A Specific Invitation (Isaiah 55:1-9)

 🖤Valentine’s Day was coming up. It was my last year of elementary school, the last year when students typically bring Valentines for everyone in the class. 

I had an idea, which I thought would be hilarious: I knew that I needed to write on each card the name of the person I was giving it to; but what if I sealed the card up in the envelope, but on the envelope, just wrote, “whosit.” Every envelope would say “whosit.”

It would work, because if I wrote the name on the card clearly enough, I could just see the name through the thin paper of the envelope, and still deliver the right card to the right person. Everyone would wonder how I did it. 

The plan worked perfectly. My classmates laughed, and wondered how I did it. However, the long-term effects were minimal, as it did not quite improve my social standing the way I hoped that it would. 

I share this with you because I knew, even as a kid, that a Valentine had to have someone’s name on it. 

You can’t just send a Valentine or an invitation and not put someone’s name on it. You can’t write, “Dear Valentine, whoever you are…” No! 

Same with an invitation. If you’re inviting someone to a party, you don’t say, “You’re invited! I want you there… whoever you are…”

Valentines and invitations need to be specific.

⚫In today’s scripture, the prophet is issuing an invitation. And the prophet is specific about who is being invited.

The invitation is given specifically to those who are thirsty, to those who are hungry, to those who have no money.

The prophet could have just said, “Come, everyone! Whoever you are! Come, eat and drink! All are welcome!”

But no; the prophet directed the invitation to specific groups of people. “Come, you who are thirsty; come, you who are hungry; come, you who have no money.”

In the next chapter, Isaiah extends another invitation; and, again, the prophet is specific about who it is that is being invited. 

In chapter 56 Isaiah says: “to the eunuchs…I will give a monument and a name, an everlasting name… and to the foreigners…I will bring you in, and make you joyful in my house of prayer; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

You might be familiar with that last part, the part about God’s house of prayer being a house of prayer for all peoples; but maybe you never realized that this statement of welcome was addressed specifically to eunuchs and foreigners.

It’s a specific invitation, addressed to specific people, for one very specific reason.

See: eunuchs and foreigners had long been excluded from the temple. In fact, Deuteronomy 23 specifically mentions eunuchs and foreigners as being prohibited from the assembly of the Lord.

And in all the generations since, up to Isaiah’s time, eunuchs and foreigners had been singled out for exclusion and persecution. They had been denied the right to enter the sanctuary and worship, and to take their place among God’s people.

Because they had been denied their rights and had been specifically excluded, Isaiah felt the need to specifically include them, and specifically invite them and welcome them, by name, into the house of the Lord.

It’s the same with those who are thirsty, those who are hungry, those who have no money. Isaiah knew that they were victims of injustice legislated by kings, something that went against God's desire for humanity; so Isaiah knew it was important to specifically include them, invite them, and welcome them by name.

So in Isaiah’s vision of a world that follows God’s ways, the thirsty, the hungry, and the poor—and foreigners and eunuchs—receive a specific invitation and welcome, to receive their share of God’s abundance.

The invitation, the promise, and the welcome are given specifically to those who have been historically prevented from receiving these gifts and blessings.

Isaiah knew that it was important to invite them, specifically, by name.

⚫Many generations later, there was a disciple of Jesus named Philip, who was traveling through the wilderness from Jerusalem to Gaza. On his way, he encountered a man who—get this!—was both a eunuch and a foreigner! He was a eunuch from Ethiopia!

Philip knew this man was a foreigner, because he was riding in a chariot, and the chariot had on it symbols of Candace, the queen of Ethiopia. 

And Philip knew this man was a eunuch, because—well, I’m not sure. But eunuchs often presented themselves as androgynous; genderqueer; nonbinary. If they were castrated early enough in life, their voice and appearance would be affected. And maybe there was insignia on him that indicated he was a eunuch. (Maybe it was the earrings we see in this, I’m sure, highly accurate image!)

And—get this—this eunuch from Ethiopia was reading from the book of Isaiah; and when he and Philip met on that road, the eunuch asked Philip to help him understand what he was reading.

And then, he asked Philip if he could be baptized!

Well, Philip knew that baptism was, among other things, a way of welcoming people into the fellowship of believers. 

And Philip also knew that eunuchs, and foreigners, had traditionally been excluded from the fellowship of believers.

Yet Philip decided to baptize him anyway, and welcome him into the church.

And this story appears in Acts, chapter 8, because Luke, the author of Acts, wanted foreigners to know that they were specifically invited and welcome, and Luke wanted eunuchs to know that they also were specifically invited and welcome.

