Seventh Sunday of Easter

May 17                        NOTES FOR REFLECTION                         Seventh Sunday of Easter

Texts:  Acts 1:15-17, 21-26; 1 John 5:9-13; John 17:6-19*

[*An alternative authorised approach is to mark Ascension Day, in which case the readings set are Acts1-11; Ephesians 1:15-23; and Luke 24:44-53.  While Sundayising Ascension Day has the same taint as Mondayising Waitangi Day or Anzac Day, it is a pity that we seem to place so little emphasis on this principal feast.  Perhaps the best solution is to weave the theme of the Ascension into this week's readings, emphasising that the Ascension can be understood as the restoration of unity between Creator and Creation.]

Theme:  The phrase that has just popped into my mind is "The End is in Sight".  I'm not sure what it has to do with the first reading, but perhaps it fits quite well with the gospel passage, and with the second lesson.  If your focus is on the gospel, something like "The Great Priestly Prayer for Unity" would be a traditional favourite, though I'm not as confident of that now as I have been in former years, for reasons that will be given later.  Another fairly safe choice might be "Preparing for the Spirit" or "Prepare the Way for the Spirit".

Introduction.  One of the glories of the Easter Season's readings from the Book of Acts is their wonderful mix of the sublime and the ridiculous, or, to put it more politely, the divine and the worldly.  This week's reading is another example of this: squeezed between the Ascension and Pentecost, the embryonic church holds a mini-SGM to choose a new member of Vestry following the death in office of Judas.  But the method of election is quite unlike anything our Canon Law would recognise as kosher.  Our second lesson once again gives the game away: the great Apostle of Love has a very clear view as to whom that love is for and whom it is not for.  And the same is true for this week's gospel passage.  The so-called Prayer for Unity, on closer examination, might better be called "The Divisive Prayer for Unity".

Background.  Unity (or, more accurately, disunity) has been very much in the air this week – at least, in the air I have been breathing, which is threatening to bring on a deepening depression in my mood.  I begin with the state of English cricket.  The days when England had anything to teach the rest of the world about how to actually play the game have long since passed into deep history, but it did manage this week to conduct a public slanging match that just might have provided a lesson for the newly elected Government.  The newly appointed boss of English cricket, former captain Andrew Strauss, started his reign by telling one of the most prolific batsmen ever to play for England, Kevin Petersen, on the very day that Petersen had just made his highest-ever score of 356 not out for his county side, that Petersen would not be playing for England any time soon because of "a lack of trust".  Mr Petersen will have to learn, we were told, that there is more to playing cricket than scoring a lot of runs.

In brief, if you really want to play for England taking every opportunity to criticise your team-mates publicly, including then-captain Andrew Strauss, is not a good career move.

I wondered if anybody was listening to that in 10 Downing Street, where the newly re-elected Mr Cameron was being congratulated on winning just over 50 percent of the seats with just under 37percent of the total vote, including one seat in the whole of Scotland.  Buoyed by such a huge mandate it was not long before Mr Cameron was addressing the public, promising to lead a Government of national unity, a government for all the people, a government for a truly United Kingdom!  Hurrah!  Hurrah!  None of which would have been any more than mildly irritating to me had it not been for an interview I heard shortly afterwards  with two U.K. journalists, one from Scotland and one from England, trying to explain how the Conservatives had managed to win the election when all the polls and pundits had predicted a draw.

They were agreed that the Conservatives had managed a last-minute surge of support by playing the Scotland card, but they had a very different view of the legitimacy or otherwise of that card.  The Scottish journalist, who made it clear that he had voted against independence in the recent referendum and had not voted for the SNP in the election, described with barely concealed fury an official poster released by the Conservatives showing the former SNP leader, Alex Salmond, with his hand in somebody's pocket, and the caption underneath reading, "Don't let them pinch your money!"  In other words, the Scots were a nation of pick-pockets coming to steal English money.  The English journalist's response was to dismiss the poster as "just electioneering – just politics – we shouldn't take that stuff seriously."  (Think for a moment if, instead of the Scots, the poster had targeted, say, Moslems, or immigrants: in New Zealand, how would we react if such a poster was directed at the Maori Party or the Asian community?)  Is there not more to playing politics than simply scoring votes?

With the election over, Mr Cameron is now fully committed (he says) to working with our "compatriots" across the border to ensure that they, and all other parts of the United Kingdom, share fairly in the fruits of the present economic recovery.  Hurrah!  Hurrah!  We shall see.  For now, Scotland is left to lick its wounds while this particular Apostle for Unity sets his sights on Europe.  It's unlikely that Angela Merkel will appear on a poster in the role of a pick-pocket, but the Greek leader is probably already at short odds with the bookies.

