²⁴ "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, ²⁵ it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. ²⁸ "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: ²⁹ that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

The phrase which some attribute to St. Augustine: In Essentials Unity, in Non-essentials Diversity, in All Things Charity, calls us to define our Essentials. It asks us to declare those concepts which are so central and critical to our faith, so defining for our congregation, that we cannot allow deviation or distortion. It is expected that, once we establish this central core of our belief, our core values, our core identity, we can then, comfortably, invite people to be diverse in everything else. It also expects that things, both the essentials in which we are united, and the non-essentials in which we are diverse, are processed and lived in love, in charity.

It seems appropriate to begin by looking for the definition of "essential." The Merriam-Webster dictionary on my computer defines "essential," when used as an adjective, as "1 fundamental; central. 2 absolutely necessary, of the utmost importance: INDISPENSABLE or basic." That dictionary reports that its synonyms are "imperative, necessary, necessitous." When used as a noun, the dictionary further indicates, it is "1 the fundamental elements. 2 things that are absolutely necessary, something essential."

The task, then, is to determine those things which we hold to be so important, so absolutely necessary to our understanding of whom we are, that we must ask all of us to be in agreement about them. These are the things that, in addition to being certain that we all agree with one another about them, we must ask all whom we would invite to join us to be in agreement with us.

There are two approaches for us to consider in our effort to fulfill this task. One is to be very detailed and very precise in defining each and every thing which we put into the category of "essentials." This approach would have us attempt to cover every theological issue and every life circumstance along with the position for each which we would require of each other. Using this approach, we would be likely to think it necessary to dot every "I" and to cross every "T." It is possible that we would leave ourselves, and those who will follow us in this family of faith, with the challenging task of interpreting the original meaning of such efforts and to struggle to identify the application and relevance of such "essentials" to life circumstances both now and in the future. We would be likely to be asking one another, frequently I would guess, whether someone's statements and/or behavior are consistent with our list of "essentials."

Acts 15:29 attempts to do exactly this. The church in that time was struggling to respond appropriately to people who came bringing old religious customs, non-Christian rites and rituals. The "essentials described, i.e., abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication, is very specific and detailed advice about behavior which is not acceptable. In essence, the advice is to keep such things from being entwined with the "essentials" of that church in that particular time.

A second approach, quite the opposite of the one I have been describing, is to keep our declaration of the "essentials" about which we must be in complete agreement, very capable of supporting the open and inclusive lifestyle we desire for our church (if that's what we do desire.)

We might remind ourselves, as we consider this approach, that God gives us freedom, even the freedom to reject and deny God. Most of us cannot even begin to imagine how very difficult is must be for God to allow us to do our own thing. I imagine it must have been, and continues to be, very tempting for God to just create, or re-create things so that we humans do not have any choice in the matter. It must, from time to time, seem to God that the mess we make of life on this earth is too hurtful to too many of God's children for it to be allowed to go on. God must, on occasion, think that divine control insuring the safety and happiness of all, the just treatment and equal access to the earth (i.e., God's) resources, is something that must be done. And yet, despite all of our foolishness, in the face of all of our sinfulness, God continues to give each one of us the freedom to choose our own lifestyle, our own manner of behavior toward others and toward God. Are we to do the same?

Several years ago, I had a paper published which I had written about hospitality. In its first version, it was about hospitality which camp counselors and directors could, and hopefully would, give to campers and guests at church operated camps, conference centers, and retreat facilities. In a later version, it was about hospitality which members of a congregation could, and hopefully would, extend to visitors who come to their church, and would extend to each other.

In those publications, I quoted a most amazing person, a man named Henri J. M. Nouwen. You will soon discover that I think very highly of this man. He was a Roman Catholic priest, a seminary professor, the author of an amazing number of books, and, in his final days, a chaplain in a home for learning disabled adults.

Henri Nouwen describes hospitality as "the creation of a free space where the stranger can enter and become a friend instead of an enemy. Hospitality is not to change people, but to offer them space where change can take place. It is not to bring men and women over to our side, but to offer freedom not disturbed by dividing lines. It is not to lead our neighbor into a corner where there are no alternatives left, but to open a wide spectrum of options for choice and commitment. It is not an educated intimidation with good books, good stories and good works, but the liberation of fearful hearts so that words can find roots and bear ample fruit. It is not a method of making our God and our way into the criteria of happiness, but the opening of an opportunity to others to find their God and their way. The paradox of hospitality is that it wants to create emptiness, not a fearful emptiness, but a friendly emptiness where strangers can enter and discover themselves as created free; free to sing their own songs, speak their own languages, dance their own dances; free also to leave and follow their own vocations. Hospitality is not a subtle invitation to adopt the life style of the host, but the gift of a chance for the guest to find his or her own."

In our effort to define what the "essentials" are for us, is it possible that the most essential of our "essentials" is to honor each individual's pilgrimage, each one's faith journey; by being supportive without requiring, by being accepting without prerequisites, by being accepting in ways that allow each one to establish their own relationship with the one true God - or not?

Henri Nouwen, in talking about the minister's interaction with people, describes what I believe is the case for hospitality in the church. He says that the minister "who has come to terms with his [or her] own loneliness and is at home in his [or her] own house is a host who offers hospitality to his [or her] guests. He [or she] gives them a friendly space, where they may feel free to come and go, to be close and distant, to rest and to play, to talk and to be silent, to eat and to fast. The paradox indeed is that hospitality asks for the creation of an empty space where the guest can find his [or her] own soul."

In Essentials Unity, in Non-essentials Diversity, in All Things Charity.

Amen.

Discussion Questions:

1. How essential is it for us to define the "Essentials" for our congregation?
2. Can accepting a person, welcoming a person, including a person, be distinguished from endorsing what the person believes?
3. How valuable, or how problematic, is it to seek different ideas, different opinions, different beliefs?
4. What should be on the list of "essentials" about which we have unity of belief in this congregation?
5. What should not be on the list?