For Luke, just saying “all are welcome” wasn’t enough. Luke included this story, because Luke knew that groups that had been traditionally excluded needed a specific invitation, to let them know that, YES, the welcome included even them.

In fact, this was so important that Luke dedicated half a chapter to this story, a story that specifically emphasizes how eunuchs and foreigners were to be welcomed and included among the people of God.

Luke knew that an invitation that was both bold and specific was needed.

⚫Then we have the radical welcome offered by the apostle Paul. Throughout Paul’s writings, we see a specific invitation given to the Gentiles, and specific instructions given to the Jews on how they are to welcome and include Gentiles. 

Many of the Jews who were followers of Jesus weren’t sure about welcoming Gentiles. They harbored prejudices against the Gentiles, and thought that the Gentiles needed to become Jews first before they could become followers of Jesus.

So Paul goes to great lengths to instruct his fellow Jews on how the Gentiles should be welcomed. In the book of Galatians, Paul even goes so far as to say that, in our baptism, we are no longer Jew or Gentile, but we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul also specifically mentions women and slaves, two other groups of people who hadn’t been fully included among God’s people. In other words, Paul specifically affirms Gentiles, and specifically affirms women, and specifically affirms slaves, as people who are a part of the fellowship of believers.

All these biblical writers—Isaiah, Luke, and Paul—felt it was important to be specific about who they were welcoming into the church, inviting them by name.

I could go on. The book of Ruth, for example—that whole book was written to show how Moabites, a group that had been historically excluded, were to be included and welcome among God’s people. 

And Jesus—Jesus specifically mentioned Samaritans, to cite one example; he specifically mentions Samaritans and lifts them up precisely because they were so hated and persecuted against by the Jews. 

Prejudice against Samaritans was incredibly strong, and so Jesus knew they needed to be welcomed and affirmed by name. Just saying “all are good, all are welcome,” isn’t specific enough. Those who had been persecuted and condemned for far too long needed to be mentioned by name. They needed a specific invitation.

⚫So it’s clear that scripture calls on us to issue invitations that are specific, and to offer a welcome that is specific. Identifying oppressed people by name, saying “we especially welcome you,” is important.

That’s why FCC and many other congregations have declared themselves to be “Open and Affirming.” It’s why we are specific in mentioning the LGBTQIA+ community —the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, asexual community— when we talk about the welcome we offer. 

Just saying “all are welcome” isn’t enough. We need to be specific in our invitation, mentioning by name those who have, in the past, been excluded, and who are still excluded in many places today.

In fact, this is even more important in 2025, now that hate against the queer community, and against those who are transgender in particular, is on the rise. 

Transgender rights are threatened. Not even just threatened; they are already being taken away. My cousin got a new passport a few weeks ago, but the government refused to honor his gender identity, and marked him as a female on his passport. Because that doesn’t match his identity and doesn’t match any other form of ID he has, he now cannot leave the country. The right to travel has been taken from him.

When rights are being taken away, when groups are being excluded and persecuted, it’s more important than ever to be specific in our invitation.

When I start each worship service by mentioning my pronouns, I’m not doing it to be political. But I know that among transgender people, and especially among transgender youth, rates of depression, suicide and destructive self-medication are astronomical. 

However, having even one affirming adult in their life can reduce the risk of suicide for a young transgender person by 40 percent.

So, it’s not about politics. It’s about saving lives. When we are specific in our invitation, we are saving lives. 

I admit, years ago, when I first started getting to know some transgender people, I was uncomfortable. As I got to know them, my discomfort faded. But even back when I was first starting to learn, I knew that my discomfort was a small price to pay for saving people’s lives.

A few blocks from my home, there is a church with a sign out front that says, “Black Lives Matter.” There’s another example of extending a specific invitation. 

Why can’t they just say, “all lives matter?” Why do they need to single out Black lives?

I hope that, by now, the answer to that is clear. Black lives have historically not mattered in this country. Black lives have too often not been affirmed, or welcomed, or celebrated. 

In many ways, that’s still true today.

So it’s important to extend a specific invitation to those who have been denied invitations in the past.

Imagine if, when Jesus left the 99 sheep to go find and save the one that was lost, that the other 99 started complaining, and saying: “Why are you going after that one lost sheep? What about the other 99? Don’t we matter, Jesus?”

Obviously, all the sheep matter to Jesus. But the one that was lost needed some extra attention, so that he could be safely brought back into the flock.

We here at FCC are still growing, still learning. (I’m still growing and learning.) We’ll always be learning and growing. We don’t get everything right all the time. We make mistakes, and we fall short at extending a sincere and specific welcome in all the ways that God calls us to.

