First Congregational UCC, Rock Springs, WY July 11,2010

Love the Nuisance!
By Rev Steven R Mitchell
First Congregational Church UCC, Rock Springs, WY
Based on Colossians 1:7-14 and Luke 10:25-37


As a child, one of the T.V. comedies that I most identified with was about a young boy, just about my age, who was always full of energy and very busy investigating all the things in life that a little boy finds interesting. Important questions that need to be answered in life, such as: how does one make a frog jump on demand so you can win the frog race against your peers; or can lightening really strike your kite during an electrical storm, with a key tied at the end and create a glow? The name of this T.V. show was Dennis the Menace. I am not sure if I identified with the character because he was my age and the things that he did were things that I was doing, or if it was because he had the same family name as I did. His name was Dennis Mitchell and there seemed to be family traits that I could relate to in each episode.
Now Dennis wasn’t a bad boy at all, but it seemed that everything he became involved with, any project, even when he was going out of his way to help out, ended up being perceived as mischief, particularly by the folks next door. Dennis’s neighbor was a retired couple by the name of Wilson and for Mr. Wilson, Dennis was his nemesis. I too lived on a block where we were the only family with children, young children, and children being children, I am very sure that there were times when my neighbors saw me coming up their driveway, and felt like Mr. Wilson did toward Dennis thinking, “Oh, please Lord, don’t let Steve see me and maybe he’ll go away.”
To Mr. Wilson, Dennis represented a nuisance at the very least, always somehow interfering with Wilson’s focused task. Shivers of anxiety would go up and down Mr. Wilson’s back every time his peaceful environment would be interrupted with the sound of a loud high pitched voice, crying out, “Helloooo Mr. Wilson!” For in that greeting came nothing but disruption to Mr. Wilson’s life. It always seemed to get Mr. Wilson’s gall when he would find himself in a peculiar circumstance and find out that it was Dennis who ended up saving not only the day but also saving “face” for Mr. Wilson.
This morning’s Gospel story about the Good Samaritan has some elements of how Mr. Wilson and Dennis related to one another. When we think of this story about the Good Samaritan, we tend to think in terms of “how nice it was that this one person stopped and help another person in need.” Too often we walk away from this story with the understanding that it is the “right” thing to do, helping others in need, yet if this is what we come away with, then we have lost the true impact and understand of what was going on between Jesus and the “lawyer”.
Last week we saw how Jesus was in the process of expanding his ministry and in the process of turning it over to those he had been teaching, with the sending out of the 72 into the towns and villages where Jesus himself was planning to go, but couldn’t because of his new goal of going to Jerusalem, where he would no longer have the role of teacher but rather the role of prophet. When the seventy-two had come back they were full of “joy” because to them, in the name of Jesus, even the demons and unclean spirits retreated. However, Jesus told them not to rejoice in the achievements that they had experienced, but rather rejoice in the knowledge that they were accepted into the Kingdom of God.
There is a verse that follows that story and sets the stage for this morning’s reading but isn’t included, so I would like to share it with you. Reading from Luke 10:21, 21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, God, Creator of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. What Jesus is referring to by the “hidden things” is the understanding that finding God, does not come by obeying the Law or the fact that you are a descendant of Abraham. Rather, people find God through opening their hearts and minds to what God desires for God’s creation, that of reconciling love, and that God’s kingdom is really God’s “kin-dom”, meaning “family” or “inclusiveness”, not by blood, but through the heart of each individual being involved with God, that one-on-one relationship.
Thus starts this morning’s reading, with the lawyer interacting with Jesus and asking the question, “What must I do to have eternal life?” We do not have a discussion going on between “equals” here. The one who is asking the question would be equated by today’s standards as being a “Harvard” or “Yale” man. Jesus is seen as a country bumpkin who has just rolled into town and spouted off ideas and philosophies, of which he has very little training. For me, it is when I’m in professional conversations with other ministers and find out that they are from “Princeton”. I graduated not from an Ivy League seminary but rather a Baptist Seminary. Although none of these ministers to date have openly looked down their noses, so to speak, at me, there is a social difference when one looks at the pedigree of our diplomas.
