Seventh Sunday of Easter by The Rev. Martin Elfert

May 13, 2018


Acts 1:15-17, 21-26
1 John 5:9-13
John 17:6-19
Psalm 1

The Lutheran pastor, Nadia Bolz-Weber, says that when she welcomes newcomers to the parish at which she serves, she always shares with them the same message:

I want to guarantee you one thing, she tells the newcomers.

I want to guarantee you that this church will disappoint you.[1]

I love that line. I love it for its directness, its vulnerability, its raw honesty. It is a line that I may start plagiarising when I welcome newcomers here to Grace. Although maybe I shouldn’t limit it to the newcomers. Maybe I should share this guarantee, this promise more broadly with everyone at Grace. Why not? Here goes:

I want to guarantee you that, whether this is your first week here or you have been here a year or ten years or sixty years, Grace Memorial Episcopal Church will disappoint you.

You will be disappointed when I say something foolish or, at least, something that doesn’t sit right with you. You will be disappointed when someone whom you love or respect or look to for approval does something or leaves something undone that leaves you feeling sad and stung. You will be disappointed when there is a power struggle over… What? What are the sorts of things that parishes have power struggles over? How the flowers are arranged or how coffee hour is set up or what kind of music we sing or what subjects we are allowed to talk about or what colour we paint the building.

Perhaps you have your own additions to that list of disappointments.

What will you do when the guaranteed happens and Grace Memorial Episcopal Church disappoints you? Or wait, that’s not right: I shouldn’t be phrasing Bolz-Weber’s question as though it were hypothetical. Unless you are really new here, this question isn’t hypothetical at all. It certainly isn’t hypothetical for me.


When Grace Memorial Episcopal Church disappointed you, what did you do?

I guess that I am captivated by Bolz-Weber’s powerful and dangerous and mischievous question, not only because it offers insight into this beloved and flawed community that we call church, but because it offers insight into our broader web of relationships within the world. You could apply her question to any cherished relationship, to any human connection that we hold in such high esteem that, whether or not we name this expectation out loud, we expect to be the kind of context in which disappointment doesn’t happen.

This is church. Disappointment shouldn’t happen here. This is a marriage. Disappointment shouldn’t happen here. This is my country. Disappointments shouldn’t happen here.

In a way, these relationships or people or places or ideas are victims of the very high esteem in which we hold them. When they turn out to be flawed, as everything this side of heaven is flawed, it feels kind of like a betrayal. As a consequence, we sometimes commit to these relationships with an unspoken reservation:

I am here, I am with you – until you disappoint me.[2]

That’s why every good set of marriage vows names disappointment: We are together for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; for better and for worse.

Now, I want to throw in a significant caveat here before I go any further. What Bolz-Weber is talking about and what I am in turn talking about is not a scenario in which we stick it out no matter how screwed up it becomes. Sometimes a marriage dies. And the most compassionate and loving thing to do is to name that death via divorce. Sometimes a church has so unmoored from the Gospel that it is stuck a place in which it is celebrating patriarchy or homophobia or Islamophobia; in which it is preaching consumerism as though buying stuff were the Gospel; in which it is utterly forgetting its duty to the poor. If that church is unwilling or unable to change, then the most faithful thing you or I can do may be to move on and to respond to the Gospel of Christ elsewhere.

What we are talking about, in other words, is not a scenario in which we stay in a relationship not matter how great the cost to our integrity or to our joy. What we are talking about, rather, are the mostly healthy relationships in our lives (and I don’t know if this is pessimism or realism, but I’m going to suggest that our very best earthly relationships are mostly healthy; mostly healthy is the apex of what we will achieve during our sojourn on this earth) in which we periodically, predictably, and inevitably encounter disappointment.

What Bolz-Weber goes on to tell the folks at the newcomer gatherings is that when we encounter disappointment but we keep on showing up, then the Holy Spirit shows up as well.

Bolz-Weber’s advice is consistent with my own experience. A number of months ago, someone asked after my life, asked me how I was doing. And I told them: these days, I am having a lot of generative conflicts.

What I mean by “generative conflict” it is the sort of intense or fierce conversation, maybe even the sort of fight, that when you risk having it, teaches you a whole bunch about your neighbour, about yourself, about God. It is a conversation that is hard work. But it is a conversation that generates stuff: it generates compassion, connection, communion. It generates love.[3]

These are the sorts of conversations of encounters in which we remember that we are made by God for interconnection, for relationship. These are the moments in which we catch a glimpse of what, in South African theology, is called Ubuntu. Not Descartes’ hyper-individualistic, “I think, therefore I am,” but “I am because you are.” Ubuntu says that it is in encounter with the other, including disappointing encounters with the other – maybe in a way that we can’t quite name, especially in disappointing encounter with the other – that we see that the other is made in the image of God, and that we, too, are made in God’s image.

The Gospel of John is perplexing and surprising and beautiful and paradoxical. This is the Gospel in which Jesus doesn’t tell parables. It is the Gospel that maybe features the most human, down to earth Jesus: in John, Jesus starts his earthly ministry at a party; and it is John that contains the staggering words, Jesus wept. And it is the Gospel in which Jesus, when he talks, sound most like a mystic, most like someone plugged into a cosmic secret.

Today we hear him say to the one whom he calls Father: Protect my disciples so that they may be one, as we are one.

