The pastor said straightaway, “Of course. Bring them.”

From the following week, there was something approaching chaos in the weekly meetings. Half a dozen to a dozen young adults many still high on drink and drugs started coming along and shouting during the sermons, bumping into people and generally causing a nuisance.

Several long-standing church members came to the leaders and said that something had to be done. They didn’t want their children mixing with people like that. They were going to withhold their giving to the church and if nothing were done to stop it they would leave. They were the largest givers to the church.

The church leaders responded by saying that Jesus welcomed such people and so must they, and that if they didn’t want to be where Jesus would be, then sadly they would have to leave the church. And in fact over the next few months some of the most respectable and wealthiest members of the church did leave.

15 years later, which was when I heard the story, the church had seen dozens if not hundreds of drug addicts reached for Christ and by then half the leaders of the church had once been addicts themselves.

Churches can be tough to feel you belong to, can’t they?

When I was growing up I believed God existed, but I certainly never felt included by any church. Mind you, we rarely went to any church so it wasn’t entirely the church’s fault!

But it never occurred to me that church was a community where I might belong - no one talked to us! (Now my father didn’t want anyone to talk to us, so that may have been why no one did.)

And yet most people there were from similar backgrounds to me. I wasn’t being actively excluded because of the kind of background I came from; I just wasn’t being actively included.

Surely the kind of atmosphere we want to have here is one that shows that we have been welcomed undeservedly by Jesus into his family, so we go out of our way to welcome with equal respect and dignity anyone, whoever they are, and whatever our society thinks of them.

When we meet together as God’s people we are not here to get our own personal fix for the week! If we were, then we could be justified in being irritated that some outsider came in and made it harder for us to have our personal time with God.

But that’s not what we’re meant to be doing as we meet together. We can do that at home, and I do hope we are doing it at home, and that time with God is central to our personal and family lives.

But when we meet together, whether on Sundays or during the week, we are to be loving one another, giving each other courage to stand for Christ in the whole of our lives, and we are to be overflowing in welcome to any outsiders because Jesus welcomes outsiders.

So when someone a bit different comes into the middle of our meeting and looks around, what do you do? Look away and hope she goes away, or that someone else will sort her out? Or break off in the middle of singing and go and welcome her and sit with her?

What about foreigners? “I don’t know what to say to them?” “I can’t understand them?” “I have nothing in common with them?”

So?!?! That may be true, but what’s that got to do with it? That’s how our society so often thinks. That’s not a Christian response at all. Jesus sent his Holy Spirit to empower his church to cross cultural boundaries, to reach the foreigners.

“But it’s just not me!” some people say, “I just can’t relate to strangers.” Well, let me tell you about the only time I met John Stott. If you’ve never met him, imagine an elderly upper-class gentleman, a stiff upper lip, public school Englishman (which incidentally I find one of the hardest cultural groups in the world to relate to!!) He was about to speak at a CU meeting in Durham and I was chatting to him, when a young African man came up to us to speak to John Stott. This elder statesman graciously excused himself from our conversation and turned to greet this African who he had never met before. I think, like me, you would probably have expected him to extend his formal English hand to shake it, with a “How do you do?” No way! He opened his arms and gave the astonished young man a great hug!

I learned from someone else later that he knew how to greet people in dozens of different cultures and he always used the culturally appropriate way. Do you think someone from his background feels comfortable doing this? No way! But he knows that it isn’t about how comfortable I feel, but how welcome I can make the other person feel.

Now we often have international students here, sometimes other kinds of non-locals. Some of the church here regularly come to speak to these guests, many don’t. Some invite them into their homes. I think the general impression I hear from ISs is of a fairly welcoming bunch of people in this church, which is great. But could we be more so? We hope to make the Crossing Cultures Day on 6th May very helpful, whether you’re on the Manor or bumping into immigrants or ISs. Let’s make this a church-equipping day so that from now on we’ll be a more inclusive community.

Perhaps another example, if we believe this stuff then we will do whatever we can to give people who are not able-bodied equal access to our buildings. Not spending money on allowing people with disabilities access may be a symptom of a serious disease and may show up our lack of inclusiveness as a community.

