Recently, the Vatican’s Doctrine Office released a report, entitled “Infinite Dignity”—

having been approved by Pope Francis.

While it declared that the criminalisation of homosexuality was “contrary to human dignity”—

seemingly taking aim at a number of African countries in particular—

the report thoroughly rejected “gender theory”…

and the idea that one can determine one’s own gender apart from biology…

describing it as an “ugly ideology”…

and a “symptom of the confused concept of freedom” that characterises post-modern culture.

The report claims that such an ideology challenges the “God-given differences between man and woman”…

and it declares gender-confirmation surgery to be a “grave threat”— 

indeed, the “worst danger” facing humanity — 

because it “risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception”…

and is thus tantamount to making oneself God.

 

It saddens me, that…

for, so much of the wider community…

that sort of thing defines ‘the church’:

prejudice…

bigotry…

exclusion…

and persecution.

In that regard, it’s interesting that a major study in the United States…

a few years ago… 

noted that a vast majority of “millennials”—

that is, people born from the early nineteen-eighties through to two thousand—

prefer a ‘classical’ church…

(they dislike the term ‘traditional’)…

to a ‘modern’ or ‘trendy’ one.

According to one of the researchers…

such people are “not disillusioned with tradition; they are frustrated with slick or shallow expressions of religion”.

In particular, they dislike churches that—

despite appearing “hip”—

are actually “exclusive” and “closed-minded”.

Indeed, the number one reason cited in the study as to why people of that age group don’t go to church is judgmentalism—

especially related to the church’s treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people.

And those findings are also supported by some research in Australia…

which cited the church’s treatment of people with an alternate sexual identity—

and the subordination of women—

as the main reasons why people leave the church.

Exclusion…

closed-mindedness…

judgmentalism—

that’s what turns people off.

But, for many, that is what characterises the church.

And, frankly, who could blame them?

With Christians bleating about being “persecuted” for calling LGBTIQ+ people sinners destined for hell…

or trying to defend the subordination and marginalisation of women…

or for inciting Islamophobia…

the image of the church as rigid and reactionary, dogmatic, moralistic, and exclusionary…

is not without justification.

 

And yet, nothing could be further from the image that we find in the New Testament—

and especially in the book of Acts.

Take, for example, our story this morning of the Ethiopian eunuch.

Admittedly, it’s not a story that probably connects with us—

culturally speaking.

In almost every respect, the central character is completely “other”.

But, in fact, that’s actually the point.

He was totally “other” for the intended audience of Acts as well.

After all, few of them would have encountered an Ethiopian—

dark skinned and exotic, from a far-away, mysterious land.

But he was especially “other” as a eunuch…

because eunuchs— 

in most of the cultures of the ancient world— 

were vehemently despised and derided.

They were ridiculed as effeminate;

they were called “monstrous” and “alien to human nature”;

and they were ranked, on par, with those who murdered infants.

There is an account of a eunuch… 

who was barred from holding a position in philosophy at Athens because of his condition…

because, it was claimed, it made him unfit to teach boys.

Within Israel, eunuchs were not permitted to serve as priests—

indeed, they were not even permitted to enter the temple.

And at least one first-century Hebrew writer argued that they ought to be completely shunned—

not just from the temple…

but from public life as well—

because of their effeminacy and their inability to reproduce.

In short, within that world, eunuchs were deviant…

immoral…

impure…

effeminate…

unnatural…

an affront to respectable, religious folk…

and, by implication, abhorrent to God.

Within the context of the ancient world…

the author of Acts could not have constructed a character who was more “other”—

more marginal…

more despised…

and more religiously contemptible.

And yet, in the unfolding narrative of Acts…

he was the first non-Israelite convert.

In the unfolding narrative of Acts, this Ethiopian eunuch—

this marginalised… 

monstrous… 

despised… 

contemptible… 

seemingly abhorrent-to-God individual—

is given pride of place.

His acceptance into the Christian community represents—

as one New Testament scholar describes it—

“a radical transgression of prevailing cultural boundaries”. 

But it was also a radical transgression of prevailing religious boundaries.

And it would have been— 

for most of the readers— 

a profound challenge to their conception of God.

Which is, perhaps, why the author crafts this story so carefully…

infusing the whole narrative with an almost magical element…

reinforcing—

almost labouring the point— 

that everything takes place under direct divine dictation…

in fulfilment of divine will.

The original, intended audience of Acts would have been utterly horrified!

In a way, the author is saying that… 

all too often…

the community of faith can be so slow to realise that it’s wrong;

that its beliefs and practices can be so out of touch with God;

and yet, it’s true calling—

it’s very raison d’être—

is to extend God’s inclusive, all-embracing love.

The author…

through this story…

is claiming that God thumbs God’s nose at all of our exclusionary pontificating in God’s name…

and all of our efforts to erect boundaries in God’s name.

 

After all, isn’t that what the resurrection is all about?

 

Symbolically… 

metaphorically…

it’s God’s answer to human limitations;

it’s God’s ‘yes’ to every ‘no’;

it’s God’s affirmation of life in the face of every denial and denigration of life. 

Indeed, through this story, the author of Acts presents an interesting theology of Easter.

There’s no concern here with issues of sacrifice… 

and all the things that the church usually gets so worked up about trying to defend.

Rather, the Easter story is described—

through the exposition of the Isaiah text—

as God’s exaltation of the humiliated;

God’s vindication of the rejected;

God’s honouring of the shamed.

Here, the cross is portrayed as a message of radical social reversal. 

In effect, the author is saying that people like this Ethiopian eunuch—

or, perhaps, like many lesbian, gay, transgender, intersex, and queer people today—

that they actually understand the Easter story better than those who would deny them life;

or those who proclaim them far from the love of God.

 

Now, I can hear some of you say:

“Yes, but we’re a welcoming and inclusive community.

It’s part of our mission statement.

You’re preaching to the converted”.

And that’s true.

We’re certainly welcoming and inclusive;

and we seek to provide a safe space for people with different genders or sexual orientations.

And perhaps, for us, they aren’t the “other” like this eunuch was back then.

But are there other people with whom we struggle—

people from certain parts of Africa or the Middle East…

people of other religious faiths and traditions…

people who have come to us in boats—

whom we treat as “other” and exclude?

 

Well, this story challenges us:

unless we fully accept and include them—

whoever they are—

are we standing contrary to the risen Christ whom we claim to serve