Maybe it is that awesome oneness that Bolz-Weber is getting at when she says that the Holy Spirit shows up when we power through disappointment and keep on showing up ourselves, maybe that is what Desmond Tutu and others are getting at when they speak of Ubuntu.

I can’t quantify this. But I know that I have experienced it. I know that when I have risked an intense conversation, when have I risked conflict, when I have risked telling the truth and deeply listening for the truth in return, when I have listened to another human being in love – a human being with whom I felt disappointment and, as or more often, a human being who felt disappointment in me – God has been there. And something has shifted.

When we show up after the disappointment, Jesus shows up too. And if we let him, Jesus will do what he does: he will heal and teach and maybe even cast out a few of our demons. And we are surprised to realise that our disappointment has turned into understanding, surprised to notice that we are there, that we are one, that Jesus is with us, together.

[1] Nadia Bolz-Weber, Pastrix: The Cranky, Beautiful Life of a Sinner & Saint (New York: Jericho Books, 2013), 54-55.

[2] This line – and much of the thinking that surrounds it – is indebted to: Ron Rolheiser, “Fidelity – Our Greatest Gift to Others,” Ron Rolheiser, OMI, accessed May 11, 2018,

[3] On Sunday morn, I had an unscripted thought here about my own history of conflict avoidance. You can hear it on the recording if you like.

Fifth Sunday of Easter by The Rev. Martin Elfert

April 29, 2018


Acts 8:26-40

1 John 4:7-21

John 15:1-8

Psalm 22:24-30


This morning we hear a conversion story. A story about one of those experiences in which we have a God sighting and we come away changed – or, at least, we come away invited to change. This particular conversion story takes place in the Book of Acts.

The Book of Acts is written by Luke, by the same person who wrote the third Gospel. As far as we know, Luke is the only one of the four evangelists who felt a call to write a sequel to the story of Jesus. In Vestry, we have been reading the Book of Acts, chapter by chapter, for the last number of months to begin our meetings. During the season of Easter, the lectionary invites us to read from Acts on Sunday morning in lieu of reading from the Old Testament.

Today we encounter the staggering story of Philip meeting and baptising this unnamed stranger, a person identified to us only by his country of origin and the condition of his body. This is the Ethiopian eunuch.

Now, my guess is that, generally speaking, when we read this story, we focus on the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, on how he chooses Christ and, therefore, he chooses baptism.. If we focus on Philip at all, it is to note that he is doing what a Christian is supposed to do, which is to say he is engaging in evangelism. So, Philip is the converter, the eunuch is the converted. And that’s a good and a fair and a faithful reading of this story But today, I’d like do something different and shine the light on Philip. Drawing on an argument advanced by the marvellous Lutheran pastor, Nadia Bolz-Weber, I’d like to wonder:

What if this story is actually about the conversion of Philip?

Philip, like Jesus, is a faithful Jew. And as such, he is thoroughly aware of the prohibition to be found in Deuteronomy 23:1: “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” (I don’t know if, when you were making your way to church this morning, you expected to hear a reference to crushed testicles but, hey, hooray for the Bible.) The eunuch’s body – could we say his disability? – disqualifies him from full participation in the Kingdom of God. Throw into the mix that he is a foreigner, an immigrant – a category that, then and now, renders him suspect – and that, coming from Ethiopia, his skin is probably darker than Philip’s, and Philip has lots of cultural reasons to exclude this guy.

And maybe that is exactly what Philip would do. Except that Philip hears the voice of the Spirit: Get up and go over to the chariot and join it. Philip obeys. These words, Get up and go, may sound familiar to you: one of the reasons is that they are the very words that Jonah hears in the book that bears his name: Get up and go to Nineveh. Jonah is a reluctant prophet. But Philip is not: did you notice the verb that comes next in this story? It says Philip ran up to the chariot. This is someone who listens when he hears the Spirit.

Is Philip jogging beside the chariot when he sees that the eunuch has a scroll in his hand, and he hears that he is reading from Isaiah? (Philip hears, by the way, because this is a time and a place in which it is unusual to read silently – there is actually an ancient document in which someone comments on how amazing one of his fellow scholars is because when that scholar reads, his lips don’t move.) Philip and the eunuch have a conversation, the eunuch invites him into the chariot, Philip climbs up beside him.

And then Philip and this suspicious, physically limited foreigner proceed to share in an in-depth Bible study.

During the study, Philip tells him about Jesus. And it is after the telling that his new traveling companion sees the water and he utters those amazing words, “What is to keep me from being baptised?”

And Philip realises that, the color of his companion’s skin notwithstanding, his country of origin notwithstanding, Deuteronomy 23:1 notwithstanding, the answer to his new friend’s question is:


As soon as Philip’s new friend is baptised, Philip is pulled away by the Spirit: like his master, the resurrected Jesus, Philip vanishes, reappearing in another town. And there in that new town, Luke tells us, he proclaims the good news.

I’m curious about that good news. While there is little doubt that the good news that Philip proclaims is the story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, I wonder if he is also proclaiming the good news of his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch. If Philip is like most of his neighbors, then before he had this encounter, he reckoned that God’s love wasn’t intended for people like the guy in the chariot – that there were walls between him and this disabled foreigner, and that God’s love was contained within the walls. But by the end of their time together, he understood that God’s love was vastly more expansive than anyone had told him.

Philip is converted.

