Early in the year 2000, the city of Portland, Oregon, passed a ruling that closed the meals ministry at Sunnyside Methodist Church and set a limit on their worship and Bible study attendance. It turns out that the residents around Sunnyside Church felt threatened by the transient population the meals ministry was bringing into the neighborhood. Never mind that the neighborhood of Sunnyside Church also had ten bars and 14 retail stores that sold liquor which might contribute to the problem, or that the meals ministry of Sunnyside was not a traditional soup kitchen. It was designed to bring church members, neighborhood folk and friends to a gathering for fellowship, prayer and singing. Indeed, the intent of the meals ministry was to invite a conversation about the larger issues of hunger, poverty and the structures of city life that keep urban neighborhoods like Sunnyside in deteriorating cycles. And never mind that Sunnyside provided its own security guard to discourage any unacceptable behavior. Derek Davis, who studies the relationship between church and state, says that it was the first time that any civil official, to his knowledge, has tried to restrict the number of people attending Sunday services. When I heard this story, I found myself wondering whether it might not be a bad thing for a church to find itself in trouble with civil authorities for doing what it discerns to be its ministry. In fact, I found myself envying Sunnyside Church and its ministries a bit, wondering if every church should follow a similar path. If so, I suspect people would show up to see what’s going on. Indeed, the Transfiguration story speaks to the relationship between church and conflict. Matthew tells us that Jesus took three of his disciples, Peter, James and John, up a high mountain and was transfigured before them, appearing in the auspicious company of Moses and Elijah — great liberators in the Old Testament story who summon memories of the law and the prophets. Jesus’ clothes are described as dazzling white — a symbolic reference that anticipates the glory of the resurrection. In Matthew’s story, this scene follows on the heels of a watershed moment where Jesus predicts his death and resurrection for the first time (16:21). Thus, with this glance backward and forward, Matthew links Jesus’ life, death and resurrection with the story of God’s activity in days gone by, manifest in the gift of the law and the ministries of Israel’s prophets. You can find the rest of the commentary on our website.
Thank you to guest writer Roger Gench. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment