Let’s acknowledge the obvious, that if a = b, then b = a. In mathematical terms this fact is described as one of the properties of equality. But those of us who are not very good at math often think of it as common sense. The inverse of this property of equality is, I believe, also true. If a does not equal b, then clearly b does not equal a. This is not complicated, is it? It’s the type of illustration I would us in a children’s homily. I think you can handle it.
The problem is that every single one of us actually carries a working knowledge of this simple property of equality around in our heads (and in our hearts), and that working knowledge includes the inverse rule, that if a does not equal b, then b does not equal a. And the real problem is that Jesus, who we sometimes experience in the scriptures as obtuse, evasive, or oddly coy, now and then speaks in the clearest and most obvious terms, as he did with his disciples in the Upper Room on the night of the Last Supper, after Judas had left. “I give you a new commandment,” he says, “that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” It is Jesus’ only commandment to his disciples; the sole rule of life that he exhorts them to adopt as his followers: that as he loved us, we should love one another. It is, of course a near re-statement of the Golden Rule that we should do unto others as we would like others to do to us, assuming that everyone wants to be loved. And it’s a simple enough commandment, in a sense.
And perhaps it would have been just fine on its own, if Jesus had not added to it a statement of the property of equality - “by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” If a equals b, then b should equal a. The King James Version put it a little differently, saying that we’d be known to be Jesus’ disciples “if ye have love one to another.” If ye have love. If ye have love one to another. Jesus does not seem to have taken into account that the inverse of the properties of equality are also true. Jesus does not seem to have taken into account what would happen if his followers did not love one another.
Remember the context. Jesus has just shared his last supper with his followers. In St. John’s account there is no telling of the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist. There is, rather, the moment when Jesus girds himself with a towel, gets on his knees, and washes the feet of his disciples in an act of kindness, humility, and love. Jesus is explicit that he is modeling behavior he expects his disciples to imitate. “If I … have washed your feet,” he said, “you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.” By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. By this.
I feel my cheeks flushing with embarrassment when I stop to think of Jesus’ own example, of his one, only, and new commandment, and of the property of equality expressed when Jesus said, “by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” By this: if ye have love one to another. My own failures at following this commandment are so many and so obvious to me that I can’t muster much enthusiasm for suggesting a list of the possible ways that you might have failed. I can’t even garner the energy to accuse the church, as an institution, of her long catalog of failures to follow the new commandment of love. I can, however, see how the property of equality and its inverse cast an unflattering light on those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” But on the other hand, if we don’t have love one to another, we shouldn’t be surprised if people reach their own conclusions.
At this point in a children’s homily, it would be long past the time that I should have pivoted to suggesting how we can follow Jesus’ only commandment, how we can actually love one another, what it might mean to have love one to another. And in a children’s homily, chances are very good that I would have with me my brown shoe box of Beanie Babies, which contains twelve little stuffed animals: a bunny rabbit, a beagle, an walrus, a moose, a blue jay, three frogs, an ostrich, a pelican, a tiger, and a bald eagle.
The stuffed animals are useful stand-ins for us people, because they can do whatever we can imagine they can do. For instance, they can be miserable failures at loving one another, or they can be fantastically good at it. My brown shoe box full of little stuffed animals is a self-contained world in which it’s possible for me to imagine that all of the inhabitants can and will have love one to another. But what’s really important, of course, isn’t whether I can imagine all the animals having love one to another, it’s whether or not the children can imagine it. Because if the children can imagine a world in which the moose and the pelican have love for the bunny and the blue jay, maybe their imaginations will allow that possibility to grow and expand, not only to include the three frogs, but also the pelican, and the ostrich, and the tiger, too.
And maybe the kids will notice that the stuffed animals all make their home in small rectangular brown box on Locust Street. And if we can imagine a small rectangular brown box on Locust Street as a place where everyone who has a home there is also able to have love one to another, then maybe we can also imagine a bigger rectangular brown box on Locust Street where everyone who has a place is also able to have love one to another. Strictly speaking, one brown rectangular box is not equal to the other, so I guess this is a case of the property of equivalency rather than of equality. But I’ll settle for equivalency here, if it helps us to have love one to another.
And when I think of the way that people have reached out in care to one another in this parish as part of Neighbor Care, I think, yes, maybe that’s possible.
When I think of the way the Soup Bowl is reconfiguring again, welcoming hungry people here on Locust Street again as we have for so many years, and also taking bag lunches out to the streets, I think that’s a sure sign of having love one to another.
And when I think of the work that’s being done every day at St. James School, I think, yes, that’s it too.
And when I think of the lessons boys and girls learn when they sing in a church choir, I think, yes, that’s about a lot more than music, if we are doing it right, as I think we are.
And when I think about the volunteers and the Ministry Residents who deliver food to the Church of the Crucifixion twice a week for distribution there, I think, yes, that’s a way of having love one to another.
And when I think of the forgiveness stones that helped at least a few of us to find ways to seek forgiveness and to offer it, I think, yes, that’s a way we have love one to another, too.
And I begin to think that maybe it’s possible for the church to follow Christ’s one and only commandment.
John 13:35 is not counted among the hard sayings of Jesus, but I think maybe it should be. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” It’s hard for us to live up to this simple challenge, to live by Christ’s simple command to love one another. Anyone can see what a challenge is posed by the inverse of the property of equality, since if we don’t love one another very well, doesn’t that mean that we are not really disciples of Jesus?
Which is why we keep returning to our rectangular brown boxes on Locust Street, to learn again how to have love one to another; to practice; to experiment; to fail; to seek forgiveness; and to try again. It’s why sometimes we have to learn from a little stuffed moose, or three stuffed frogs, relying on the property of equivalency, in order to live up to the property of equality that if a = b, then b = a.
For I believe that week by week, the three frogs in my brown shoe box are getting better and better at learning to love one another, at having love one to another. I believe that the walrus is getting better at it too.
And I am praying that if the properties of equality govern our lives, so too will the property of equivalency, so that what I can imagine for the creatures that inhabit a small brown rectangular box on Locust Street, I can also imagine for the creatures who inhabit a large brown rectangular box on Locust Street. I am praying that a = b, and b = a. And if my prayers are answered, then, by this everyone will know that we are Christ’s disciples: if we have love one to another.
Preached by Fr. Sean Mullen
15 May 2022
Saint Mark’s, Locust Street, Philadelphia