There is a clue in the text that Luke is inviting us to read this story in that fashion, and that is in the way that he sets it up[1]. As you may remember, it is also Luke who gives us the story that we sometimes call the Good Samaritan. In that story, there is a dangerous wilderness road. And there is a suspicious foreigner who turns out to be plugged into the Kingdom of God. And in this story from Acts, there is a dangerous wilderness road – as you may remember, Luke underlines its wild nature right at the start of the story – and there is a dangerous foreigner who is plugged into the Kingdom of God.

If that’s right, if this story is not just about the conversion of the guy in the chariot but also about the conversion of Philip, then I wonder: what does this story have to teach you and me? Because scripture is always, sooner or later, about you and me. This story is about your conversion and mine.

Maybe the question that this story is inviting us to ask is: What walls do we imagine that God has built? And who do we imagine is outside of them?

If this were a different kind of congregation with a different kind of values, I might talk now about the church’s awful history of excluding GLBTQ folks. But I’m not going to go there today because, for north of 90% of us gathered here this morning, it is self-evident that God loves and welcomes GLBTQ people. That isn’t, in other words, a particularly challenging message for us.

In order to find the challenge, I’d like us to think about who we imagine might be outside of God’s love. Who do you imagine is appropriately excluded and unworthy?

God says: These walls you built? They were never my stuff. They were always a human thing. I am going around that wall and above that wall and through that wall. And I invite you to meet me on the outside. I invite you to risk heeding the call of the Spirit. Meet me in the chariot with that dangerous stranger. Climb into the chariot and be converted.


[1] When I gave this sermon on Sunday morn, I had a quasi-digression here about the cinematic phenomenon known as Easter Eggs. I haven’t reproduced that digression here. If it is of interest to you, you can find it in the recording of this sermon.

Fourth Sunday of Easter by The Rev. Dick Toll

April 22, 2018


Acts 4:5-12

1 John 3:16-24

John 10:11-18

Psalm 23

As Christians, we proclaim the person of Jesus to be our model for humanity and our understanding of God.  The reflection of God for us is in the New Testament and primarily in the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  John’s gospel primarily portrays the Divinity of Jesus.  The other gospels are more in touch with the humanity of Jesus.


In John’s gospel today, we have the words of Jesus, “I am the good Shepherd.   The good Shepherd lays his life for the good of the sheep.” 


In the pastoral world of the first century, sheep and shepherds were a large part of the culture.  Today, in our busy life we tend to only see movies or pictures of pastoral scenes but it is a powerful image.


John has a way of defining Jesus that hints at the story of Moses and the burning bush in the Book of Exodus.  Remember that story?  Moses is tending the flock of sheep of his father-in-law, Jethro.  He has left Egypt and Moses is confronted by God who reveals the name of God in a way that has never been revealed before.  It is in the midst of a burning bush that is not consumed.  Moses is directed by God to rescue the Israelites from Egypt.  Moses wants to be able to say who sent him.  Moses receives the answer from God, “I am who I am.  Tell them I am has sent me to you.” 


John’s Gospel refers to Jesus using the statement, “I AM” any number of times.  It is as though symbolically John wants to refer to the “I AM who I AM” from the burning bush to the quotation of Jesus.  Please note that the following statements from John begin with, “I AM”.


“I am the bread of life.”  John 6

“I am the light of the world.”  John 8

“I am the door.  If anyone enters, he will be saved.”  John 10

“I am the resurrection and the life.”  John 11

“I am the way, the truth and the life.”  John 14

“I am the vine, you are the branches.”  John 15

“I am the good Shepherd.”  John 10


Yes, I am who I am.  The grounding of God in all humanity and especially in the person of Jesus.


This past New Year’s Eve, I had a very different experience.  My wife and I were in Paris with our daughter, her husband and their two children, our grandchildren.  I had never heard of the Paris Catacombs before.  I assumed they were like the catacombs in Rome.  Wrong.  We went to the catacombs in Paris and it was very interesting to say the least.


There are 180 miles of tunnels that lie 50 to 75 feet underneath Paris.  The tunnels are centuries old and were cut out of solid rock.  Miners cut out the rock to build the city of Paris.  They mined the rock over many centuries.


In the late 1780s, Paris had a crisis.  A plague struck and people were dying by the thousands.  There was no place to bury them and a health crisis continued throughout the city.


Finally, the bodies were buried in the underground tunnels.  The idea caught on to the point that over the next 50 years all of the cemeteries within the city of Paris were emptied so that buildings could be built in Paris over where the cemeteries has been.  For years there would be workers digging up graves every night and transporting the bones to the underground tunnels.  Six million people have their bones stacked in the underground tunnels.  I asked the questions about head stones and found out they were used for paving the streets.


I recount this story because as I looked on the stacked skulls and bones, I thought of them as living, breathing human beings who at one point in time had their hopes and dreams, their families, their thoughts, their feelings.  They lived out their lives in the presence of each other and in the presence of God.  Many of them would have related to the person of Jesus.  They had their secrets.  They had their fears.  They had their enemies.  They had their loved ones.  They were a people who were a part of evil, good, prayer, war, love, revolution, freedom, hate and resistance.  Yes, a small moment of history with six million people stacked together.  Who were they?  Who are we?  Six million people stacked on top of each other.


I am who I am.  Each person had been a part of the knowledge of their unique and individual I am.  They had been mothers, fathers, solders, doctors, children, sailors, politicians, poets, priests and teachers.  They made history.


