There was a very disturbing article on the cover of USA Today this week. It was so disturbing, that I never quite understood what it was about. The article began almost as if we were listening in to the thoughts-justification or revelation-of a woman trained as a Palestinian suicide bomber. She described her motives in noble and selfless terms, and talked matter-of-factly about how she felt wearing the explosives belt under her clothes. She saw herself as a martyr, saving her murdered people. I could not read the article closely enough to know if she was now dead, if she had been interviewed because she had changed her mind, or whether she had been caught. It horrified me to read about terrorist acts-what I see as arbitrary murders-to see them justified in noble terms. And then I read the story of the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr.

It was like my mind had folded-Stephen and the woman terrorist. The woman presented herself as if she were like Stephen. I struggled to make sure there were differences. At first, they seemed so similar: both thought what they believed was worth dying for, both were confident that God had vindicated their deaths.

But doesn't your gut say there must be a difference? Yes. Suicide bombers really don't care if they take someone else with them in standing for their principles. Stephen died alone. Stephen was either lynched or executed, depending on whose law was being enforced by those throwing the stones. His death is "imposed" on him by others, whereas the suicide bombers choose the terms under which they die. Here's a big difference: Stephen dies forgiving, in a loving state of mind. None of the training manuals for suicide bombers-and there are apparently manuals for this-includes forgiving or loving. That's pretty significant. In Stephen's case, it doesn't appear that he "comes" to love the people stoning him. It sounds like he never stopped loving them. It's just that his relationship with Jesus was so important that Stephen couldn't back out of it, even if it meant he gave his life for it.

Stephen is called the first Christian martyr, but do you know what "martyr" means? Witness. The woman who presented this passage in our lectionary discussion group kept saying, "There's nothing in the word 'martyr' about dying." She was blown away by that. Stephen is simply and only "witnessing" to his relationship with Jesus. This Jesus who, in our gospel lesson today, says that he is "the way, the truth, and the life." Apparently, this is important enough, not just to die for, but it is important enough to live for.

Huh. It is no longer politically correct to say Jesus is "the way." In a world that is trying to figure out how Christians, Jews, and Muslims can occupy the same planet without annihilating each other-in this post-Christendom world it is way uncool to claim exclusive rights to God. Did I mention to you James Forbes' take on this? Forbes is the senior pastor at Riverside Church in New York. Forbes says, "We need to stop arguing about how to get to heaven and start talking about how to live together." He's right. But how do we followers of Jesus reconcile this with his claim to be the way?

Can I just suggest something? Rather than believing that there were many ways to God and Jesus came to close all other ways but the one he presents, perhaps Jesus meant there was no way between God and humans, and he has now made that way. Instead of thinking of Jesus as the "way" we get to God, perhaps we need to think that he is the way God has access to humans.
To me, that puts a whole other spin on the gospel. It means that God acts. It means that we don't have to take responsibility for the success of our witness. We just have to witness. We present the good news to anyone who can listen, and let God do the rest. That it is God who acts also means (this is earth-shaking!) we don't have to decide who's saved and who's not. We just need to remember that there is a distinctiveness to being Christian. And then to act accordingly.

Like how? Good question. Here comes the e-word, folks. Evangelism. In a Presbyterian pulpit. One week the chick is telling people to pray, the next thing she talks about is evangelism. Time to call the Committee on Ministry! Would you rather I said that we need to become martyrs? Witnesses, martyrs, evangelists-all loaded words.

There was a whole lot of evangelism going on yesterday at the church. You can still see the results of yesterday's evangelism. It was the witness of stewardship. OK, and the witness of fellowship-as in working lovingly and joyfully with each other, taking good care of this beautiful property entrusted to us. As you may have noticed, we are in a prominent place, and when we keep the church looking good, we are saying to the world around us, "This is a going operation. The people here are not defeated. The people who come here can work together. These people think they can make a difference." It's a witness to God's love. Evangelism to anyone who can hear.

Do you remember that when I read the gospel lesson, I said that Jesus makes promises here? Jesus sends out his disciples, but he links their commission to promises. Or is it that he makes promises and links that to their commissioning? It's probably both. The promises Jesus makes are things about relationship and his continued presence--how he will be with them through the works and evangelizing they do, that the Holy Spirit will come. The "place" Jesus is going to prepare isn't so much about "heaven" as it is about relationship-that God/humans relationship. He goes, but he sends his disciples-he sends us-and he gives us power to be "sent" and the community within which we are sent. Jesus declares love for us and expects us to love each other. He tells us to love each other, then he gives us the Holy Spirit to change our hearts so we can. He sends us out as evangelists, but he goes with us.

God knows it's hard to be an evangelist. Did any of you see The Apostle with Robert Duvall? That's what comes to my mind when I think "evangelist." Or Billy Graham or Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart. I'll freely admit to you all-publicly and privately-if that's the model, I can't be an evangelist. I know we're supposed to tell people about Jesus, but even if I could wear make-up like Tammy Faye, I couldn't be a pulpit thumper. And I'm not even good at ringing doorbells and asking people if they know Jesus. But I do believe that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life." And I'm willing to stake my life on that. I am more than happy to be a martyr to that. To be a martyr to the life I've been given to live into. To be a martyr to the way of that life. "Martyr" as in witness. "Martyr" as in giving my living in love to the One who gives me life. "Martyr" as in giving my life in love to the One who gives me life. I can't do a witness that says, "I'm right, you're not." But I can live a witness that testifies that the way God comes to us is through Jesus. The facts of my life can tell no other story. I can only tell that story, letting God be responsible for the success of that witness. Are you willing to be a martyr? Are you willing to give your life? Is it worth living for?