“Called through Baptism: Peter’s Radical Inclusivity,” Baptism of Our Lord, Acts 10:34-48

(complete sermon with citations can be found here)

“Called through Baptism: Peter’s Radical Inclusivity”

Year A, Baptism of Our Lord, Acts 10:34-48

St. Paul Lutheran Church, Arlington, MA

Vicar Samm Melton-Hill

“May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. Amen.”

So, I have this app on my phone that tells me what happened on this day in history. I usually take a look at it a couple of times throughout the week, which perhaps says something about who I am as a person. But, today’s, January 12th, 1915 caught my eye. It caught my eye because on this day 105 years ago, the House of Representatives voted down the women’s suffrage bill. The Women’s Suffrage Bill sought to ratify the existing 19th Amendment concerning who had the right to vote and it was working its way through the courts following intense activism and protest by women from across the nation. At this point in 1915, the women’s suffrage movement was well underway, but many still weren’t convinced that women deserved the right to vote.

We know now of course, that the Women’s Suffrage Bill didn’t pass nationally until 1920, 100 years ago. So, in 2020, we have already begun to hear of celebrations and anniversaries for this event, but it’s important to recognize that some of these states only granted voting rights to white women, though the suffrage movement was intimately tied to the voting rights of African-Americans. This is recent history. 100 year ago, I would not be allowed to vote. 50 years ago, as a woman I would not be allowed in this pulpit. And just 10 years ago, I wouldn’t be preaching as a queer person. This is recent history that is vital for us to remember.

To understand how the 19th Amendment in its current form came to be, we have to fill in those five years from the bill being struck down in 1915, to it being passed in 1920. Beginning in 1915, several states had begun granting women the right to vote and by 1920, 35 states had passed women’s suffrage bills, however the ratification to the amendment required 36 states for the bill to pass.

In August of 1920, all eyes were on Tennessee, who was this much needed 36th state. It was apparently stalled in the house, as the men who were voting were tied at 48-48 in votes. I imagine it was quite the scene. Protestors lined the streets of Nashville, chanting and yelling, as men walked into the courthouse to make country-altering decisions. The anti-suffragists identified themselves by wearing red lapel pins, so it should have been clear that on this day, that as man after man walked into the courthouse, that they were still deadlocked.

However, like all good stories, there is an unexpected twist in the day. As the house went around voting mundanely saying “nay” or “yay”, suddenly an anti-suffragist named Harry Burn, responded with “yay.” His counterparts looked on in disbelief and this would become the one syllable that would change the course of history forever.

After reading this story, I got curious: what changed Harry Burns’ mind in less than 24 hours? Why did he suddenly decide that women deserved the right to vote? Well, it turns out that the night before he had received a seven-page letter from his mother. His mother, Phoebe Burn, had written to him saying:

“Hurrah, and vote for suffrage! Don’t keep them in doubt. I notice some of the speeches against. They were bitter. I have been watching to see how you stood, but have not noticed anything yet.” She ended the missive with a rousing endorsement of the great suffragist leader Carrie Chapman Catt, imploring her son to “be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the ‘rat’ in ratification.”

When Harry voted yes, he had that letter in the chest pocket of his suit. He would end up hiding out in the courthouse for a couple of days until the crowds and mobs quieted outside, some calling for his death and many angered by his sudden change of heart. But, later when he was asked what changed his mind, he referenced this letter from his mother. He talked with media and others about how he had this vision of inclusiveness and the idea of what the “moral and right thing” to do came to him through his mother.

While this is a fine story in of itself, I don’t think we can truly appreciate how radical of a move this was for Harry Burn. You see, Harry was only 24 years old. He was a new politician, a republican, just trying to find his way in the conservative state of Tennessee. This was a risky vote for him. And Harry’s political career would go on to die a slow death. He lost reelections and other nominations and was shunned from the Republican party. Radical inclusiveness, radical impartiality to others, is risky.

While not a perfect picture, I do believe this is just one example of the radical inclusiveness we hear about in our reading from Acts today. The book of Acts is a collection of stories about the apostles and their acts in the name of Jesus, telling stories about Peter, Paul, and Stephen, and was written after the death and resurrection of Jesus. At this point in Acts, we have already encountered stories of Jesus’ ascension, the conversion story of Saul, and several small sermons to the people.

So, before we even get to our story about Peter speaking to Cornelius, we need to backup and recall what happens before Peter and Cornelius ever even meet. Chapter 10 of Acts tells the story of both Peter and Cornelius receiving separate visions from God. These visions alerted the men to the possibility of meeting each other and sharing and receiving the word of God.

This is of course an oversimplification, but this is where we enter into the story with our reading today. Peter has just arrived and preaches this sermon to Cornelius. And Peter begins by saying that “I truly understand that God shows no partiality.”.....“I truly understand that God shows no partiality.”

I think it’s a bit too easy for us today to glance over this statement from Peter. Our world seems obsessed with inclusivity and diversity these days, at times even tokenizing it. It’s a message we have all heard, both in the secular world and here at church. Everyone belongs. Everyone has a seat at the table. Everyone is included.

But, I believe we are doing Peter a disservice if we allow these experiences with inclusion to cheapen his message. Maybe if we understand the social and historical background of the story we can grow to truly appreciate how radical it is.

If we go back to Peter’s vision that we mentioned earlier, that prepared him for this interaction with Cornelius, we understand how radical of a move this is for Peter..