And my guess is that some of them may have been my relatives and your relatives.  I could probable find my DNA and we are the recipients of their decisions, their commitments, their mistakes and their stories.


“I am the good Shepherd.”  And Jesus comes among us to show us the way.  We stray from the way and we get lost along the way.  We return to the way.


Each of us is on our own journey.  Each of us claims the, “I am” of our own humanity.  I am who I am…..there has never been another person like me and there never will be.  There has never been another person like you and there never will be.


We bring to our own moments the uniqueness of our own humanity.  Each of us is unique, gifted and we discover who we are as we journey along the way.  We hear Jesus say, “I AM” in all of those statements I read earlier.  When we accept the person of Jesus, we find him to be grounded in all our humanity and we know the God of all creation.  As I looked at all those stacked bones in Paris, I could not help but wonder how the humanity of those individuals has been influenced by Jesus.  I will never know.  But, what I do know is in the here and now of my own life.


I do know the good Shepherd, I do know something of the mystery of God in the burning bush, “I am who I am” God tells Moses.   I am the reflection of this God Jesus tell us in John’s gospel.  I personally accept this for myself.  I am and you are the reflections of this same living God.











Third Sunday of Easter by The Rev. Martin Elfert

April 15, 2018


Acts 3:12-19

1 John 3:1-7

Luke 24:36b-48

Psalm 4


Jesus himself stood among the disciples and said to them:

Peace be with you.

They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them:

Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?

Look at my hands and my feet;

see that it is I myself.

In the Gospel of Luke, the resurrected Jesus visits his disciples twice. Jesus first comes to them in the story that we call the Road to Emmaus: two friends, rocked by the injustice and the trauma of the crucifixion, are walking away from Jerusalem when they encounter a stranger. This stranger says to them: How come you guys are sad?

The friends are in disbelief. It turns out that they have just met the only person in the world who has not heard about the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, about the last meal and the washing of feet, about the betrayal in the garden, about the trial before Pilate, about the cross.

And so they tell the stranger the story as they walk. And when they reach their destination and the stranger makes to keep on going, they invite him in to share a meal. It is in sharing a meal that they understand that it is Jesus who is with them. And then Jesus is gone.

The two friends run back to Jerusalem to tell everyone else what has happened.

The friends’ story ends with word that we sometimes say or sing here in church.

The disciples knew the Lord Jesus in the breaking of the bread.

Immediately after they get back home, Luke tells us the story that we hear this morning. Indeed, Luke makes it clear that the Jesus’ two appearances are consecutive not just in the text but they are also consecutive as the disciples experience them. The one happens right after the other. The lectionary cuts off the opening words that we find in Luke: “While they were talking about this.” While they were talking about what had just happened in Emmaus, “Jesus himself stood among the disciples.”

Luke tells that these two stories, these two appearances of the resurrected Jesus to his friends, are interconnected, that we are to understand them together.

In the story that we hear today there is, as on the Road to Emmaus, confusion. And this time there is the additional element of fear. Jesus says, “Peace be with you.” But peace is not what his friends feel. They feel something more like panic. They reckon that they are encountering a ghost.

But then something wonderful and strange happens.

Now, I have seen enough action movies and read enough fantasy novels to know that when you think that a beloved character is dead but they really are not, what that character generally does when they reappear is to explain how they avoided the avalanche by hiding in a cave, how they escaped the villain’s laser beam by using the mirror hidden in their shoe, how the bullet was stopped by the Bible in their pocket.

The hero’s friends say: We thought that you were dead! And the hero replies: I’m just fine. See?

But when Jesus’ friends say: We thought that you were dead! Jesus replies:

You were right. I was dead. Look at the mortal wounds on my body.

And somehow, it is in seeing the wounds that they understand that they are not looking at a ghost but, rather, that they are talking to their teacher and friend.

Is there an equivalent to the end of the Emmaus story here? The disciples knew the Lord Jesus in the breaking of the bread. And the disciples knew the Lord Jesus…

in his woundedness and pain.

What do these consecutive stories in the Gospel of Luke tell us about who Jesus is?

Let’s try out an answer or two to that question. This won’t be – this can’t be – an exhaustive list. The resurrection of Jesus pushes the boundaries of our understanding, of our imagination, of our faith. The resurrection always contains more meaning that we could hope to define. But here is a beginning.

Knowing Jesus in bread and in hurt means that God is to be found in the peak and the pit of human experience. Bread – in Jesus’ time and ours – is a symbol of celebration. Right now, we live in a ritually impoverished time. But we still understand that a necessary component of marking a big occasion is food. It would be odd to have a birthday party without cake, to have a wedding in which you sent everyone away without feeding them. We understand that breaking bread marks a joyous occasion.

Sometimes we stand on a mountaintop (be it a literal or a figurative mountaintop) in which we encounter God, in which we reach out and touch God’s face. And when we come down from the mountain, we say, “God was with us.” And we’re right.

Sometimes we have a near miss in a car or we dodge some other kind of disaster and, as we sit shaking under the streetlight, we say that God was with us. And we’re right when we say that.

Jesus in bread tells us that God is present in these moments. But Jesus in his woundedness tells us that Jesus is with us in what the psalms call the pit as well. Jesus is with us when the other car doesn’t miss, when it hits us square on and the metal crumples, when our lives change or end in an instant. Jesus is with us on the day that we start the chemo. Jesus is with us when we sign the papers finalizing the divorce. Jesus is with us when we get the phone call that changes everything.

A second way of reading bread and hurt – and I can’t decide if this is contradictory or complementary – is that Jesus is present not just in the peak and the pit but also in the everyday. There is nothing more normal, more daily than sitting down for a meal. We name this normality in the Lord’s Prayer: give us today our daily bread. A kitchen is where life happens. The resurrected Jesus says that God is with us not just in the peak and the valley but also in the valley when we are wandering around buying groceries or working on our taxes or vacuuming.

And if bread is everyday, so is hurt. There is nothing more normal, more daily than suffering. To live any kind of life is to know pain, to know disappointment, to know injustice, to know grief. All of us are coming here wounded. And Jesus is with us in that too.

Whether we are talking about peak or pit or valley, in the resurrection, we see holy confirmation of what we see across Jesus’ life before he went to the cross: that Jesus shares with us in everything; that the promise of Christmas is true and Jesus really is Emmanuel, God with us.

Maybe another way of expressing God’s steadfast presence is to say that knowing Jesus in bread and in hurt means that God’s great qualities are not so much power and might as they are vulnerability and solidarity. God is willing to risk sharing with us in our joy and our pain. In the resurrected Christ, we see proof that Jesus knows life in its hard and beautiful fullness. Jesus breaks the bread and he shows us his wounds and he says: I know life completely. I have risked sharing it with you, and I have celebrated and suffered as a consequence. There is nothing so mundane that you cannot say to me: Lord, you know what this is like. There is nothing so awful or unfair that you cannot say to me: Lord, you know what this is like.

I wonder. I wonder if the solidarity and vulnerability of God are what we are talking about when we use the word communion.

The late author and theologian Nancy Eiesland wrote extensively about her understanding of faith as a person with a physical disability. Eiesland tells the story of leading a Bible study with a group of people with spinal cord injuries, more than one of whom were operating their wheelchairs with a sip-puff, with a straw that allows the person in the chair to control its speed and direction. Eiesland says that she asked the gathered group of people:

How would you know if God was with you and understood your experience?

After a long pause, a young man replied: If God was in a sip-puff, maybe God would understand.

Eiesland suggests that when Jesus shows his wounds to us that he is demonstrating that this young man got his wish. Jesus says: Look at my disability, look at what the new normal is for me. In the bread, Jesus says that he is with us in our joy. And in his woundedness, Jesus says that he is with us in our pain.

I am here in the sip-puff. I am the one being waterboarded in the secret room. I am the one being evicted with nowhere to go. I am the one being deported to a country he doesn’t know after 20 years in America. I am the one who is gunned down in the school shooting.

The vulnerability and the solidarity of the resurrection are an embodiment of what Jesus teaches us when he says: Just as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me.

God is not watching from a distance. God literally has skin in the game. And as a consequence, God is deeply and personally invested in healing, in justice, in creativity, in love, in reconciliation.

Jesus breaks the bread.

Jesus show us his wounds.

He says:


See that it is I myself.

Second Sunday of Easter by Matthew David Morris

April 8, 2018


Acts 4:32-35

1 John 1:1-2:2

John 20:19-31

Psalm 133

I have a story I’d like to tell.

No, I have a story I have to tell.


This story is impossible. You’re not going to believe me.


But I have to tell this story. I have to tell it even though I know you won’t believe me.


It happened.


I have to tell it because it happened. I was there, and it happened, and I have to tell you about it.


Some of you were there, and if you were there you will be able to testify to the truth of my story, even though you were standing in a slightly different place in the room, and even though you may not have heard everything perfectly.


But if you were there

you will know that my story is true,

and you will also need to tell the story,

because people aren’t going to believe us.


But I cannot stress this enough — we have to tell this story.
We have to tell the world what happened, because what happened changed things. It changed everything.


What happened started something new.

Something that has been waiting to happen forever.

And now is that moment. And we saw its beginning.


We were there, and all those who weren’t there will need to hear this story.


And some of them will believe us.


Some of them will hear the words

pouring forth from our hearts,

and the words will be balm

that soothes their woundedness.

They will hear the words

and they will recognize

something that sounds like God,

and they will be inspired

to share that feeling that

wells up in them

with someone else

who isn’t in the room.


They will tell others about what they heard,

and they will testify to that feeling

that welled up in them

when we talked

about what happened,

and they will connect that feeling

to the livingness of God,

and they will be right to do so,

because the living God

who moved their heart to feel

is the same living God

who gave us the words to speak,

and is the same living God

who caused to happen

that thing we saw.


And we do not have language for what we saw.


We cannot explain it perfectly.

We will need new words.

We will need scrolls,

and books,

and internets of

new words.


We will need centuries

of language

of new words

to describe that moment we had.


That encounter.


We will need to rewrite the meaning of every history ever told.


We will need to give our children new names;

to draw new maps;

to sing new melodies.


We will need a new culture because of that moment we had together.


And some of them will not believe us.

Some of them will not think it real,

this moment that we had.

But we cannot let that disbelief stop us from telling this story.

Because if death, itself, was conquered,

and what we saw what was we saw,

then certainly disbelief can be overcome.


Thomas proved that.

And so did we.

Who among us could before we saw with our own eyes?


But they will not have seen.

What we need is to tell the story

— for them and for us

and we need to let our own hearts

be softened by the memory

of what we saw.


We need to describe Jerusalem

on the morning it happened.

We need to talk about   

the way the sky looked            after it happened.