I am reminded of an incident during a summer polity class in seminary with my professor, Dr Fullup. He started to express his disdain at youth directors who would, at camp, use milk and Oreo cookies as communion elements, and how disrespectful it was to the sacredness to the whole idea of communion. At that point I interrupted his discourse on the matter and suggested that he obviously didn’t understand the correct way of eating an Oreo cookie, otherwise he would understand the symbolism that the youth directors might have been thinking about. He looked at me like I had just stepped off the turnip truck as I explained to him that the correct way of eating an Oreo cookie (as I learned at an early age from T.V. commercials) was to break apart the two sides of the cookie, exposing the crème filling on the inside, there by symbolizing the breaking of Christ’s body. I was sitting within arm’s length of him and was sure by the redness of his face that I was going to receive the back of his handed. As it was, he became so flustered with my explanation that he dismissed the class fifteen minutes early.
So there is a challenge going on at the beginning of our reading, between the formally trained seminarian, so to speak, and Jesus, the “bible-school” trained, at best. It is possible that this lawyer was truly interested in what Jesus had to offer and was asking for clarification, but I doubt this, since some translations say, “the lawyer stood up to ‘test’ Jesus.” The goal in this questioning was to discredit Jesus’ teaching and help turn Jesus’ followers away from these radical teachings and back to the Law of Moses.
What we can aunderstand then, is the legalism that the lawyer has in interpreting the “law of Moses.” As a way of getting to the heart of this questioning and turning the tables on the situation, Jesus, answers this question of, “What must I do to have eternal life” by asking a question, “What does the law say?” This put the lawyer on the defense instead of on the offensive. The lawyer gave an accurate account of “loving God with your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself”, which Jesus commends and states that this will give him eternal life. But in an attempt by the lawyer to regain the offensive, he asks Jesus, “who then is my neighbor?”
For the orthodox Jew this is very important to define “who” qualifies as “neighbor” for it is only the neighbor that one needs to be concerned with. The Christian who is more inclined to live by the literal interpretation of Scripture would very much be asking this same question. The real question being posed then is, “just what are the boundaries?” Or another way of asking this question, “Who is excluded in your definition of neighbor?”
This is where Jesus then presents this tale about a man who is on a journey and is overtaken by robbers, robbed and brutally beaten, and left for dead alongside the road. This man is a Jew; this story is being told to a Jew. The first two persons upon the scene were a priest and a Levite. Both, seeing the man and not wishing to get involved, crossed over to the other side of the road, not doing anything to help this man. The Levite is from the tribe of Levi, which served particular religious duties for the Israelites and had political responsibilities as well. Then comes along a foreigner, a Samaritan, the most despised race by the Jews, and helps this beaten and battered person. Not only does he tend to his wounds but he takes him to a hotel and pays for his room/board and care. This is the part of the story that we usually gain the lesson that we need to stop and help someone else who is in need, but do not realize just how radical and distasteful this story is to the lawyer. The scripture reading ends with the question from Jesus to the lawyer, “who then is the neighbor?” This story by Jesus is so insulting to the man that he can’t even say the word, Samaritan, but rather answers by saying, “the one who helped the injured man.”
The depth of this story would come if we were talking to a person who is a member of the KKK, and told a similar story of a man needing a kidney transplant. The first available donor is the KKK’ers brother, who declines to help; then the second person is the KKK’ers district clan leader, who by giving up one of his kidneys, would help save the life of the man needing a transplant, but also declines. Then the third person who matched up is an African-American who, knowing all the hate and violence that has been perpetrated upon his race, gives up his kidney to help this man live.
It isn’t so much the generosity of the donor as it is the acceptance by the person who needs the help that is the sting in this story. For the KKK person, the last person in the world that he would accept help from is that of a Black person; he would rather die than receive help from an African American. This is the power in this story.
I would ask all of you to take just a minute to look around and look at everyone who is here in worship this morning. Now ask yourself, who is the last person in this room you would accept help from? That is what this story about the Samaritan is about. The thrust of this story then comes with your own answer to this question. This is the person that you then need to include in the definition as “neighbor”. It is this story about the Samaritan that is one of the reasons for us as a church to go through the Open and Affirming process. When we are open to asking the question, “who is our neighbor”, is the homosexual someone that we will let in? Is the person of another race a person that we will let in? Is the mentally ill person someone that we will let in? Are these groups a part of whom we are willing to call “neighbor”? If we are like the lawyer and acknowledge the “person who helped” as the neighbor, that is only tolerance. When we are able to call the person who helped by name, the Samaritan, then that is affirmation. In our conversations of Open and Affirming, that is what we will be trying to answer: are we going to be a congregation, a people, who tolerate or are we going to be a people who affirm, God’s children? Are we going to be a people who tolerate the nuisance or are we going to be a people who affirm and embrace the nuisance? Amen.