Great sermon yesterday on the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. She came to get water at midday because she was ostracized by the community. They didn't approve of her lifestyle. Bad choices all the way around. So because she was guilty and they were either mean or self-righteous, they couldn't even be in the same space.
The sermon made the point that the Samaritan woman made the choice to change and went back to the community that ostracized her to witness to the experience she had with Jesus. I found it interesting that no one conversed about what "they" had done to the woman, what "they" might do if she returned to the community, how Jesus might get "them" to change before she returned.
There might be a Lenten definition here. How often do we define a problem in terms of the "other?" What must "the church" do to attract "young people" might be better asked, "What am I willing to do to witness to God's transformative power with the young people I know?" How is "the church" going to attract "new members so we can balance our budget" might be better asked "What is the price I am willing to pay to be sure God's work through our congregation can be done?" Why is church so "broken" might be better asked "What is my contribution to the problem I am concerned with?"
Perhaps we should take a lesson from Peter Block's ability to redefine the questions and the story of transformation we find in the interaction between the Samaritan woman and Jesus. The change we most effectively make is in ourselves. And in being transformed, we may find that we participate in God's transformation of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment