Good Morning to all of our Allen Temple Prayer and Fasting Group!

 

As we pray for our church and the greater Body of Christ Jesus, let us pray that there are more young people who will continue to stand up for what is right with this country; like those who have been in the streets in #blacklivesmatter and now those in Texas who are protesting peacefully together about the wounds of racism in America. This gives us hope for the future when the present is past redux.

 

This week the word we might consider is more than curious; it’s mysterious. The word is “member.” Seems like a no-brainer, right? But, what is its deeper significance? It cannot be the obvious: We are members of the family of God; we are members of a church family; we are members of biological groups...members of a school class, members of racial or ethnic group, members of a club, members of a work group, members of sororities, fraternities, etc. And yet the question might remain, “Do we actually belong? To what? And why?” Why is it important to be a member of something?

 

It is interesting that Jesus never really talked about membership. The closest we get is in John 8:35.

 

35 A slave is a transient, who can’t come and go at will.  The Son, though, has an established position, the run of the house.

36 So if the Son sets you free, you are free through and through. 

John 8:35-36 (TMB)

35 A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son is part of the family forever.

36 So if the Son sets you free, you will indeed be free

John 8:35-36 (NLT)

 

It is interesting to see how American slavers turned this notion of slavery upside down (not that it was ever a good one, even in the Bible). In Biblical times slavery was a legal status, not a personal indictment. There was opportunity to be freed by religious law and regain one’s rights in a civil society. In America a slave embodied the subhuman status itself. And slaves were indeed permanent parts of the family, passed down like furniture from generation to generation.

Why would this passage, ostensibly about freedom, be one of only a few references in scripture to the word “member” when we search for Jesus’ comments? (lumina.bible.org; biblestudytoolsonline.com) Another passage that emerges is in Mathew 18 (biblestudytools.com) when Jesus comments on behavior in the Body of Christ.

15 "If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If

the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others

along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a

one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I

tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in

heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed

in heaven.

Mathew 18:15-18 (NRSA)

 

If we talk about a member of a group, we have to talk about the group. Jesus’ use of the word “church” as translated from the Greek is subject to much debate. One common view is that it translated from the Greek word ekklesia, essentially meaning to “call people out” to a public place or position.

 

1.  a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

b. the assembly of the Israelites

c. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

d. in a Christian sense

1.an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2.a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3.those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

4.the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5.the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

 

Jesus was the first to use the word “church” in the NT (translated from the Greek) in Mathew 16:18-19 (NRSV).

 

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not 

prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be 

bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

 

The Message Bible says it thusly.

 

18 And now I'm going to tell you who you are, really are. You are Peter, a rock. This is the rock on which I will put

together my church, a church so expansive with energy that not even the gates of hell will be able to keep it out. 

 

19 "And that's not all. You will have complete and free access to God's kingdom, keys to open any and every door:

no more barriers between heaven and earth, earth and heaven. A yes on earth is yes in heaven. A no on earth is

no in heaven."

 

There is dissention about whether Jesus meant that the person of Peter would be the foundation of His “church” or whether the God-given revelation of Jesus as the Messiah would be the foundation of His church.

 

The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a

feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your

your successors,” but “upon this rock”---upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.

bible.org/question

 

Even then, Jesus left hints for us to dig deeper to discern the multiple layers of the meaning of His life and purpose in His short stint on earth. And remember, He was probably speaking in Aramaic, the language of common people; although, if we seek for understanding in Jesus’ life in the Bible, we might conclude that He must also have been fluent in Hebrew because He argued with the Pharisees in the temple at age 12, and they were trained in Hebrew. Futhermore, if we really want to ingest  the Bible, we have to consider that He must have known Greek in order to make this distinction between petros and petra, leaving us to ponder if a person or a profundity should be the foundation of His church. Pretty cool, huh? I can see Him winking at us down through the ages even now, trying to get our attention.

 

If we consider the rare utterances of Jesus regarding the idea of membership, He might have been talking about status and rank (slave versus son; trapped versus free) of a member in John 8:35-36. In Mathew 18:15-18, Jesus could have been talking about behaviors (sins or separation from God) and consequences (rescue and reconciliation) of members for and by members. Finally, in relation to membership in a church, Jesus might have been alluding to fortune (Peter’s personal position) versus foundation (the base or basis of the church). However you choose to wade through this, one thing is sure: The Christ was deeply concerned about what it would mean to be His follower, to believe that He was who He said He was, and to act upon that belief.