Now I think in some ways we are welcoming people who turn up here or at MG or HO. I’m sure we can still improve this considerably, but we are not bad at “Being an inclusive community” when “outsiders” come in.

But in some ways this is quite easy, isn’t it? We’re on our territory, we’re welcoming people into our space. The outsider has had to make the huge step in the first place of coming into a strange building, or the home of someone they don’t know.

For many this is a step too far. So they’ll never see us being an inclusive community unless we are being an inclusive community where “insiders” go out.

Now I’m starting to feel uncomfortable. Normally we make friends with people like us. So to do what Jesus told his servant to do in the parable read earlier is hard:

“‘Go out to the roads and country lanes... and make them come in so that my house will be full’” (Luke 14:21,23).

To go out and cross normal barriers of comfortableness and go to where the outsiders and the socially marginalised are at home, which by definition means that these are places where we are not at home – to cross those barriers and then to show a warm welcome to them, to give them dignity when others despise them, to make clear that God is offering to cancel their debts, just as he has cancelled ours.

Do you find that hard? I certainly do.

Maybe like me, most of the time, you haven’t really found it that hard, because you’ve hardly ever done it!

When Jesus was in Simon’s home, who do you think normally would have felt the most unwelcome? The woman obviously. Yet who is it that is made to feel so welcome that her love overflows?

Jesus turns the tables and becomes the welcoming host when Simon fails to do it. That is the church’s role in society. If our neighbours or the media or the government or whoever turn on a section of the population and treat them as second class, Jesus would be right there showing them that he accepts them, and calling them to follow him. That’s where his church should be too.

And we are doing this to some extent too, aren’t we? Those of you on the Manor, taking a gospel community over there, and welcoming people in. This is crossing cultures. How can you develop that? Making sure that people don’t have to change into respectable middle class people to feel they belong.

There are many older people in the community round here, who are lonely, and many are ill or losing their sight or struggle to get around very easily. How can we help? How can we take our gospel community out to them? Could young and old in our congregation work together on that? We’ve done gardening, how else could we develop taking this community of Jesus-people out to those who are not coming in?

You may have other kinds of people or other ways to serve on your hearts; ways we can take our wonderful gospel community out into this needy world. Well, talk to God and talk to each other here, and let’s see if God will help you to get two or three of us together to do it. Let’s just get on with it.

Don’t we need to be constantly encouraging each other as a community of God’s people to be going where Jesus would be, to the people Jesus went to: the poor, the marginalised, the rejected and the stranger. All of them could be defined as “the people who are not like us”.

But what about those who are respectable or those who are like us, are we supposed to ignore them? No. Jesus, after all, accepted the invitation to Simon’s home, didn’t he? But he didn’t seem to work very hard to make Simon feel comfortable did he? Jesus welcomed the respectable if they were willing to associate themselves with the ragbag group who make up the community of Jesus, as Luke demonstrates in his book. But Jesus goes out of his way to welcome the poor, the marginalised and the needy, and he expects us to do the same.

When a congregation fails to be as inclusive as Jesus, the heart of the problem, as ever, is the problem of the heart.

There are two kinds of sin and two kinds of sinners, lived out in Luke 7 as Simon and the woman. Simon sins within what is culturally acceptable, the woman sins outside what is culturally acceptable.

Sinners like the woman, then and today, often know they are sinners; sinners like Simon, then and today, often don’t. Because of this it is often much harder for the respectable churchgoer to admit they cannot pay their debt to God, and that they need to turn back to follow Jesus and accept his forgiveness. Respectable hearts can be very hard hearts. If this diagnosis rings any bells with you, then will you please take action. Even if you think your debt to God is quite small, realise that you have no way to pay him back. We are all spiritually bankrupt. We all need the humility to accept his cancelling our debt through the death of Jesus. Please trust him to do it.

But when a church is full of people who know their unpayable debts have been cancelled through the death of Jesus, that church is characterised by an overwhelming love for God and for others – all kinds of others.