We need to talk about

how our                         entire life              felt like a drop of water in the

ocean of God,

and how no metaphor

      could be expansive enough,

            and how every metaphor      

                  gets us a little closer

to the feeling of

             what happened.


We need to risk sounding crazy,

to risk sounding irrational,

to risk not making sense.


Because what just happened is absurd, isn’t it?

What just happened to us happened, didn’t it?


If it did,

Does that mean sin has lost its hold?

Does that mean that we are finally home,

and that this exile of our souls, and bodies, and lives

is finally done?

Even more, could it mean that

God can suffer, too?


Was he not God?

Did he not die?


He did!

I know he did,

          but he rose, too.


So, what of God,

who does not die or let the words of peace and love

stay in the tomb?


This is new!


So, we have to tell this story.

We have to keep telling this story.

Because when we tell this story,

we point to the

new reality

that is unfolding all around us.


And maybe…..


…maybe others

will want to understand,

and they will understand

what it felt like,

and then they will know

what it feels like,

and then they will come alive

in the new world

which God is creating

all around us.


That is why we tell the story.

That is why we say, CHRIST IS RISEN!



Because we were there.

And we saw it.

We touched him.

And now we have to tell this story.


You have to tell this story.



Easter Sunday by The Rev. Martin Elfert

Easter Day


Acts 10:34-43
1 Corinthians 15:1-11
Mark 16:1-8
Psalm 118:1-2, 14-24


He said to them:

You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.

He has been raised. He is not here.

The novelist Salman Rushdie says that, in the storytelling tradition with which he grew up in India, the storyteller begins her tale not with the words, “Once upon a time,” but rather with, “It was, it was not.” In other words, as the storyteller gathers her listeners around the campfire or the dinner table, she starts by acknowledging that what she is about to share exists in the realm of memory, of paradox, of imagination. Maybe of faith. The storyteller says:

What I am about to tell you is true.

But it exists outside of the realm of the quantifiable, outside of the realm of the reproducible experiment, outside of the realm of fact.

This paradoxical setup – it was, it was not – in many ways forms the basis for the genre in which Rushdie has written across his career, the genre that we call magic realism. Magic realism is characterised by an amorphous or permeable relationship between the literal and the metaphorical, the one continually melting into the other. The literary critic and academic, Matthew Stretcher says that magic realism is “what happens when a highly detailed, realistic setting is invaded by something too strange to believe.”

We live in an era with a huge focus on the literal. Sometimes that is good and healthy. When I fly on an airplane, it is my preference that the pilot and the ground crew rely on hard data. Similarly, I am a big fan of fact checking the claims made by politicians. And generally speaking, I’d like my doctor to offer me advice that is supported by peer-reviewed research. There are lots of categories, in other words, in which the literal or the factual is the best and the strongest and the most sensible tool that is available to us.

I’m not persuaded that faith – and that scripture in particular – is one of those categories.

Now, I realise that I am in dangerous territory here, that I am skating out to where the ice is thin. For many of our fellow Christians, particularly those who identify as fundamentalists, reading scripture as the literal and inerrant word of God is a major building block of their relationship with Jesus, maybe even the cornerstone of their relationship with Jesus. For a lot of our fellow disciples, faith starts to shake if we allow that scripture might be something other than full-on fact. Thus, the reality of evolution is threatening, the mounting archaeological evidence that the stories in Exodus and Joshua aren’t history is threatening.

Those Christians on the more liberal end of the spectrum are by no means immune to this focus on the literal or the historical. While the search for the historical Jesus has yielded profound insights into our faith – to know about the culture in which Jesus lived, to know about the land on which he walked, is to hugely deepen your understanding of Jesus’ life and of the parables that he tells – it has also led us into us into really limited and really limiting territory.

When we encounter the miraculous in scripture, for instance, a lot of the historical Jesus crowd have attempted to make these stories conform to a 21st Century understanding of reality. Sometimes that takes the form of projecting modern or post-modern explanations into the text. For instance, I’ve heard folks argue that when Jesus walks on water what is actually happening is that there are stones just beneath the water’s surface on which he is standing. Reading scripture in this fashion is a bit like being an audience trying to puzzle out how David Blaine or David Copperfield does a magic trick. You know what you are encountering isn’t real, that it can’t be real. You just have to figure out where in his sleeve Jesus has hidden the card.

The other common strategy is to simply declare that 100% of the miracles that we encounter in scripture are nothing more than metaphors. In this perspective on faith, the resurrection, which we celebrate today, is simply a bit of poetry about what happened in the disciples’ hearts after Jesus died.

I don’t know about you, but all of these variations on literalism strike me as hollow and false and devoid of holy fire. They read to me as an effort to domesticate scripture and, in turn, to domesticate Jesus. They read to me as an effort to strip out an essential element of faith from the Gospel, and that is the element of wonder.

Maybe that is one of the reasons why I am drawn to the storytelling introduction of Salman Rushdie’s childhood and why I am wondering this morning about the possibility of applying it to scripture. What might happen if, here in church, we encountered the Bible using the introduction of the storytellers of Rushdie’s childhood, if we stood up at the lectern on Sunday morning and said not, “A reading from the Book of Genesis,” but rather:

It was, it was not.

What would happen if we out tried understanding scripture as a magic realist text?