At the start of Chapter 10, when Peter receives this vision, the scripture says that he was on the roof praying. I imagine Peter preparing for a relaxing morning of prayer and contemplation. As one does, Peter becomes hungry, and while the food is being prepared, he falls into a trance. In his vision, he sees the heavens opening up, “something like a sheet,” coming down. On this sheet, “he sees all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air.” And then he hears a voice instructing him to get up and kill and eat. This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request. The animals would have to be killed to be eaten.

But, the animals that Peter sees are animals that are considered unclean according to Jewish law. Peter is a follower of Jesus, but is still deeply devout to the religious laws of the Jewish or “chosen people.” So, Peter tells the voice no. He doesn’t want to break Jewish law.

He wants to remain faithful. He wants to continue to do what he has always done.

But, the voice simply says, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” And finally, after the third command from this voice, the sheet is taken up to heaven. Peter remains puzzled by this vision and is eventually approached by three men who tell him that Cornelius, who the text describes as “a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation.”

So, Peter travels to visit Cornelius and when he arrives, he not only finds Cornelius, but finds a crowd of Jews and Gentiles waiting for him. Again, Peter is puzzled. According to Jewish law, Jews must not mix with Gentiles and yet here is this community of Jews and Gentiles, who have gathered together to hear the word of God.

Peter recalls his vision and says to the crowd, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, but God has shown me that shouldn't call anyone profane or unclean.” And Peter goes on, speaking to them and saying, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality,” and sharing the story of Jesus. Peter has been challenged to preference the love of God over the laws of the land.

This story asks us to think about how radical inclusiveness really is. It shows us that true inclusiveness means that we are open and willing to hear the word of God, knowing that God’s word subverts power and transcends worldly systems. Pastor and professor Jonathan Walton says it best. He says that “Jesus’ acts of compassion flipped social relations by bringing into the center those whom cultural, religious, and political authority had pushed to the margins. The poor, the “unclean,” dishonored women, those with skin diseases, and the mentally ill would all fail the purity-politics exam. These were the people Jesus embraced.” This is precisely the radical teaching of Jesus that Peter shares with his crowd and the teaching that he shares with us today.

Submitting ourselves to the power of God instead of worldly systems of power is much easier said than done. We see Peter struggling with this. At this point in history, the early church was expanding and had already been including non-Jews. In fact, Peter was instrumental in sharing the good news with marginalized communities and ethnic groups like the Ethiopian eunuch and Samaritans. Like many of us, Peter was familiar with inclusion.

New Testament Professor Raj Nadella, explains that it likely wasn't the act of including new people in the church, but perhaps the scale of the mission that made him deeply uncomfortable.” Peter’s discomfort is more nuanced than simply not wanting to include Gentiles in the Jesus movement. Raj describes this nuance by saying that, “In a clear reference to the extent of Gentile mission Peter was asked to undertake Luke tells us that Peter saw a large sheet descending to earth containing all sorts of four-footed animals, reptiles, and birds (Acts 10:11-12). Megaleyn, the Greek word for large suggests that it was a massive sheet. The description of animals highlights the expansive nature of the mission. It was no doubt a shocking sight to Peter both because of the contents of the sheet and because of its magnitude. Luke describes the moment as a trance, an out-of-body experience, but it was likely a nightmare for him to imagine a multitude of outsiders joining the church.”

Professor Nadella is onto something here. Inclusion is easy when it doesn’t require much change from me. Similarly, he goes on to say that, “Peter was apparently fine with admitting a few outsiders as token Gentiles but was wary of admitting such a large number that would have radically and irreversibly altered the ethnic composition of the church. It must have seemed to him like an invasion. The shocking image likely raised many questions for Peter. Can the church admit so many others and still remain Jewish? How would such a scenario impact the ethnic makeup and purity of the church? Can the interests of “insiders” be safeguarded if so many “outsiders” joined? Who should be part of the church and who should be excluded if status were to be largely maintained?...Peter’s dilemma is reflective of many in his time.” And yet, still reflective of many in our time too.

He goes onto say, “As the story makes it clear, Peter does not get to decide who is included in the church or how many. God does not believe in tokenisms. Accordingly, Peter was being challenged to move beyond tokenism and embrace diversity in all its forms to its fullest extent.” This means Peter did not simply need to be open to diversity, but open to the changes that accompany diversity.

We read this text today, along with the story of Jesus’ baptism, because Peter is showing us what it means to live out our baptismal promise. He reminds us how radical the story of Jesus being baptized by John really is. In both stories, it is God that subverts the assumed power dynamics. While it may appear that this story in Acts is about Peter or the Gospel story is about Jesus; it is solely about the power of God to transcend all boundaries. It is about the power of God to destroy systems of power. It is about the power of God naming each and every one of us as God’s beloved.

Peter helps us recognize this power of God by challenging us to think more deeply about our commitment to God and the scriptures. How does baptism inform your life as a Christian? What is your threshold for discomfort? Where do we draw the proverbially line in the sand?

In the waters of baptism we are called and named by God as her beloved. And, we are sent to share that love and grace and forgiveness with this world. But, what does this look like for you?

At the beginning of the service, we reaffirmed our baptism, but I wonder if now, in light of the story of Peter’s vision and his sermon to Corenilus’ crowd, if perhaps they take on more meaning. If maybe they are more radical than we initially gave them credit for. If we are being challenged to think more critically about inclusion and the impartiality of God. In the next couple of minutes I invite you to ponder these same words that we spoke just moments ago.

In affirming our baptisms, we said together:

“You have made public profession of your faith. Do you intend to continue in the covenant God made with you in holy baptism:

to live among God’s faithful people;

to hear the word of God and share in the Lord’s supper;

to proclaim the good news of God in Christ through word and deed;

to serve all people, following the example of Jesus;

and to strive for justice and peace in all the earth?”