 

Ethnophilosophy is a relatively new substratum of philosophy that is primarily concerned with the belief systems of African people on the African continent as well as in the African Diaspora.  Aimé Césaire, Léon Damas, and Léopold Sédar Senghor were Francophone, literary, African graduate students in Paris in the 1930’s who developed the literary movement, négritude. Over the next two decades as Africans overthrew the bonds of European colonialism, it evolved into the cultural and political backbone of independent Africa. Out of this mesh of European and African antagonism and anguish was the intrinsic need to examine and define who and what Africans were after centuries of enslavement in their own land. African academics over the last forty years have rigorously debated such concepts as Ubuntu (from the Bantu people) and communalism. Ubuntu is commonly known by the statement, “I am because we are and we are because I am” (John S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophies, 1969). It speaks to an ever-evolving redefinition of the person in relation to his or her community, the constant recalibration of membership. Communalism is more a statement about one’s moral behavior in relation to the larger community and to each other in the community.

 

“African Sage Philosophy” is the name now commonly given to the body of thought produced by persons considered

wise in African communities, and more specifically refers to those who seek a rational foundation for ideas and concepts

used to describe and view the world by critically examining the justification of those ideas and concepts. The expression

acquired its currency from a project conducted by the late Kenyan philosopher Henry Odera Oruka (1944–1995), whose primary

aim was to establish, with evidence, that critical reflection upon themes of fundamental importance has always been the concern

of a select few in African societies. These themes involve questions regarding the nature of the supreme being, the concept of the person,

the meaning of freedom, equality, death and the belief in the afterlife. 

 

The classic introductory text into the field was Mbiti’s 1969 African Religions and  Philosophies. John S. Mbiti, a Kenyan, theologian philosopher who is also an ordained Anglican priest, introduced those of us in the West to a holistic appreciation for African cosmology and intellectual prowess. Essential to the thousands of African cultures is the relationship and responsibility of each member of each group: One does not exist without the other. It is simplistic but easiest to explain that, in general, these academics work to clarify and esteem the traditional rigorous, wisdom of indigenous African philosophy with the rigor of Western intellectual exploration.

 

 

In sub-Saharan Africa, the southward migration of the Bantu peoples has by now reached full momentum. This expansion seems to have followed two lines of movement, one to the west, through the Congo forests and down into the grasslands of Namibia, the other through East Africa and now approaching southern Africa….Meanwhile, the [sic] North Africa has passed under Roman control, either as provinces of the empire, as in the case of Egypt and the old territory of Carthage, or as client tribes, like the Mauritanians to the west. Nubia, however, retains its independence.

 

Thirty years before the birth of Jesus in 30 BC, the Bantu people were spreading across sub-Saharan Africa: Ubuntu is a Bantu word. Geographically and contrary to the world as we know it today, in Jesus’ time part of the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, and Palestine were considered extensions of Africa. Therefore, by the time of His birth when Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt, they were literally just traveling south in Northern Africa that was all part of the Roman Empire. 

 

 

 

 

The Roman Empire which by the birth of Jesus controlled most present-day countries bordering the Mediterranean basin including North Africa, was still expanding. Territories remaining to be conquered before the Empire of Rome reached its greatest extent under Trajan (emperor AD98-117) included: Mauretania - present day Morocco and parts of Algeria, Britannia - Britain, Dacia - Rumania and part of Hungary, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria - which includes present day Iraq, Arabia - modern Jordan.

 

If we think back to the Bible passages of John 8:35-35, Mathew 18:15-18, and Mathew 16:18-19, we might see three sets of attributes: Status and rank, behaviors and consequences, fortune and foundation. As we know, the first Christians were Jews who believed that Christ Jesus was the Messiah finally come to earth. There was no discussion of becoming members or “belonging.” They were following Jesus: First physically, then metaphorically, and finally, spiritually. As persecution heightened, it became important to know who was a follower and who wasn’t for survival’s sake. After all, even when Jesus was alive, spies were dispatched to keep an eye on Him. Thus, group membership was key to the growth of what was a Jewish cult, a movement. Responsibilities to the group and each member were fluid; you did what needed to be done. Apparently, men and women, Gentile and Jew, countryman and foreigner all became one with equal status as followers of this new movement that was first and foremost a Jewish cult. The first church of Acts was a classless, egalitarian, distributive, small sharing society. 

 

44 And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. 45 They sold whatever

they owned and pooled their resources so that each person's need was met. 46 They followed a daily discipline of worship

in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, 47 as they praised God.

People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved.

Acts 2:44-47 (TMB)

 

African people had a hierarchy of leaders, kings, and queens, but every member had that fluid relationship to oneself and the group: It was impossible to have one without the other. French Philosopher René Descartes’ cognito ergo sum, “I am thinking, therefore, I exist” was essentially unimaginable in African religion or philosophy. When we consider that the Buntu people in 30 BC (or BCE) were spreading southward in sub-Saharan Africa, could we postulate that the concept of Ubuntu, “I am because we are and we are because I am,” lingered in the area of North Africa that was part of the Roman Empire? Crucial to the growth and maintenance of an empire is travel and trade. Cultures and people dismiss artificial boundaries when it comes to commerce. Were these cultures perfectly timed to have intersected in North Africa with the coming of God-in-the-flesh? Doesn’t it seem plausible that since homo sapiens evolved out of Africa that as significant a concept of Ubuntu would obviously be significant in the church that revered the spark of God in each human being? Said another way, isn’t “I am because we are and we are because I am” what Jesus meant when He taught?

 

In the same way that the fully alive Father sent me here and I live because of him, so the one who makes

a meal of me lives because of me.

John 6:57 (TMB)

 

Is that not Ubuntu but in triplicate: The Father, the Son, and the one who believes in The Christ? Could it be that the attributes of a member of a church that Jesus so keenly laid out in the three aforementioned passages are what we are supposed to be about today? Freedom, reconciliation, foundation: Not primarily as personal panacea for individual angst but public policy for the world? Wasn’t that His primary mission: Bring good news to the poor, set the captives free, heal the sick?

 

But even if I did, my judgment would be true because I wouldn't make it out of the narrowness of my experience

but in the largeness of the One who sent me, the Father.    John 8:16 (TMB)

 

The goal is for all of them to become one heart and mind –Just as you, Father, are in me and I in you, so they might

be one heart and mind with us. Then the world might believe that you, in fact, sent me.

      John 17:21 (TMB)

 

In both the cited Mathew passages of Chapters 16 and 18, Jesus says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” We tend to take it quite literally, right: Heaven “up there” with God and earth “down here” with wo/men? But listen to what else Jesus says in John 17:20-21.

 

Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered,

 

“The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look,

here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among* you.” 

(NRSV) 

[*Note at bottom of page Or within]

 

If we make the substitution as noted in the NRSV translation, this last sentence would read “For, in fact, the kingdom of God is within you.” If we are to be the Bride of Christ, the embodiment of God’s kingdom on earth, then the attributes of freedom, reconciliation, and foundation are already in us the members because Jesus said, “the kingdom of God is within you.” Because we the members are the church, those attributes must be in the church. 

 

“I am because we are and we are because I am.” (Ubuntu)

 

“I live because of him, so the one who makes a meal of me lives because of me” (John 6:57b).

 

Freedom, reconciliation, foundation: Is The Nazarene’s Bride alive in wild celebration of these attributes? Are members alive in ecstasy in these characteristics or do we dutifully perform the ritual and support whatever just cause because it is right to do so? The world can do that all by itself. Who and what invite the world to join in this fluid hilarity and communion with its Creator? If not us, then who? If not us, then what? Do we dare ask God exactly what S/He means by this, “the kingdom of God is within you?” Do we dare?

 

Lord God, make us aware of who we are supposed to be to whom and what we are supposed to do for the world. It is easy to forget as we go through church membership behaviors that we learn as good Baptists or Methodists or COGIC or AME or even non-denominationalists. We do the drill. We recite the precepts. We sing the songs. We say the prayers. And then we go out into the world and live. Isn’t it Your idea that because the world belongs to You, we ought to fully embrace the world as Yours? Because we are members of the human race, we must embrace each other as You embrace us? Doesn’t that mean that there is no separation between us and the world, especially because we know where the kingdom of God is? It’s within us, and if Jesus abides in us, then wherever we go, so goes the kingdom of God? Help us keep it all together. We unravel easily, as You know. So, keep us knit together as one body, one cover, one heart. Just one.

 

 

Amen.