Since Lent is a season of repentance, let us repent of those mistakes: our failure to welcome, our failure to be specific…

and let us commit to growing, and learning…

Let us commit to following the example set by Jesus and by the prophets and by the entire witness of the gospel, to do the best we can at welcoming the world to the Lord's Table; to improving the welcome we offer; and to being specific in that welcome whenever we can.

Scripture Interpreting Scripture (Acts 8:26-39)

Some of you may recall that I have preached on this scripture before. I preach on it again because it is the lectionary reading for today, and because it so clearly demonstrates how we are to interpret and understand scripture.

First, the story:

An Ethiopian eunuch had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and was now on his way home. I always wonder what it was like for him in that holy city. The scripture doesn’t say.

But there are some clues.

First of all, we know that the temple in Jerusalem was divided into different courtyards: inner courtyards, outer courtyards, courtyards-within-courtyards. Which courtyard you were allowed into depended on several things. Women couldn’t go as far in as men. Gentiles couldn’t go as far in as Jews.

And an Ethiopian eunuch – a man who was both a foreigner and a sexual minority – well, I’m not really sure how far he could go in.

But I do know that Deuteronomy 23 says – in rather explicit detail – that no eunuch or foreigner shall be admitted into the assembly of the Lord. That’s right: any male whose private parts are in any way mutilated, deformed, crushed, cut off, etc. – except for circumcision, of course – is prohibited from entering the place of worship.

And foreigners are also excluded; particularly those pesky Ammonites and Moabites. “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” But just to be safe, we’ll exclude all foreigners, except maybe the Edomites, because they were nice to us once.

Anyway, that’s what the Torah says. And there’s a good chance that those at the temple were strict followers of these ancient teachings.

Which means that the Ethiopian eunuch, despite having traveled so far just to worship in the temple, was not allowed in.

Unless…

Unless there were officials at the temple who had read the story of Ruth. There is a whole book in the Bible devoted to telling her story, and it describes Ruth as a woman from Moab.

Think about that for a second: A woman. From Moab.

If that was all you knew about her – that she was a woman from Moab – you would automatically assume that she could be no hero of any biblical story. The expectations and assumptions you would have about women and about people from Moab would be such that you would know that she was no hero, and that nothing good could come from her.

And yet, in the book of Ruth, she is the hero. Not only that, but she becomes the great-grandmother of none other than King David.

Maybe if one of the officials at the temple had read the book of Ruth, the Ethiopian eunuch would be allowed in?

And yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

OK; how about the prophet Isaiah? Here is what Isaiah 56 says:

“Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say, ‘Ah! The Lord will surely separate me from his people!’ … And do not let the eunuch say, ‘Ah! I am just a dry tree!’ For thus says the Lord: to the eunuchs, I will give a monument and a name – an everlasting name – that shall not be cut off.’”

If you need me to explain to you the play on words there, about the eunuch receiving a name that shall not be cut off, talk to me later…

And to the foreigners, the Lord says: “I will bring you to my holy mountain, and make you joyful in my house of prayer… for my house shall be a house of prayer for all peoples.”

So back to the Ethiopian eunuch: he’s traveling back from Jerusalem to his home in Ethiopia. Was he allowed into the temple to worship? Probably not, despite the conflicting scriptures.

Riding in his chariot, he’s reading out loud from the prophet Isaiah. And Philip, urged by the Spirit, approaches and asks, “Hey, do you understand what you are reading?”

And the eunuch says, “I haven’t got a clue.”

And he invites Philip to join him in the chariot and explain to him what all the scriptures are talking about.

And Philip explained to the eunuch about Jesus, and how Jesus broke down the barriers, and lived out many of Isaiah’s teachings about justice and equality and creating a place for all people… and how the authorities didn’t like Jesus’s take on things, and killed him, but that God did like Jesus’s take on things, and so raised him back to life…

And right about then, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What is there to keep me from being baptized?”

Now, those authorities back at the temple had an answer to that: Deuteronomy.

But Philip understood what the Spirit was doing, and how God had opened up a path for all people, and Philip willingly baptized the eunuch and welcomed him into the body of believers.

Now, I’ve preached on this before. But today I’d like to go one step further. Because what happened here is not all that different from what’s happening today.

Both Philip, and the authorities at the temple, had knowledge of the same set of scriptures. Both had heard or read the Torah and the writings of the prophets. Both knew what Deuteronomy taught, and both had heard the words of the prophets. And yet they arrived at very different conclusions.