 When Christ ascended to heaven, did he not rise above all that tends to divide us?  Did he ascend as a man, leaving women behind, or as a human being, taking us all with him?  Did he ascend as a Jew, leaving all other ethnicities behind?  The unity that is in Christ, as St Paul made so clear on many occasions, is one that knows no distinctions of gender, race or class.  The Kingdom of God is the real United Kingdom.  It includes English cricketers, it includes the Scots, and more amazing still, it even includes Old Etonians.

The question remains, does it include non- Christians?  St John does not think so.

Acts 1:15-17, 21-26.  This seemingly short, simple passage has so much to offer those who read it or listen to it carefully.  We are now in that short interim period between our Lord's Ascension and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  We are told that, after three years of Jesus' ministry, healing hundreds, feeding thousands, and preaching all over Galilee, there were about 120 believers, presumably including the eleven remaining Apostles.  Peter is already emerging as the leader of the infant church.  He reminds the members of the painful fact that it was one of their own company, Judas, that had betrayed the Lord, and assured them that was in accordance with Scripture.  We are spared the gory details of Judas' fate, but, deserved or otherwise, his death has given rise to a vacancy in the leadership group – Vestry or Ministry Team, take your pick.  He then calls for nominations, first outlying the "qualifications" required for the job, and the job description.  To be chosen a candidate would have to have been a follower of Jesus from the beginning of Jesus' ministry – one who had been with the Apostles through all that time; and the job was to witness, with the Apostles, to the resurrection of the Lord.  Presumably, he would have personally encountered the Risen Christ.  Two suitable candidates were nominated from the floor – Joseph Barsabbas (also known as Justus), and Matthias.  Notice how the choice was made: not by a secret vote by the members present, but by the drawing of lots (the tossing of a coin) guided by the Holy Spirit.

Taking It Personally.

·        How does this approach differ from that used in your church today?  What about at Diocesan level?  If you are asked to chose a Warden, a Vestry member, or a member of a Ministry Team, what criteria would you use?

·        Should each person nominated be required to speak about his or her personal encounter with Jesus – to give some indication that he or she knows Jesus personally?

·        Should each person nominated be asked to "witness to the resurrection", before the meeting proceeds to a vote?

·        At an Electoral College to choose a new bishop, would you be happy if the names of those nominated were put in a hat, the Holy Spirit was asked to show which one of the nominees he has chosen, and then a name is picked out of the hat?  Would that process be more likely, or less likely, to produce the best bishop than the present system of balloting all members?

 

1 John 5:9-13.  We are nearing the end of this letter.  Once again it seems clear that John is writing to a deeply divided community.  One (of possibly many) points of dispute between the factions clearly concerned Jesus' divinity.  John makes this the absolutely non-negotiable bottom –line.  Either you believe that Jesus is the Son of God (that is, divine, one with the Father, etc.) or you do not have eternal life.  And we know what happens to those who do not have eternal life.  They perish.  (John 3:16)

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        This is not sweet, pastoral stuff from a kindly old man who just wants everyone to get along.  This is hard-edged, black-and-white, in-your-face stuff.  You're either in or out, with us or not.  How do you feel about it?

·        Is it consistent with what he has written in 2:2 of this letter?

·        What would you say if someone close to you who is not a believer asked you to explain this passage to him/her?

 

John 17:6-19.  The same difficulties, only magnified, arise with this passage.  Here they are said to be the very words of Jesus uttered on the night before he died.  This passage certainly does not sound like the Jesus of the gospels to me.  The difficulties start a little earlier, in verse 3.  While I have often heard pray-ers telling God things that he might need to know in order to understand the context in which the petition is to be considered, it seems most unlikely that Jesus would have considered it necessary to explain to his Father exactly what is meant by "eternal life".  But that point is quite minor: for the universalists among us, the whole of today's passage must rattle a few cages.  It starts in verse 6 where we first find the expression "those whom you gave me from the world", which necessarily infers that there are others in the world whom the Father did not give to the Son.  From then on a clear distinction is made between those who belong to Christ (God) and those who belong to the world.  Clearly, this is a great prayer for the unity of believers; it is not a prayer for the unity of all humanity, much less of all creation.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Read the passage through several times, taking note of any particular word or phrase that jumps out at you.  What is your general feeling about this whole passage?

·        Read closely verses 7 and 8.  Can you truly apply them to yourself?

·        Are you one with Christ as he is one with the Father?

·        How deeply unified are the members of your faith community?

·        Do you agree or disagree that the Church is more interested in diversity than in unity?  Are those two things compatible or not?

·        In your view, if a licensed minister, lay or ordained, publicly affirmed a belief that Jesus was not divine, was not raised to life, and is not in any sense alive today, should that minister have his/her licence revoked?