DE Ponderings by Kevin Kessler

The Lectionary Gospel reading for Sunday, Feb. 23, Matthew 5:38-48, depicts Jesus saying, “You have heard that it was said...but I say to you...” Jesus describes a set of principles which people had generally followed and then offers a new paradigm to consider. The people were quite comfortable following the established principles. The new paradigm called the people out of their comfort zone inviting them to engage society in unusual ways not often practiced or experienced, which increased their vulnerability significantly. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

While not yet understood by his audience, the vulnerability to which Jesus calls them has long term benefits. Jesus isn’t in the business of disturbing comfort zones simply for the sake of disturbance. Beneficial realities exist that Jesus desires the vulnerable to find, specifically, I envision, the joy of solid, faithful, and fruitful relationships that produce a more complete and mutually satisfying identity.

Jessicah Krey Duckworth, ordained minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and assistant professor at Luther Seminary in Saint Paul, MN, has written a book entitled, Wide Welcome: How the Unsettling Presence of Newcomers Can Save the Church. Duckworth calls the established church to exit its comfort zone and enter the world of vulnerability by accepting the challenging questions that newcomers to the church bring with them. On the surface, the questions of newcomers may seem innocuous if it is assumed the newcomer shares a familiar understanding of the Christian story. But what if they don’t? What if the newcomer has been influenced minimally or not at all by the Christian story? Or what if the Christian influence upon them has been negative? And so now the questions they bring challenge the very tenants of Christianity or reflect a dismissive attitude toward the Christian faith.

Duckworth references an author whose approach in working with questioning newcomers is to help the newcomer disengage from the dominant culture, a culture that seemingly detracts the newcomer from understanding the Christian story. For Duckworth, this approach avoids the questions and invites the questioner into a relationship whereby their identity will be defined by the established congregation, a congregation in which the emphasis is to disengage from the dominant culture. This is a comfortable place for a congregation, a “you have heard that it was said” place.

The “but I say to you” response Duckworth renders is that “Christian congregations need only engage, and that engagement happens through the welcome of newcomer questions. Notice that engagement is not simply engagement of the newcomer who walks through the door, but engagement with the newcomer’s questions.” How vulnerable might these questions make established members, especially when the inquiries challenge established understandings? And what would be a helpful way of responding? Duckworth’s suggested approach, which can be uncomfortable, is to not give pat answers but rather explore together the questions, encountering together yet unknown realities and discovering a newer, more complete identity.

Duckworth asserts that congregations discern their identity in relation to the newcomer, quite a shift in an established paradigm of the newcomer discerning their identity in relation to the congregation. This is not to say that a congregation gives up its identity. Rather congregational identity is enhanced by building relationship with the newcomer. This paradigm is not always comfortable especially as it challenges a congregation to enrich its identity in ways that are viewed as unusual to the established church.

Are we willing to become vulnerable and risk our comfort to explore identities that are not yet visible or are not yet a reality? Or will we flatly reject the call to enhanced identity because of a fear of challenging questions, remain in our comfort zones, and fail to discover the possibilities of what an enhanced identity may offer?