We see that today, don’t we? The Bible we read is essentially the same, and yet Christians of different branches of Christianity arrive at very different conclusions.

Some Christians allow women to preach and pastor; others don’t. Both base their decision on scripture.

Some Christians allow homosexuals to be members and leaders, and to get married in their churches; others don’t. Both use scripture to arrive at their conclusion.

Here are some things I try to keep in mind when interpreting scripture.

One of the first questions I ask is, “How does scripture interpret scripture?” Deuteronomy says no foreigners or eunuchs. And yet, the stories of Ruth and the Ethiopian eunuch – along with the prophet Isaiah – all seem to think that Deuteronomy was wrong. At the very least, they seem to think that what Deuteronomy said was specific to Deuteronomy’s time, and not applicable to their own situations.

Today, there are some Christians who say you can’t do that. You can’t say that scripture is wrong. You can’t say that it doesn’t apply today. Scripture is God’s word, it is timeless, and it is eternally valid.

Well, tell that to Isaiah, Philip, and the author of Ruth, who all thought otherwise.

When I read scripture, I think of it as a conversation. It’s an ongoing conversation between people from different times and different places, about the nature of God and what God wants for the world.

You know how it is with a conversation: one person says one thing, another person says something else. Maybe what the second person says contradicts what the first person said, or maybe it refines or reworks it. Either way, the conversation continues. I may not agree with everything said in the conversation, and yet as the conversation moves along, I find myself reworking and refining my own thoughts on whatever topic is being discussed.

Here’s an example of how this works in scripture: In the book of Genesis, and throughout much of the earlier writings of the old testament, it is emphasized that those who obey God are blessed, and those who turn away from God and do what is evil are cursed.

In other words, those who do good are rewarded, and those who do bad are punished.

But then we get to the book of Ecclesiastes. It’s as if the writer of Ecclesiastes has listened to these comments in the conversation, and then adds his own comment.

And basically, what the writer of Ecclesiastes says is, “That’s how you see things? Because that’s not been my experience. In my experience, those who are wise, those who do what is right, suffer just as much as those who are foolish and those who do what is wrong. The rain that blesses the earth falls on the just and the unjust. So what’s the point of doing good?”

And this takes the conversation to the next stage.

For those of you who don’t know, Chapman University is a Disciples-related school that, every spring, hosts a series of lectures in conjunction with Founders Day. A few years back the featured speaker was Amy Jill-Levine, who is a Jewish academic who has devoted her life to studying the New Testament.

In the evening, after her lectures, she was speaking at Temple Beth Shalom, and all the lecture attendees were invited. I think there were more Christians in worship that night than Jews.

And several times during her sermon, individuals in the crowd would holler “Amen!” Amy Jill-Levine laughed and said, “In Jewish congregations, we don’t usually shout Amen. Usually, we wait until after worship, and we say to the rabbi, “So that’s how you see things, huh? Because that’s not how I see things…”

And the conversation continues.

I kind of like that. Instead of always having to have the final word, maybe Christians should learn to think of it all as an ongoing conversation. There is no final answer, and yet, with every course alteration in the conversation, wisdom is gained.

That’s how I see scripture. The various books of the Bible are part of an ongoing conversation. That doesn’t mean the conversation wanders aimlessly. I think it’s safe to say that our reading today shows how the conversation moves in a somewhat forward direction, guided by the Spirit. I definitely see the conversation moving from exclusivity to inclusivity, for example. It moves from defining who’s in to welcoming everyone in. It moves from Jerusalem, then to Judea and Samaria, and on to the ends of the earth.

But it doesn’t necessarily get there in a straight line. The conversation moves forward for awhile until it hits a roadblock. Then it navigates around that roadblock and continues until it sees something interesting, something useful, off to the side, and it wanders over to take a look.

But eventually it does move forward. Onward. Because the Spirit is guiding and leading.

The Ethiopian eunuch needed a conversation partner to help him understand the scripture he was reading, and the Spirit sent him Philip.

I like to think that, during their conversation, Philip also gained a new understanding. I like to think that the eunuch’s question – “What is there to prevent me from being baptized?” – helped open Philip’s eyes to a new understanding, that it made him pause a moment, and think; that it caused him to recalculate the direction of his own journey, and continue with the conversation.

And that the Spirit was leading him through this.

And that, I think, is what it means to be a progressive Christian. It means not standing still, but following the conversation wherever the Spirit leads. The journey of discovery progresses onward. Wisdom is gained. The conversation continues.

World Communion Sunday

Today is a day of celebration; a day to rejoice; a day to give thanks to God.