It was, it was not is an invitation to rediscover our sense of wonder. It is an invitation to acknowledge that, “Did that literally happen?” and “If so, how did that happen?” are good questions, maybe even important questions. But that never progressing beyond them holds us back from encountering beauty and meaning. An overemphasis on these questions hold us back from allowing ourselves open ourselves in wonder to the awesome and transformative story of God becoming a human being and walking the earth and healing and telling stories and casting out our demons and sharing in meals and going to cross and proving to be bigger than death.

To encounter that story with open wonder. Well, that might just change everything.

A group of us from Grace are just returned from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. We touched down Tuesday evening after a huge day of travelling – it was a 26-hour project, door to door. (If I say anything particularly heretical this morning, blame the jet lag.) We are coming home with an extraordinary bucketful of stories.

There is one story that I would like to share with you today.

We were staying in Nazareth, the town in which Jesus spent much of his life. And our accommodations were in a convent, a guesthouse run by the Sisters of Nazareth. One evening, we were invited to meet one of the Sisters. She was an Italian woman who spoke a startling number of languages, English included, the language in which she gave the tour.

Sister had a gentle and yet almost mischievous smile. I was reminded of interviews with Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama, of people of faith so deep that there is a gentle and persistent joy and even playfulness that permeates their lives, a sense of okayness with everything.

Sister asked us to follow her. And we went downstairs.

Down one set of stairs after another we went. Until we were standing in a cavernous, underground room. And there Sister explained to us that, a while back when some workers had been doing renovations on the convent, they had discovered the remains of a church down below, and then down below the church, the remains of a house.

As you will know if you have been to Europe or the Holy Land, it was often the custom to build a church on top of a holy site. And the guess, Sister explained, is that this forgotten church was built on top of the house of Joseph. That we were standing in the house, in other words, in which Jesus grew up.

We stood there, our group of pilgrims, looking at the stone walls and the dirt floors and the place where the skylight had been to let in the sun in and then the remains of the old church above and the new convent still above that. And then one of us couldn’t resist, one of us asked Sister:

“Do you think this was really the house where Jesus grew up?”

And there again was that gentle and mischievous smile on her face. She said:

“It doesn’t matter.

“It doesn’t matter. This place tells me something about our Lord. It tells us that he lived in a house, that he drank water, that he ate food, that he had a family.”

Sister might have answered our question, was this really Jesus’ childhood home, by saying:

It was, it was not.

What we hear in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection are stories of encounter with deep mystery, stories of an experience that cannot be measured or quantified. Here is the tomb empty and Jesus walking around outside of it. But the resurrection has changed the rules of how reality works: sometimes his friends don’t recognise Jesus until he shares a meal with them or until he calls their names, at which point they see him with clarity; Jesus is able to come and go through walls and locked doors; Jesus is alive, but the mortal wounds remain on his body. The resurrection is laden with paradox.

Resurrection is, as Matthew Stretcher says, reality invaded by something too strange to believe. It is reality, to borrow Madeleine L’Engle’s line, reality invaded by the glorious impossible. And as such, it may sound like something that we need to explain away as nothing but metaphor.


Except I want to suggest that, if you have had any kind of experience with loss and love, with grief and joy, you will have caught a glimpse of what resurrection looks like.

When, after the death of my friend, Doug, I said that I knew that Doug was safe and home, I couldn’t prove that he was in God’s hands. But I knew that he was. When my children were born I couldn’t prove that the divine was still soaked into their skin. But I knew that it was. When I said that I loved another person and that they loved me, I couldn’t prove that there was love between us. But I knew that there was.

When I say that I believe that the women found the tomb empty, I cannot prove that. But I know that it was.

In these moments resurrection, we are invited no into certainty but, rather, to amazement, to imagination, to possibility, to faith.

Maybe that is what the storyteller’s of Rushdie’s childhood are getting at when they say, It was, it was not. They are getting at those realities that you can’t know through measurement or fact or proof but, rather, that you can know through wonder. If we allow ourselves to accept the gifts of possibility that God gives us, we will catch glimpses of resurrection. Like the women at daybreak, we will find the tomb empty. And we will meet Jesus walking the earth.

Sixth Sunday of Easter by The Rev. Martin Elfert


Acts 17:22-31

1 Peter 3:13-22

John 14:15-21

Psalm 66:7-18

The late Jesuit theologian, Karl Rahner, struggled with a question that a lot of Christians have struggled with: what does God do with good and compassionate and decent people who don’t go to church? Are those folks rejected by God, will they be punished by God? Will they be sent to hell by God? And if so, how are we to reconcile these people’s manifest goodness alongside our conviction that God is just? Isn’t God punishing those good Muslims or Hindus or atheists wrong?

Rahner’s solution was to come up with the notion of the Anonymous Christian. The Anonymous Christian is someone who doesn’t know about Jesus or maybe even someone who does know about Jesus but who refuses to worship him, but whose life is so congruent with Jesus’ teaching that we recognize the work of the Spirit in them. Such a person, Rahner suggested, meets the test for being a Christian whether they know it or not, whether they want to or not.

The Anonymous Christian is a notion that has been critiqued pretty broadly by people who are Christians but who aren’t anonymous about it. On the one hand, there is a camp that says that nobody gets into heaven without accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour, that to fail to do so, whether by ignorance or by choice, is to head down to the road to damnation. This theology was pretty widespread pretty recently – my Mom says that, as a young nurse, she and her colleagues were trained to do emergency baptisms on dying or stillborn babies – and it continues to have a lot of traction with a lot of Christians today.

