Homily for the Fifth Sunday of Easter 18 May 2025
Episcopal Parish of All Saints - Ashmont, Dorchester, Massachusetts
The Rev’d John R. Clarke, Interim Rector
“What God has called clean, you must not call unclean." Acts 11:9b
My hunch is, it’s a question few — if any — of us have ever thought about. But it’s the kind of question that bugs the heck out of rogue economist Steven Leavitt: Given the choices — a gun or a swimming pool — which is more dangerous?
Well, let’s see. Take the parents of eight-year-old Molly, Leavitt suggests. Molly’s two best friends (Amy and Imani) each live nearby. Molly’s parents know that Amy’s parents keep a gun in their house. So they forbid Molly to play there.
They do let Molly spend a lot of time at Imani’s house. It has a swimming pool in the backyard.
The parents think — in terms of answering the question “How can we keep Molly safe?” — it’s a smart choice: guns vs swimming pool. The gun is more dangerous. It’s a no-brainer.
Until … until you run the numbers. According to the data, the parents’ choice isn’t smart at all. That’s because, in a given year, there’s one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. In a country with 6 million pools, this means that — tragically — roughly 550 children under the age of 10 drown each year.
What about guns? What’s the data on that score? In a country with an estimated 300 million guns, every year, one child is killed by a gun for every million-plus guns. And, no argument, that’s tragic, too.
Now, it comes as no surprise: I’m a proponent of stringent gun control. But focusing on our case study, the point for Molly’s parents is that the likelihood of death by a swimming pool (1 in 11,000) vs death by gun (1 in a million-plus) isn’t even close. Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.
As risk consultant Peter Sandman says, “The basic reality is, the risks that scare people … and the risks that kill people are very different.”
To make good choices, then, the challenge is getting the right information.
And that’s Leavitt’s argument. According to the conventional wisdom, because the world is riddled with obfuscation, complications, and downright deceit, it’s pretty impossible to get to the bottom of anything.
But the conventional wisdom is wrong, according to Leavitt. The world isn’t impenetrable and unknowable at all … if you ask the right questions … if you learn a new way of looking … if you learn to see through all the clutter.
And this is certainly Peter’s experience.
When we first encounter Peter this morning in our reading from Acts, what question does he think the people in his circle should be asking? He thinks it’s “How are you going to keep the Church pure?”
That’s because before his vision — the one about the massive sheet coming down from heaven bursting-at-the-seams with all sorts of goodies forbidden to Jewish people — like the rest of the leaders of the fledgling Church, Peter thinks that the Church is an exclusive club: only Jewish people who choose to follow Jesus need apply.
But that intensely narrow focus hits a speed bump when Gentiles (non-Jews) start getting the mind-boggling idea that Jesus got the whole God-humanity, humanity-God, love-love-love thing right. They choose to follow Jesus, too!
This triggers migraines … because the Jewish Christians ask: “Is a Gentile Christian even a thing?” And, if so, the Jewish Christians fear — “fear” being the operative word here — they’ll get bumped off their “God made us Number One” pedestal.
So, their response is a variation on Replacement Theory: fear of your own group’s extinction or eclipse by another group. Scratch the surface today of just about any charge that dark-skinned people are “invading” our country, and you’ll find Replacement Theory. Or, “How are we going to keep the country white?”
Only, remember, the first Christians are asking: “How are we going to keep the Church pure?” Their answer? “Keep out those unclean Gentiles!”
Peter agrees with the purists … until … until God whacks him up one side of the head with that vision and subsequent data:
The vision makes mincemeat of the conventional wisdom with God’s unequivocal message: “What God has made clean you must not call unclean!”
That’s God’s progressive starting point for “church” … for this parish … for everything.
Score? Purists: 0 … Progressives: 1
And then God whacks Peter up the other side of the head when Peter runs the numbers … and hears with his own ears … and sees with his own eyes real, lived experience: that the very same Spirit that has filled the Jewish discoverers of Jesus now fills the Gentile seekers as well.
Read: “If it quacks like a duck, chances are!”
Score: Purists: 0 Progressives: 2
This is revolutionary.
As revolutionary, in its day, as ordaining in The Episcopal Church people of color … and then women … and then gay and lesbian people … and then transgender persons.
As revolutionary, in its day, as marrying in church a mixed-race couple … a same-sex couple!
Meaning: As Peter learned, the question “How are you going to keep the Church pure?” It’s the wrong question! … because reality always intrudes. And, as headlines from reliable media show, reality is always a problem for purists.
That’s because the Holy Spirit sometimes shows up in the form of reality!
As 19th-century hymn-writer (and sometime Anglo-Catholic priest) Frederick William Faber observed:
We make God’s love too narrow
by false limits of our own,
and we magnify God’s strictness
with a zeal God will not own.
When confronting new realities, then, as Church, as parish: What’s the risk? What are we afraid of? Whom are we afraid of — invaders, usurpers, infidels?
Or just new — let’s say, different — persons different from us moving into whatever we call neighborhood.
The point? God has made them … God has made them … God has made us all! … clean.
Amen.