Today is World Communion Sunday, a day on which we recognize the great diversity that exists in the body of Christ.  Gathered around the Lord’s Table are people of every nation and race: male and female, young and old, rich and poor.

At the table of Jesus, there are tax collectors, foreigners, and women.  There were also Pharisees and other religious leaders.

The Pharisees and the religious leaders didn’t like some of Jesus’s invited guests.  They didn’t think Jesus should be dining with people like that.  They didn’t think that those people were good enough.

But Jesus never said no to anyone.  Jesus never turned anyone away.  Every person was welcome to take a seat at his banquet feast.

The Lord’s Table is so important to who we are as Disciples of Christ.  We gather around this table every time we worship.

Today, on World Communion Sunday, we are reminded that this table is not ours.  We don’t get to decide who is welcome here, and who is not.  The table belongs to Christ, and it is Christ who extends the invitation.

200 years ago, a man named Alexander Campbell went to worship at his local church. 

Alexander Campbell’s church only celebrated communion several times a year.  So it was a big deal – a special occasion – when worship included the Lord’s Supper.

Because it was such a special occasion, Alexander Campbell’s church wanted to make sure that only the “right people” were present.  So, in the weeks leading up to that special worship service, each person had to meet with the pastor.  The pastor would decide if each person was “good enough” to be present at the table. 

To be good enough, each person had to be a member of the church, and had to have the right opinions on various questions of faith. 

If the pastor thought you were good enough, the pastor would give you a token that you would present when you came to the Lord’s Table.

On the day of the special worship, people went up in groups to receive communion.  Alexander Campbell had his token, but he didn’t think it was right that only some people should be allowed to come to the Lord’s Table.

He waited until the last group went up.  Then Alexander Campbell walked forward to the front of the church, and threw his token down hard, so that it made a loud noise.  Then he immediately turned around and walked out of the church.

Alexander Campbell realized that the Lord’s Table is for everyone.  He and several others started their own movement.  They had their own worship services, which included communion every Sunday.  And they extended a great big welcome to everyone, to gather at the Lord’s Table.

The movement they started became the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).  Today, we continue to extend a great big welcome to the world to gather at the Lord’s Table.

Extending the welcome is not always easy.  Despite our best efforts, there are still those who have been excluded from the Lord’s Table.  The church still struggles with welcoming those who are different.

This is the struggle that the disciple Philip had.  One day, Philip met a man from Ethiopia who was a eunuch.

Philip knew what the scriptures said.  In Deuteronomy, chapter 23, it clearly says:  “no one who is a eunuch or a foreigner is allowed in God’s house.”  The man from Ethiopia was both a eunuch and a foreigner.  This scripture was clearly talking about him.

However, Philip also knew that the scripture in Isaiah said something very different.  Isaiah says:  “Don’t forbid the eunuch and the foreigner from worshiping me.  Don’t condemn them.  For thus says the Lord: my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.”

Philip knew both of these scriptures.  Which one was right?

The Ethiopian eunuch said to Philip, “Will you baptize me?  Will you welcome me into the church?  Is there any reason that I should NOT be welcomed?”

Well, there WAS a reason for Philip to say “no”:  it was those verses in Deuteronomy.  But there was also a reason for Philip to say “yes”:  those verses in Isaiah.  What should Philip do?

Philip thought about what he knew about Jesus.  He remembered how Jesus always showed love and compassion.  He remembered how Jesus always welcomed and accepted whoever showed up to eat with him.

In that moment, the Spirit helped Philip realize that the gospel is all about removing the divisions between people.  The Spirit helped Philip realize that if two scriptures contradict, the one that is the most loving, most compassionate, and most accepting, is the one to go with.

When asked to decide whether or not to welcome and affirm the Ethiopian eunuch, the Spirit led Philip to vote “yes.”

At one time, I shared Philip’s struggle.  I had to decide whether or not it was right to exclude certain individuals from fellowship and ministry because they – like the Ethiopian eunuch – were sexually different.

I had to consider scriptures which said they should be excluded, and I had to consider other scriptures in which the love of God appeared to overcome any and all divisions.

Today, there are millions who are asking the same question as the Ethiopian eunuch.  They are asking: “Will you welcome me into the church?”

Philip said yes.

I have to preach this.  I know too many people who have been hurt, terribly, by churches that said: “No. You are not welcome.”

But this church is not my church.  This ministry is not my ministry. It belongs to all of us.  As a congregation, WE need to answer that question together, as a body.

Will we welcome everyone to the Lord’s Table?

[Note: later in this worship service, the congregation voted to become "Open and Affirming.]