I will show my hand right now and confess that I don’t have a lot of patience for this argument, for the simple reason that it makes God into a psychopath. If God is so small and so petty that God is dooming people to eternal punishment for failing to worship God, then you and I actually moral duty to refuse to worship God. We have a Christian duty to refuse to worship God. This fear-based picture of God is a fundamental rejection of the promise found in 1John that God is Love, a fundamental rejection of the Gospel. It is in no way the basis for a good or generative or life-giving church.

On the other hand, the opposite hand, there are folks who argue against the notion of the Anonymous Christian because they feel that it shows an absence of respect for the faith of people who aren’t Christian. What Jew or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist, these folks ask, would want to be called an Anonymous Christian? Or sometimes they will phrase the question the other way around: would you, as someone who goes to church, someone who is a Christian, want to be called an Anonymous Jew or an Anonymous Muslim or an Anonymous Hindu or an Anonymous Atheist? Wouldn’t you find that label incoherent or inappropriate or even offensive?

For a while, I found that argument pretty persuasive. And thus I concluded that Rahner’s concept of Anonymous Christianity was at odds with genuine respect of our neighbours, at odds with Jesus’ command to love our neighbours as ourselves. But more recently – particularly as I have visited Mosques and Jewish Temples and experienced a connection with the people whom I met there – I’ve been less sure that I accept the premise of this argument:

I’ve asked myself: Would I actually be offended if someone called me an Anonymous Jew or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist?

Well, it depends. I would be offended if what someone meant by those words is that I don’t really love Jesus. But if what someone meant, instead, is that I was the sort of person who really got what religion was about, what life was about, what love was about, if they meant that what they saw in me was someone who was living in a way that was congruent with their most cherished and beloved values – well, that wouldn’t offend me in the least. In that scenario, I would be delighted for someone to call me an anonymous version of the identity that the claim for themselves.

Indeed, that might be the highest praise that one person could give to another.

Today we encounter Paul in Athens. He is standing on an elevated parcel of land, what is sometimes known as Mars Hill because of its traditional connection with the God, Mars, and he is speaking to a substantial crowd.

I see,

he praises the gathered people,

How religious you are in every way.

And then he talks about touring the city and finding one altar or shrine after another. Until, at last, he came to an altar dedicated to an unknown God.

Paul tells them that he knows the God of which this altar speaks.

Paul’s speech is lengthy (this is the second week in a row in which the lectionary gives us what amounts to a full-on monologue). And it is an amazing speech. Viewing it today through the lens of Rahner’s concept of the Anonymous Christian, it is amazing me all the new.

Notice that in this entire speech, Paul never utters the name “Jesus.” This is a fascinating example for us as Christians. Maybe this is a challenging example for us as Christians. Because it seems to me that when many or most of us speak of evangelism, one of the big things that we mean by that word is uttering the name Jesus early and often. Talking about Jesus a lot is pretty much what every evangelist who has ever knocked on my front door has door has done. But Paul – who is kind of big deal within the church – gives us an evangelical example in which he does something quite different.

What Paul does here is to engage in what scholars call inculturation: he talks about the Gospel by using the language and imagery and the symbols of the people with whom he is talking. In doing so, he displays immense respect for the people to whom he speaks. And he also dramatically ramps up the likelihood that they will be able to hear him and understand him.

Listening to Paul talk about Jesus without saying the name Jesus, I am reminded of Richard Rohr’s advice that names like “God” or “Spirit” or “Church” are placeholders: they are symbols that point at something deeper and bigger. Thus, Rohr goes on, only use these names if they are freeing and life-giving to you. If the word “God” is incoherent or meaningless to you or to the one whom you speak or, worse yet, if the word “God” is representative of anger or fear or violence or anti-intellectualism or bigotry to you or the one to whom you speak, then follow Paul’s example and use another word.

Throughout his speech, Paul assumes that the Athenians are already in relationship with God, that they already know God. When he speaks approvingly of their religiosity, when he says that the altar to an Unknown God is naming something true and real, he moves away from an imperialistic or a paternalistic understanding of faith, whereby it is his job to bring the one truth to the ignorant or wayward. Instead, Paul allows and indeed celebrates the possibility that even as he has something to teach the Athenians, he also has something to learn from them. That, maybe, even as they are Anonymous Christians he is an Anonymous adherent of their faith.

The problem with the second critique of Anonymous Christianity – the one that says that Rahner’s notion is disrespectful to Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Atheists – is that it inadvertently perpetuates the damaging notion that the great faiths or value systems of the world are in competition with one another, much like competing businesses, each trying to attract the most customers, so that our goal as church is to get people to shop with Jesus rather than shopping with someone else.

This way of seeing reality – which we could expressly crassly by saying “My God is real, yours isn’t” – is actually at odds with monotheism, with the promise that God is One, that God is in all things, that all human bodies are temples of God, that the whole earth is full of God’s glory. It is at odds with our conviction that what we proclaim here is the deep and eternal truth and, therefore (and again, here is Richard Rohr), that if it is true here and now, it must be true always and everywhere. Paul says as much. Listen to his words, listen as he speaks of the God who made the world and everything – everything – in it, the Lord of heaven and earth. Listen as, using his audience’s own holy texts, Paul proclaims the good news:

We too are his offspring.

In God we live and move and have our being.

In other words, all of us are children of God. All of us were created by God. And at the end of our days, God will welcome all of us home.